What is holiness, and where is it today?

[preacher4truth]

Preacher for truth, I believe that you have been surprised by the direction this thread has taken -- and that not just because it has become somewhat antagonistic (don't they all around here?) -- but rather because so many of us don't find that holiness is really described by a set of actions, no matter how good those actions may be.

In this regard, let me say that "Reformed" holiness is not different from "IFB" holiness, but rather that the IFB tends to (as I have experienced) focus on behaviors rather than position. in a sense, you have been taught that proper behavior will assure proper position, but that is not true at all, as exemplified over and again by Christ against the Pharisees who were "professional keepers of the Law" that sought to enact proper behaviors at every turn, yet were called "whitewashed sepulchers" by Jesus, Himself for their actions.

A desire to be set apart for God's use and to be conformed to the image and likeness of Jesus Christ will probably produce the good works you suggest, but producing the good works you suggest may not cause one to be conformed to the image and likeliness of Christ. I'm hoping that you see the distinction here, as it is a tad nuanced, but nonetheless true. With Christ, it is always relationship first, and it is our relationship with Christ that causes the positional reality that actually brings us personal holiness. In other words, we are holy because we are imputed with Christ's holiness, and then because we have His indwelling presence, we can do things that work in concert with our sanctification process.

To one stepped in the doctrinaire IFB processes, this must all seem so very "watered down" but in truth it is anything but. Rather, it is the remarkable, astounding, magnificent grace of God at work within us! Praise Him! We don't have to work out our salvation by exercises of the will as does every other religion on earth. We are saved by Christ's atonement and then set to work as His ambassadors, bringing reconciliation, love, unity in the faith, and yes, good deeds and works to this sin-dead world.

Well. I see what you are saying friend. Never was I taught that pleasing God did help assist Him, neither had I ever concluded this, nor presumed this. When you say that I was taught that practice assured position, you are clearly in error there, that is not the case whatsoever. As a matter of fact, not one IFB church that I am aware of would ever teach or say such a thing. To lay this upon me and assume this is unfortunate.

When I was IFB, keep in mind, I was called a liberal. I did not adhere to the KJVO, women/pants....all other Hyles-esque doctrines. None of the churches I pastored were like this. When a speaker came to the church, he had to really preach expositorily, because if he came with a sugar-stick sermon that would draw "amens" by droves in IFB legalistic types, my people wouldn't get it nor understand it. These though are some of many reasons why I am not IFB. Also, I affiliated with men like this, but was never "one of them." Thus, you err when you assume I was taught to do all of this to assure position. Not so. Not even close. Never did I, nor will I, nor have I felt this way. That is plain and simply heresy.

The thing that shocks me is persons inability to distinguish between positional holiness, that takes place immediately at salvation, and practicing of holiness, which is in itself distinct, and separate, and does not add to. Nor can it add to the work of what He and He alone has done. This is why, and only on a few posts, that people have attacked this. They can't make nor do they see the distinguishing factor, which by the way, I knew would happen, and is my whole entire point in making this.

What I am getting at is doing what pleases God after salvation. Before we go running to "there is nothing we can do to please God" we should look at Scripture, as it teaches those who already are saved, can, and do in fact please God by obeying His commands. Not for salvation, as I feel I must reiterate this to you.

The thing is, those who are His keep His commands, they do what is pleasing to Him. They walk with Him. They purify themselves from sin that destroys fellowship by being close to Him. They separate themselves from certain things, as in I Cor. 6. They do Romans 12:1, because of what He has done, in recognition of this. Using we can't be perfect as an excuse is a scapegoat.

My point is, these things are not taught, and they are all throughout the NT as imperatives to believers, and todays Christian, for the most part is not detectable as any different from the world or the lost, there is no light or very little, and I believe 1 Peter is very clear that we (Christians, already saved) are to be holy, to practice it as it is a command to the born again.

 

[glfredrick]

Well. I see what you are saying friend. Never was I taught that pleasing God did help assist Him, neither had I ever concluded this, nor presumed this. When you say that I was taught that practice assured position, you are clearly in error there, that is not the case whatsoever. As a matter of fact, not one IFB church that I am aware of would ever teach or say such a thing. To lay this upon me and assume this is unfortunate.

I'm not in this for argument's sake, just sayin'...

When I was IFB, keep in mind, I was called a liberal. I did not adhere to the KJVO, women/pants....all other Hyles-esque doctrines. None of the churches I pastored were like this. When a speaker came to the church, he had to really preach expositorily, because if he came with a sugar-stick sermon that would draw "amens" by droves in IFB legalistic types, my people wouldn't get it nor understand it. These though are some of many reasons why I am not IFB. Also, I affiliated with men like this, but was never "one of them." Thus, you err when you assume I was taught to do all of this to assure position. Not so. Not even close. Never did I, nor will I, nor have I felt this way. That is plain and simply heresy.

But, you do admit that the IFB did indeed "teach" the concepts that I've laid out. Whether or not you took them to heart is another matter. They had to have "taught" those principles if you were the "liberal" rebel against the general direction of the church.

As far as "preaching expositionally" I'd have to see a sermon manuscript to decide if what was preached was indeed "expositional" preaching or something other. Many believe that they preach "expositionally" when in fact what is happening is they are making points, then saying, "See, the Bible agrees with me... See this and this and this and this verse?" That is not expositional preaching, it is topical, because the sermon is derived from the mind of the preacher not driven by the text. I'm NOT saying that is what happened in the IFB church where you were, as I said above, I'd have to see a sermon manuscript to know that -- but in the IFB and IFB-type churches I've attended, that was the pattern. It is also the style of preachers trained at Liberty and in the system that Liberty teaches, which is widely copied in the Fundamentalist world (though Liberty has now aligned with the SBC).

The thing that shocks me is persons inability to distinguish between positional holiness, that takes place immediately at salvation, and practicing of holiness, which is in itself distinct, and separate, and does not add to. Nor can it add to the work of what He and He alone has done. This is why, and only on a few posts, that people have attacked this. They can't make nor do they see the distinguishing factor, which by the way, I knew would happen, and is my whole entire point in making this.

No confusion on my part... I've laid out a reasonable biblical position for just such an understanding, as have several other posters in this thread.

What I am getting at is doing what pleases God after salvation. Before we go running to "there is nothing we can do to please God" we should look at Scripture, as it teaches those who already are saved, can, and do in fact please God by obeying His commands. Not for salvation as I feel I must reiterate this to you.

You are preaching to the choir, brother...

The thing is, those who are His keep His commands, they do what is pleasing to Him. They walk with Him. They purify themselves from sin that destroys fellowship by being close to Him. They separate themselves from certain things, as in I Cor. 6. They do Romans 12:1, because of what He has done, in recognition of this. Using we can't be perfect as an excuse is a scapegoat.

Even if they actually destroy their fellowship with each other? That is typically what happens when people devote ALL their attention to purifying themselves on an individual basis before God. I note in the Scriptures that we are called by God to built up one another in love (edify), and that we are called to Love God first, then love our brother as ourselves. We are also called to take the gospel to really messed up people, which means that in a lot of cases we simply cannot just separate ourselves from the evils of this world in the manner suggested by those preferring personal holiness to God's holiness.

My point is, these things are not taught, andthey are all throughout the NT as imperatives to believers, and todays Christian, for the most part is not detectable as any different from the world or the lost, there is no light or very little, and I believe 1 Peter is very clear that we (Christians, already saved) are to be holy, to practice it as it is a command to the born again.

They have to be "taught" as I explained above. Whether they are in the Scriptures in the same iteration or interpretation as taught by IFB is another thing entirely. I don't recall that Scripture deals with issues such as women wearing only dresses, etc.

 

[preacher4truth]

I'm not in this for argument's sake, just sayin'...

OK. I wondered if you were in this to argue for arguings sake, when you threw in the midst of this, from another thread, an argument about higher education, stating this:

Oh, and for the record, a few of you need to get your panties out of your cracks about the higher education thing. You are missing your own definition of holiness by not separating yourselves from being "accusers of the brethren..."

Friend, didn't you just accuse me, after you laid this charge to others (I practiced things to assure position)? You seem angry about another thread, and brought it on this one. Not everyone agrees with you. You take great offense to that. None of us know everything. You also assume a lot of things, then use it and state your assumptions as fact, wherein you lay upon me the charge that I practiced things to assure position in Christ. That accusatory statement, that is a total lie, and defines who you are and what you are about, not me. I'd appreciate that to be recanted.

But, you do admit that the IFB did indeed "teach" the concepts that I've laid out. Whether or not you took them to heart is another matter. They had to have "taught" those principles if you were the "liberal" rebel against the general direction of the church.

What does admitting have to do with any of this, and what does it prove? No, I don't admit it to the extent that you are stating it. Your assumption that I did these things to assure my position is a presumption on your part, unfounded, and accusatory.

As far as "preaching expositionally" I'd have to see a sermon manuscript to decide if what was preached was indeed "expositional" preaching or something other. Many believe that they preach "expositionally" when in fact what is happening is they are making points, then saying, "See, the Bible agrees with me... See this and this and this and this verse?" That is not expositional preaching, it is topical, because the sermon is derived from the mind of the preacher not driven by the text. I'm NOT saying that is what happened in the IFB church where you were, as I said above, I'd have to see a sermon manuscript to know that -- but in the IFB and IFB-type churches I've attended, that was the pattern. It is also the style of preachers trained at Liberty and in the system that Liberty teaches, which is widely copied in the Fundamentalist world (though Liberty has now aligned with the SBC).

Many many preachers lay claim to being "the expositional expert" the one to bring their manuscripts to for testing. How does this statement help anyone? How does this statement paint you?

They have to be "taught" as I explained above. Whether they are in the Scriptures in the same iteration or interpretation as taught by IFB is another thing entirely. I don't recall that Scripture deals with issues such as women wearing only dresses, etc.

Of course Scripture doesn't deal with woman and pants. That's a given. But they would beg to differ. It's taken and applied from an OT Scripture that states it as an abomination for a woman and man to wear one anothers attire, then applied to today, wrongly. I don't have the passage.

- Blessings

 

[MB]

I agree with that verse. But when we talk about practicing holiness/separation, we are not implying helping Him finish our faith. He did all of that on His own. I certainly did not try to come across thus.

Holiness in salvation is positional holiness. Practicing holiness is progressive, not tied to working for salvation, but because of salvation. I believe this is where you are not getting what the OP was for.

I guess that I see things differently than maybe you do. Let me explain. I myself am no longer living my life, Christ is living it for me. If I go back to the flesh I end up in sin. We all have this great propensity to sin. We are born in it and our flesh still loves sin. Sin (as Paul said) dwells in our flesh. It's still going to be there until our flesh is regenerated as well.

I believe that most have misunderstood what walking in the Spirit really means. For me it is a submission to the Holy Spirit. It is surrender to the Lords will. If we can do that then we are in pursuit of holiness. You see if Christ is living my life for me. My flesh cannot attain any greater holiness.

Amen on Him beginning it and finishing it. I am asking, what is "it" you are referring to here when you say "if we are bold enough to say we do "it?" I am talking about an entirely different holiness here. Not the holiness He gives us to set us apart unto Him at salvation, but the holiness we practice as a living sacrifice..."holy, acceptable unto him, which is our reasonable service." Romans 12:1 is where this imperative is to be found. This is His will for us, by the way.

The ("IT") I'm reffering to is the Holiness men work so hard to achieve. When men work at ("it") the moment they look back to see there works, pride creeps in and they fail. I've worked so hard for holiness. I wanted people to desire to have what I have in side me. I wanted to be the best example of what a Christian should be. Being a witness from the appearance of how I live. These are very good motives. Yet the sin in my flesh showed me up for the pride in my own heart. This is the pursuit of holiness in the flesh.

Submission to the will of Christ is the only way to achive true holiness, (In my humble opinion) because it leaves no room for our ego to step in and claim the credit.
For me the best way is always God's way.

But this is in no way, shape, or form what Biblical holiness is. Websters does not define holiness in the Biblical sense. What does hagios mean, in Scripture and what does it imply? That's where the problem lies, in the definition. Holy is not "perfect". Therefore, man can in fact, be holy, by following God, in the way the Bible interprets what holy actually is.

You have a right to your belief on the definition of holiness. However Christ is still the only holy person I have ever known and He is perfect beyond the understanding of men. To be Christian is to be in pursuit of His likeness and the only way I know of is to wear His righteousness. Wearing His righteousness in submission to His will for our lives brings holiness.

You are right about being commanded to be holy Yet for me being perfect is the holiness God had with Abram.
Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
We are also commanded to be perfect

Deu 18:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.

(Please note we are perfect with the Lord.)

I hear you. I am not leaning on self. I know you are not either, though however, this does not excuse us from practicing holiness,

I hope my dialog didn't make you think I was making an excuse. With Christ as the captain of our lives. His directive is most assuredly towards holiness as well as all other aspects of our lives.
For me the best I can do is to step aside and let God live my life for me. The " Me, Myself, and I" will only make a mess of things.

Hebrews 12:14. I am leaning on Him and His Word in that I may keep His commandments, to please Him. I fail, but I get up and keep on keeping on.


- Thanks for the dialogue. I enjoyed it and look to do so again.

:thumbs:

Thankyou as well.
MB

 

[preacher4truth]

I guess that I see things differently than maybe you do. Let me explain. I myself am no longer living my life, Christ is living it for me. If I go back to the flesh I end up in sin. We all have this great propensity to sin. We are born in it and our flesh still loves sin. Sin (as Paul said) dwells in our flesh. It's still going to be there until our flesh is regenerated as well.

I am trying to understand you, yet don't understand where you get the concept that Christ is living your life for you. Paul said he lived his life by the faith of the Son of God..."I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galtians 5:20. I don't understand how you say He is living it for you. How did you do this? I just don't feel He took us over completely.

I believe that most have misunderstood what walking in the Spirit really means. For me it is a submission to the Holy Spirit. It is surrender to the Lords will. If we can do that then we are in pursuit of holiness. You see if Christ is living my life for me. My flesh cannot attain any greater holiness.

You're right, you cannot gain any greater holiness positionally. But, a person can be "holier than thou." This is not in positional holiness, however. Yet, a person could be walking with God, close to God, another may be in rebellion. One is concecrated and separated, or holy, with God, the other, only positionally, and my illustration is they are both born again. So, we can all achieve greater holiness, but only in the biblical sense of the word, not in the Webster idea.

The ("IT") I'm reffering to is the Holiness men work so hard to achieve. When men work at ("it") the moment they look back to see there works, pride creeps in and they fail. I've worked so hard for holiness. I wanted people to desire to have what I have in side me. I wanted to be the best example of what a Christian should be. Being a witness from the appearance of how I live. These are very good motives. Yet the sin in my flesh showed me up for the pride in my own heart. This is the pursuit of holiness in the flesh.

I just think you are confused about what holiness is. You are not talking about your position in Christ are you? I think that is what you mean here.

Submission to the will of Christ is the only way to achive true holiness, (In my humble opinion) because it leaves no room for our ego to step in and claim the credit. For me the best way is always God's way. You have a right to your belief on the definition of holiness. However Christ is still the only holy person I have ever known and He is perfect beyond the understanding of men. To be Christian is to be in pursuit of His likeness and the only way I know of is to wear His righteousness. Wearing His righteousness in submission to His will for our lives brings holiness.

The apostles were holy, in the biblical definition. We too can be, or it never would have been an imperative. It's called a separated life. Not perfection.

You are right about being commanded to be holy Yet for me being perfect is the holiness God had with Abram.
Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. We are also commanded to be perfect

Perfect here means with integrity, to be an entire person, perfect is only a subpoint of the definition to help us grasp it. It doesn't mean perfect in our sense of perfection, or in the fact that God alone is perfect, and the only perfect. God would not call us to be something we cannot be, yet He does call us to be saved, something we cannot do, but only through Him.

I hope my dialog didn't make you think I was making an excuse. With Christ as the captain of our lives. His directive is most assuredly towards holiness as well as all other aspects of our lives. For me the best I can do is to step aside and let God live my life for me. The " Me, Myself, and I" will only make a mess of things.

Brother, God does not desire to live your life for you, but in you and through you, through Christ. All of this talk is helping me sharpen the biblical concept of what holiness is and to understand where people are coming from when it is discussed, since we presuppose we are on the same page. So a very basic theology on holiness, it's different aspects and definitions needs to be grasped.

Thanks again!

 

[MB]

I am trying to understand you, yet don't understand where you get the concept that Christ is living your life for you. Paul said he lived his life by the faith of the Son of God..."I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galtians 5:20. I don't understand how you say He is living it for you. How did you do this? I just don't feel He took us over completely.

Paul wrote;
"nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" This is how Christ lives our life for us. We completely submit to His rule. To His righteousness. We allow Him to have the final word in everything The height of His rule is in How deep our surrender of every thing in our life, to Him is. If He doesn't have complete control of our life it's because we haven't given it to Him.

Many desire to be holy. The only way is to be completely surrendered to Him.

You're right, you cannot gain any greater holiness positionally. But, a person can be "holier than thou." This is not in positional holiness, however. Yet, a person could be walking with God, close to God, another may be in rebellion. One is concecrated and separated, or holy, with God, the other, only positionally, and my illustration is they are both born again. So, we can all achieve greater holiness, but only in the biblical sense of the word, not in the Webster idea.

The Biblical sense of holiness is perfection other wise Holy has no meaning.

I just think you are confused about what holiness is. You are not talking about your position in Christ are you? I think that is what you mean here.

I'm affraid you've missed what I said earlier about Christ living our life for us. If we are compleletly in surrender to the Lord we are as holy as we can be in this flesh. Complete surrender means we yeild everything to God. He makes all our decisions and in thus living our life for us. Being saved is to be in submission to God. If He makes all our decisions in every thing we do, we will be Holy. We then are doing what is pleasing to God. Is there any other kind of holiness?

The apostles were holy, in the biblical definition. We too can be, or it never would have been an imperative. It's called a separated life. Not perfection.

The apostles did what Christ told them to do. this is called submission. However when Peter denied Christ, Peter wasn't in submission. When Thomas couldn't believe. He was in rebellion. Christ allowed Him to touch His side and know it was Christ so that he might believe. To do what God tells us to do is the only holiness we will ever have in this flesh.

Perfect here means with integrity, to be an entire person, perfect is only a subpoint of the definition to help us grasp it. It doesn't mean perfect in our sense of perfection, or in the fact that God alone is perfect, and the only perfect. God would not call us to be something we cannot be, yet He does call us to be saved, something we cannot do, but only through Him.

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I believe Christ meant we are to be as perfect as God the Father.

Brother, God does not desire to live your life for you, but in you and through you, through Christ. All of this talk is helping me sharpen the biblical concept of what holiness is and to understand where people are coming from when it is discussed, since we presuppose we are on the same page. So a very basic theology on holiness, it's different aspects and definitions needs to be grasped.

Thanks again!

I agree which is why I'm praying you read and understand what I have said.
MB