Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:40:53 -0800

 
Will power, new years resolutions, turning over a new leaf, reformation won't do it. Only by Repentance & the Power of a resurrected life can we overcome the Old man. Right JD?
 
 
Absolutely.  
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:30:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

How sad JD that you so completely identify with sin
 
The problem is without the POWER of God in our lives it is impossible.
To as many as recieved him to them gave he power to become the sons of God.
 
Will power, new years resolutions, turning over a new leaf, reformation won't do it. Only by Repentance & the Power of a resurrected life can we overcome the Old man. Right JD?
 


Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How sad JD that you so completely identify with sin when Jesus died so that we could separate ourselves
from sin and choose to identify and walk in the gift of His righteousness. 
This separation is known as "sanctification"
Under the Old Covenant they did it ritually as Moses regularly called the congregation to sanctify themselves
We are called to do this in it's entirety - that is to put off sin and put on Christ 
The importance of this is shown in how God judged Moses, forbidding him to enter the land of promise because
of disobedience (in striking the rock when told to speak to it) he failed to 'sanctify the Lord in his heart' before
the people
 
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:01:46 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We all pretty much know what this word means  --   
generally speaking,  it is a setting apart as a result of an increased holiness.  
Because of a multitude of passges expressing the thought that we remain tied to our old man, Eph 4:20-24, 
that we continue to harbor or possess sin  I Jo 1:8, 
that none is righteous (a cinfirmation to those who are already "saved") Ro 3:10, 
that our sepaation from God's glory is stated in the context of sin  Ro 3:23, 
that there is none good but the Father, that we are evil (yet know how to do good),
that the personal struggle between flesh and the Spirit is a continuing circumstance (Rom 7:14-25  --  
there is simply no reason to argue that  our sanctification is an uncompleted task in view of Heb 10:14.  
Do you see some "evil" in this opinion? 
Your house illustration has appeal only because the home owner in your illustration thinks his house was complete when,  looking back in time,  it clearly was not.  
If the home owner views his home as something that does not yet meet his needs, 
if he is aware of the failings of the home,  he will not think it is a completed task.   Jd
 
 


From: Dean Moore <cd_moore@earthlink.net>
cd: From the prospective of a home builder I can relate to this diagram of salvation and as most of the parables were directed toward the common man who builds (and hid from those wise in their own eyes) this would not be acting outside of God's biblical perimeters. If I one builds a house with great care making every cut and load bearing wall to its proper standards then when this house is finished it is complete/or perfect by those standards-as Christ has completed His house (ie The Church). Yet one can also allow for that house to receive additional room for future use( as the Family grows) and as each additional room is added one can still call that same house complete/perfect for its purpose and use.Consider these terms of completeness and the rest falls into place.
 
JD: David  --  I do not understand your logic here.   If you admit that our sanctification is ongoing  -  how could you possibly argue that it is, at the same time,   completed?   "I am being made a better person"  presents an action that is not completed and that appears to to be obvious, to me.   Why is this not the case with "being sanctified?"  Jd 

From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] lory.org
Bill wrote:
> Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete.
 
How do you read this into the text?  Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete.  Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text.
 
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
From: Taylor
Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understand it.
 
Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either.  Bill
 
The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"

Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com> wrote:
I don't speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctification requires the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to give.
 
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor" <wmtaylor@plains.net> writes:
That's fine, Judy, but who in this discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same as to set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree that this participle in Heb 10.14 reflect a sanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete?  Bill
 
I have no idea what you are talking about Bill.  However I do understand Hebrews 10:14
and the word "sanctified" in this instance means "set apart" in the same way that an unbelieving wife is "set apart" in 1 Cor 7:14 which is "set apart in the sense that she is become the object of focus because of the faith and influence of her husband.  It would be impossible for her to be sanctified in any other sense because she remains unregenerated and dead in her trespass and sin.
 
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:50:27 -0700 "Taylor" <wmtaylor@plains.net> writes:
Fair enough. Do you accept the present passive thrust of this verb? My impression is that you do not. Bill
 
Are you living in some kind of delusion Bill?
My understanding of that text remains the same as it was, so please let's deal with reality here rather than presumption.  jt
 


Reply via email to