JD om green.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christine Miller <verilysaid@yahoo.com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:04:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14
I have already defined sanctification: it is a spiritual adoption. When we are sancitified, we are made children of God, and as a child of god, made clean. We are forgiven and may take our places in the body of Christ (and ultimately, Heaven). Sooo, sanctification is "spiritual adoption" because it makes sense to you ?? !!! How can I argue with that. I was hoping for a scholarly type discussion as opposed to a discussion based on "because I think so, that's why." You define sanctification as "spiritual adoption." Do you have any idea why I have a problem with this?
Sanctification is not to be confused with the "obedience" spoken of in Heb 5:8. The maturity process should not be confused with the act of being sanctified. I ask "why" to this last statement.
JD wrote:
When sanctification is seen or taught as an on going event or present reality not yet attained, we are included in the effort
But JD, I thought you were a fan of grace apart from works. We have nothing to do with the act of sanctification, except to have faith in Christ's promise to do it. We do, however, have some participation in the process of obedience, which is, to submit to the sufferings mentioned in Heb 5:8. These two events are separate. I see th is as the crux of our disagreement.
Sanctification is not to be confused with the "obedience" spoken of in Heb 5:8. The maturity process should not be confused with the act of being sanctified. I ask "why" to this last statement.
JD wrote:
When sanctification is seen or taught as an on going event or present reality not yet attained, we are included in the effort
But JD, I thought you were a fan of grace apart from works. We have nothing to do with the act of sanctification, except to have faith in Christ's promise to do it. We do, however, have some participation in the process of obedience, which is, to submit to the sufferings mentioned in Heb 5:8. These two events are separate. I see th is as the crux of our disagreement.
I am a fan of grace, Christine. Look for the above comment in the larger context of my commentary:
When sanctification is seen as a completed act, it is the result of an action of God in Christ apart from our efforts. When sanctification is seen or taught as an on going event or present reality not yet attained, we are included in the effort as per Eph 4:20-24. It is God at work within us both to will and to accomplish His good pleasure, hence the possibility of a passivity on our part that gives glory to no one else but God while we benefit from the action as person indwelt by the Creator. How in the world ca
n this be wrong? God gets ALL the glory and we receive all the benefit Did you note the words " apart from our efforts" ? I define "sanctification as a holiness cultivated by the Holy Spirit>" Because God is the source of this increasing holiness, it is viewed as a completed act. Sanctification is another word for "holiness." When viewed as a cultivation of the Holy Spirit, we can see that we are "made holy by another." "Being sanctified" in Heb 10:14 is "being made holy by another." I find nothing in scripture that defines sactification in terms of "adoption." I find nothing in scholarship that makes that definition. Please defend or explain your thinking.
;
JD wrote:
The discernment of good and evil is, for you, intellectual and for me, ontological.
You are certainly right about one thing here: only one of us is being led by the Spirit,
and the other by the intellect. We cannot both be submitting to the same influence. As to who is led by what: I'll let your comment be the last on that.
Why did you write this? My comment was not a put down. I did not see your sense of "holiness" (sanctification) as being ontological in nature. If you did, if would be a simply thing to see "process" in the Holy spirit's work... I care nothing about the childishness of asserting who is being led by the Spirit and who is not. I will leave that to you and other members if this forum.
Blessings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Christine Miller <verilysaid@yahoo.com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:48:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14
JD wrote:
If (a) you do not see babe - maturity as a process and (b) if you do not see that the "practice" as a move into holiness -- then you will not see why I used this passage.
I do see the maturity process in Heb 5, but it is (b) I do not see. The practice is not as a move into holiness. This is where we disagree on the meaning of the word "sanctification." Read back to verse 8: Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. This is what verses 13 and 14 are talking about: Christ was always holy and sinless. But he still had to learn things, to progress from the milk to the meat. Christ was sanctified, but th ere was still some maturing that had to take place. Not a maturing into holiness, but into one who (verse 14:) "by reason of use have their sens es exercised to discern both good and evil."The discerment of good and evil is, for you, intellectual and for me, ontological. But I doubt that either is acquired in a Divinely authored BAM !!! Hence -- "process"
I am using the analogy of adoption to understand the difference between sanctification and the "obedience" Christ learned in verse 8. When a child is adopted, there isn't a long process. Bam. You're a member of the household now. BUT being a new member of the household doesn't mean you automatically know how the house does things. You have to learn to not leave your clothes on the floor. You have to learn that when you're done eating dinner you take your plate to the sink. You have to learn to abide by your new curfew. These are the metephorical house rules I was talking about. Sorry for not elucidating earlier, I can see how that comment must have seemed to come from left field. Do you see now how I view sanctification as an adoption?by the way -- the Divine BAM is something I believe but it is IN ADDITION to my personal ontology. When sanctification is seen as a completed act, it is the result of an action of God in christ apart from our efforts. When sanctification is seen or taught as an on going event or present reality not yet attained, we are included in the effort as per Eph 4:20-24. It is God at work within us both to will and to accomplish His good pleasure, hense the possibility of a passivity on our part that gives glory to no one else but God while we benefit from the action as perso n indwelt by the Creator. How in the world can this be wrong? God gets ALL the glory and we receive all the benefit !!! Praise the Lord !!How do you define "sanctification?"Jd"But everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil" (Heb 5:13-14). If (a) you do not see babe - maturity as a process and (b) if you do not see that the "practice" as a move into holiness -- then you will not see why I used this passage. "House rules" is not how I would typify the subject matter of Heb 5. I see two considerations in chapter 5 -- the first is the purpose and function of Christ as the source of ou r salvation and , secondly, the addressee's failure to have matured into the full stature of Christ. That bit of subject matte r begins in v 11 of chapter 5 and continues well into chapter 6. Sanctification (being set apart as a result of holiness increa sed) is not a completed task in this case. In Heb 10:10 , sanctification is the result of a vicarious action on the part of God in Christ. The purpose of God's consideration is fulfilled, completed if you will, in Christ. In Christ, the consideration of sanctification is finished. The fact of sanctification in our lives is another matter, altogether. So, in Heb 10:14 we "are being sanctified."House rules ???? Perhaps you could elucidate..jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Christine Miller <verilysaid@yahoo.com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:55:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14
JD wrote:
Paul teaches sanctification as a continuing process in Eph 4:20-24 and in Heb 5:13-14.
I don't wish to distract you from the present issue of Heb 10:14, but I am not sure I understand your references here. Specifically in Heb. 5, I do not see sanctification being discussed at all. The act of being adopted as a child of God is not the same thing as learning the house rules. Heb. 5 is not talking about sanctification, but learning the house rules, learning to "discern both good and evil."
Perhaps we disagree on what "sanct ification" means?
Blessings!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:It is almost -- but not quite - humorous, your inability to converse with me without the put downs. Also, for some reason, when I go down into the body of your post, I cannot single space my response unless I write it somewhere else and copy it into the post -- below the "-----Original Message ----" line. Strange. And this applies to all your posts.I wrote that "durative" is an action that begins in the past and is linear in the present. You wrote "No true ...." and referred me to a discussion by Robertson on p 821. You even give a quote from that page. First, durative is just as I said and my definition comes from Robertson. Secondly, the problems Robertson has in mind is carefully defined with specific references within the article. If he meant to include the present passive participle, he does not mention it in this section.I am not sure what you think is being said when you point to the "descriptive durative " You write :This means that he views it only as descriptive linear action. That seems to be my point. Does this mean that "leanear action" is NOT ACTUALLY IN VIEW ?? I will listen to an argument that presents such a case -- but for now, I do not think so. As a result -- the participle remains linear (and hense incomplete IN THIS FRAME of reference). So much for tense. "Passive" is a big deal to me. I think I understand greek pretty well -- but I am not a [English} grammarian. What I believe is this -- saying that we "are sanctified" is not as clear to an average reader as saying "I am being sanctified." Perhaps , because of your expertise in English grammar, you do not see the problem as I see it. To translate the participle as "are being sanctified" is in line with the NKJV, the marginal notes in my NASV, Comfort and Brown's interlinear translation, < SPAN class=correction id="">Marshall's interlinear translation, NIV (those who are being made holy) and -- well, I will quit. The semantics of this syntactical issue may be just as you suppose -- but that is theology. You want to use 10:10 to limit the meaning of 10:14 because it is a part of th e same conversation. On a different subject, this might be a good point -- a strong point. But Paul teaches sanctification as a continuing process in Eph 4:20-24 and in Heb 5:13-14. There is clearly a sense in which sanctification is a continuing process. There is no reason, then, to limit this passage (10:14) based 10:10 or to argue for a non-typical syntax. "Desriptive durative" remains linear action (with no end in s ight).Summary statement: Robertson's commentary beginning on p 821 is not an argument against an interlinear translation reading "are being sanctified." Secondly, "descriptive durative" is, nonetheless, linear action with no end in sight in the framed reference. Finally, since Paul believes that sanctification is a continuing occasion for maturity -- there is no reason to argue that Heb 10:10 should somehow effect the interlinear translation of 10:14 - specifically,&nb sp; "are being sanctified." As a result, "are being sanctified" is a common translation of those who should know (better). ;Nothing in Robertson argues that "are being sanctified" is wrong or a poorly thought out translation.This line is trash -- smiley face not withstanding: I do have a tendency to over-estimate what you have read and understood. :-)Jd
