| Terry Wiles |
No. Saved by Grace, through faith. Not of works, ever |
| Gabroo Shah |
Yea that gives one right to be lustful n discriminate n then say we are going to heaven. Sin is by work n evil thinking is by work too. Then salvation is probably still a free ride for you, why would you value living in Christ! |
| Angel Ruiz |
For God reconcile the world to him self my way of Christ, (how) by not counting our sin against us…. |
| Gabroo Shah |
idk your God, this OSAS never really took much origin in East, its from John Calvin theory. So not sure why anyone would say its God’s wish…its Calvinism |
| Angel Ruiz |
2cor 5:19—God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them.. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Reread my comment |
| Angel Ruiz |
Did read it. |
| Gabroo Shah |
A verse like John 3:16 can be stretched infinitely as per a person’s personality n mentality. Putting one verse n ignoring rest of Bible is not good way to understand it. One way to John 3.16- we are saved n everyone is saved.Other way- only elect are saved, Jesus didnt die for others regardless of a person’s love for God n living in Him Another way- Jesus was there to love pharisees n he granted them keys to heaven. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Angel Ruiz can you believe they allow kids to be church pastors just like they baptise kids in so called pentecostal churches. |
| Terry Wiles |
I smell a troll |
| Gabroo Shah |
the theology you posted Terry Wiles is a troll. It gives right to racist ppl n all kinds of evil doers to still call themselves equal to Paul, thats what you sound like n baptiso-reformed systems believe in |
| Gabroo Shah |
Works are not the way to heaven for those who dont believe in ‘living in Christ’ , such ppl find it easy to deny God conveniently coz they themselves dont care to put God first in their lives. |
| Gabroo Shah |
I can already smell a ‘modern missionary’, their love for ppl of other lands is only limited till the time you hand them a mic n allow them to say they know Bible. As soon as you present truth to them n ask them to live in Christ, they say ”oh no, living in Christ wont save n we are already saved” |
| Terry Wiles |
Gabroo Shah. Fill in your profile so others can see who you are. Trolls hide their identity |
| Gabroo Shah |
That’s not even relevant and important. A tv reporter on youtube once visited some guy who was involved in some kind of evil that involved with ppl’s background. The guy asked tv reporter about his background. The idea isnt about background or who the person is, but what the person says n why. The tv reporter also went to a church leader for interview n again the church leader was concerned about background than current position on a topic or idealogy. Its not wise to associate a person’s identity n who he is with a topic. What matters is an idealogy that can be in a nice way discussed so our world can learn about Jesus who said “His Sheep follows Him”.What matters more is to see potential ungodly n inhumane aspect of the theology you adhere to Terry Wiles If one loves thy neighbor, let him or her not consider oneself special or elect before the origin of time or the whole idea of love is biased n not rational. Plus its good to really love ppl beyond fancy of missions n titles or identity |
| Terry Wiles |
You are defiantly a troll. |
| Gabroo Shah |
you can probably teach me how your theology helps avoid evil in world n ppl’s lives when you say living in Christ or works dont save. Again Bible says ‘works’ dont save in reference to the ‘rituals’ not righteousness. Righteousness is living in Christ n work n living in Christ shouldnt be mixed. Do you wish to talk Biblical support for your theology? |
| Terry Wiles |
You know nothing of my theology. |
| Gabroo Shah |
you said – saved by grace n not works. There isnt much left to understand, there isnt much variation you know in baptiso-reformed theory |
| Terry Wiles |
You take things totally out of context and make your own truth. Salvation happens by grace through faith it is the gift of God. It is not of works lest any should boast. At the same time, faith without works is dead being alone. |
| Terry Wiles |
True faith will have works because faith is action. But no amount of works will save you. Salvation remains a gift of God that flows out of His grace. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Bible says we are saved by grace in the sense that you n I are gentiles n if gentiles are saved…its coz of God’s allowing us a chance.Again work doesnt in context mean ‘living in Christ’. It means rituals like what pharisees did.Because churches focus so much on ‘hypergrace’ n not the criteria for salvation, quality goes down n it gives ppl a way to sin n still call themselves as saved.You need to see Bible as it was meant to be n also look at potential gaping holes in such theologies |
| Terry Wiles |
-30- |
| Gabroo Shah |
Except living in Christ saves…Thats the deal |
| Angel Ruiz |
Gabroo Shah ur stament about John 3:16 can only be true if u ignore the preposition…. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Angel Ruiz ignore 3.16 you mean? Haha well Im lucky Im not playing God in ppl’s lives by giving them false baptistoreformed salvation which has brought in a lot of lukewarms |
| Gabroo Shah |
30 what? Terry Wiles |
| Scotty Searan |
Acts 26:200 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.NOW PAUL SAYS HERE REPENT, TURN TO GOD AND DO WORKS MEET FOR REPENTANCE IS NOT THIS WHAT JOHN THE BAPTIST PREACHED ALSO AND HE WAS FULL OF THE HOLY GHOST? |
| Gabroo Shah |
Its of course our initiative. God helps n gives us opportunity n sets up the stage but its important for the ppl to walk in Christ…except churches seem to willingly deny living in Christ n bring in jezebels. |
| Melvin Harter |
Study where the Progressive Sanctification (which is what I believe you adhere to) had its beginnings. If you do not know, you will find it starts exactly where my initial posting is written. |
| Terry Wiles |
Still no explanation of your distinctive doctrine. And yes. I believe sanctification is a progressive work of the Holy Spirit. One day in heaven we will be perfect as He is perfect and pure as He is pure. Today, “in Him” we are more than conquerors and called to follow in His footsteps and “become” the new creation He is making us become. Thank you for not imputing to me your judgments. Please offer any explanation of your beliefs that you you think might be helpful. Blessings. |
| Angel Ruiz |
So we are not saints till we get to heaven? |
| Angel Ruiz |
1 Corinthians 6:11 famously reminds them and us that despite our habitual sinful past, Christians have been washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (This has sanctification as an entire, completed event on view.)And note that in both 1:30 and 6:11, sanctification and justification are mentioned entirely in parallel, apparently as the status conferred on Christians through the work of Christ on the cross. |
| Scotty Searan |
Matthew 5:48 (KJV)48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. |
| Melvin Harter |
But Bro Wiles, you have never studied the history, and in particular, the initial history of Progressive Sanctification. Why don’t you take a look at that aspect of what you say you believe? |
| Terry Wiles |
Still no explanation of your distinctive doctrine. See previous post (two up) for the imputing statement. 🙂 |
| Melvin Harter |
No, the subject of this posting Bro Wiles is there is a relationship with those (including yourself) who believe in Progressive Sanctification likewise believe in Progressive Salvation. So let’s deal with the subject posted. |
| Joe Absher |
if it’s not to far off topic Dr. Melvin Harter would it be fair to mention Isaiah whom God cleansed and sanctified and fit for service. With a coal from the altar. Mentioning also we have a better covenant not in the blood of bulls and goats but in the blood of the spotless Lamb of God. He’s pretty thorough. Sometimes he’ll ask you, some times he’ll just smite you. Would that be allowed in a good Bible conversation? |
| Melvin Harter |
You see, most Progressive adheres simply accept everything they hear some preacher preach or teacher teach regarding what is known as “Progressive Sanctification.” Perhaps they even grew up in a Progressive church. But they have never really studied out the scripture. It requires a lot of work and study, as well as the Holy Spirit, to really search the scriptures. First of all, a true scholar will always search the scriptures with an “open mind.” They will not consider anything or anybody’s view; they only seek the truth from the holy writ. Regarding our redemption, the Apostle Peter states the phrase in 1 Peter 1:18, “from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers.” I am afraid that many Christian leaders have learned the necessary elements on church growth and how to get a crowd of people together. But they have failed in the one essential point, “knowing the true Word of God.” |
| Terry Wiles |
Thumbs up for the “open mind.” Still waiting to hear a scholarly presentation of your distinctive doctrine. |
| Melvin Harter |
You must get a copy of my Sanctification book when it comes off the press. |
| Joe Absher |
Dr. Melvin Harter I’m sure you’re right. But all I have is a few scriptures. What God gave me. Matthew 4:10. James 1:5 and be strong in the grace God gives us and Isaiah 6 God told me he hasn’t run out of coals. He’s still given out coals. You gotta ask real nice but he’ll help you. But I don’t know. Bible teaches he’ll take that old sin and the want to. Right? |
| Melvin Harter |
https://www.facebook.com/groups/444894562208812/ TO YOU WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THIS SUBJECT OF “SANCTIFICATION,” go to this post. You must go to where it begins, which is July 22, 2012 and start your reading from that point. You will read about the history of the doctrine of Sanctification, what the Bible declares about Sanctification, as well as pics of the GREAT REVIVALS, which all came out of the great HOLINESS MOVEMENT. |
| Melvin Harter |
Street Preacherz, join my SANCTIFICATION page on Facebook. It will answer many of the questions that you pose. |
| Joe Absher |
Genesis? God told Cain you better get a handle on that thing and he didn’t even have the blood of Jesus! |
| Joe Absher |
Dr. Melvin Harter. Im not trying but in on your conversation. Honest. But you say we study scripture another that confronted me was, Jeremiah 31:34″And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” As a Christian we know him in the forgiveness of sin but it’s more of an introduction. The natural man scoffs. The natural man could never stand in boldness by Jesus Christ and say I know God. Not a hypocrite unless they’re self deceived.For me? I often say, Jesus. Yeah I met him one time. I hope I never deny that. |
| Marc Jackson |
here here – been trying to tell this to Walter Polasik who does not believe in salvation in a zap. Progressive sanctification folk should also adhere to OSNS – once saved never sanctified Link Hudson f.ex BTW Melvin Harter most modernistic churches also believe in progressive baptism with the Holy Spirit. They say they got the Spirit but dont even know nothing about no tongues coming along with it This shall be called OBNS – once baptized but never spoken in tongues King James Bible (and there Exodus 19:10)And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow…But LORD said Moses in the new progressive Bible, cant be done in a zap You will have to wait until the eschatological end of the whole creation unto eternity Forget it, sayeth the Lord, in my Bible – I NEVER KNEW YOU !!! |
| Link Hudson |
Troy Day, some of those people were firstborn, and may have already been sanctified according to Exodus 13, and then got sanctified again in Exodus 19. We get sanctified when we become new creatures in Christ Jesus. But we also have to be sanctified along the way.As far as ‘progressive sanctification’, I believe Christians from the get-go have grace to avoid sin and live for God. They don’t have to have a crisis experience for that, after they get saved. Where is that taught in the Bible? That’s the issue. Show it to us in the Bible. That’s the challenge for Melvin Harter that he never did in our conversations– show us in the Bible. |
| Gabroo Shah |
What’s your stance Link. You seem rather confused. You say you were raised in pentecostal church n again you talk about grace like baptist ppl would. Are you delusional |
| Link Hudson |
Gabroo Shah? You think I’m delusional? It’s hard to understand any point you have made at all with the undefined terminology you use and comments that do not seem to be related to the discussion. I am still not sure what you meant when you wrote about ‘racial ways’.What is my stance? My stance is that sanctification doesn’t equal abstaining from sin, not in every context it is used in scripture. The Holiness Movement about the time the Pentecostal movement strongly associated those two concepts.In Exodus 19, the Israelites were to sanctify themselves. The issue addressed wasn’t that they were sinful and they needed to repent. They needed to sanctify themselves in certain matters that related to physical and ceremonial cleanness. I believe someone who is not walking in sin could ‘sanctify himself’ for some specific purpose for the Lord through a time of prayer. That may be an appropriate way of understanding the concept.But of course sanctification and not sinning are interrelated. Sinning is an unsanctified thing to do. If someone is sinning against the Lord, that is not consistent with his being set apart for the Lord.What I see from posters who think of sanctification as a one-time ‘step’ after the individual gets saved is that they will use verses that include the word ‘sanctification’, assuming that it has the same meaning they use when they say the term. But in many cases, the very context of the verse they cite is not consistent with the early 20th century concept of ‘sanctification’ in the Holiness movement. For example, in Exodus 19, Israelites abstaining from sexual relations, an activity a righteous person could engage in if he or she is married, and washing clothes, again, not a sin issue, were ways of Israelites sanctifying themselves.In I Thessalonians 4, where Paul says he wishes their sanctification that they would abstain from sanctification, Paul is not saying they are lacking some experience that they may or may not experience, and if they don’t experience it, he expects them to fornicate. The reader is to choose to be sanctified in this area of his life and to abstain from fornication. The passage is not talking about going up to an altar once a week for years waiting until some day he gets a one-time ‘zap’ and never has to sin again.I believe all who are in Christ have what they need to abstain from sin.I am not sure why you think that is Baptists. What I think of as Baptist teaching on the subject is ‘We all sin.’ or ‘There will never be a time when you don’t sin.’ I do not agree with that kind of thinking. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Link Hudson We talked about all sin not being equal as basis of probably what your holiness movement preaches.Again I say one time salvation exist in the sense you get baptism with a God fearing heart n sins are forgiven. Now after baptism a person can sin again n fall short of entering heaven.Then what to do? The idea is true that there are ppl in world who can put God first all their life.Sometimes ppl get angry n thats a sin but they repent n are forgiven.The greater scheme what Bible preaches n traditional pentecostals preach is that a person needs to live in Christ strongly n keep away from sinning. There will be moments in life where person may fall short, n that time salutation is lost…he or she again needs to repent n live in Christ. The criteria now is intention n hard work. A person cannot keep sinning the same sin n expect that he has salvation.So yes it is possible that some ppl dont sin at all after being forgiven…but that’s rare. Rarest actually. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Baptist ppl believe in one time salvation. Although they feel the tuning point is just a verbal statement or a feeling sort n then you are saved forever. Yet another branch of baptist theology feels just praying a specific prayer n calling Jesus in your heart brings salvation n after this ‘one time stylish event’ no one can lose salvation. Oneness pentecostals also wish to be called the very first pentecostals in world but we know that they came pretty recently.That’s why our definitions look a lil different. Coz what you call as traditional pentecostal theology isnt really true traditional pentecostal stance on salvation. Probably the ‘holiness movement’ you mention arent really true traditional pentecostals. When you say one time zap for sanctification, you mean basically one time salvation right? Baptists n reformed ppl believe in one time salvation that cannot be lost. Pentecostals traditionally feel that one time sanctification is there but that doesnt mean salvation cannot be lost…because any person can fall away from God Only oneness pentecostals believe in ‘zap n saved forever’ n that zap being speaking in tongues. Do you believe that only living in Christ can save us?? Sanctification is equal to abstaining from sins. |
| Link Hudson |
No by zap for sanctification i am talking about sanctification as a one time experience some time after getting saved.Having ppl repeat a prayer and declaring them saved is common in assemblies of God and foursquare…or ive seen it a lot… In the US. I cant say ive seen it the Holiness Pentecostal denominations except overseas. |
| Gabroo Shah |
what sort of AOG you visit. n Im not sure what sort of pentecostal churches you visit. Probably not real pentecostal church…Btw “Being saved” is the last step…n not after sanctification. Sanctification means being purified literally. So what you mean sanctification is different than being saved? |
| Link Hudson |
Gabroo Shah A/G doesn’t teach a crisis experience of sanctification after salvation, not as a doctrine, not as an experience for everyone. The A/G is on the opposite side on that issue from what the COG and PH believe (or used to) on that subject.I think the post-salvation sanctification ‘zap’ teaching has slowly been eroding away partly because Pentecostals interract and listen to teachers across denominational lines (other Pentecostals for example) and also because people read the Bible and can’t find it there. |
| Link Hudson |
Sanctifcation is an ongoing thing. We can continue in a sanctified state. |
| Gabroo Shah |
I guess what you can reflect on is racial effects in church coz your theology allowed it as okay for a Christian n can still enter heaven. How about abortion? n other evils… |
| Link Hudson |
Gabroo Shah What are you talking about? How does your comment have anything to do with what I posted? |
| Gabroo Shah |
My statement has to do with OSAS |
| Link Hudson |
Gabroo Shah What does that have to do with the post you are responding to? |
| Gabroo Shah |
Sanctification as ongoing process is an important element of OSAS. That one is saved but sanctified n glorified with a ongoing process |
| Link Hudson |
I’m not using the word ‘process’ because I believe we can be sanctified all along the way. That part is a process. But it’s not okay to be half unsanctified and then get sanctified right before death. We should be sanctified at every step along the way, and between steps, too.In Exodus, there was a case where the people were to be sanctified. They were to wash their clothes and abstain from sex. Wearing dirty clothes wasn’t a sin. Having sex with their spouses wasn’t a sin, but generally resulted in both parties becoming ritually unclean. If the people were abstaining from sin before the command to sanctify themselves, there was also a way they could sanctify themselves for an encounter with God that involved things other than abstaining from sin. |
| Gabroo Shah |
I guess you could use term living in Christ or whats the process to sanctification in your view? |
| Link Hudson |
Your post came out after mine for some reason. Please see previous post as a response. |
| Link Hudson |
Do you believe in once sanctified always sanctified? |
| Link Hudson |
We are sanctified when we become new a creature in Christ. But we have to continue to walk in sanctification. |
| Joe Absher |
You are well guarded. Bless you. Can I ask you a question I was thinking today. What is a good reputation if it costs a man his influence for Christ or worse yet his influence with Christ. |
| Link Hudson |
Street Preacherz I was trying to respond to the part of the post that had something to do with my question. There are some people who think they reach a state of sinless perfection at a crisis sanctification. Others have a less extreme view than that. If someone says he’s sanctified, and sins, he still has to ask forgiveness. Does he have to get sanctified again? How is sanctification a one-time experience if this is the case? |
| Joe Absher |
Is Hebrews 9:14 important to you? Is the blood of Jesus its cleansing power for every child of God it will keep you also. Isn’t the blood of Jesus a covering both in spirit and mind and doesn’t it cleanse our thoughts emotions and passions. The child of God doesn’t run back to the mire. Galations 6:1 is a wonderful verse it’s there for a reason. But why focus on sin when Jesus is so evidently set before us. Crucified. For sinners slain. Explain the power of joy. Or a well of living water in a man’s soul that Jesus gives in the holy ghost. |
| Joe Absher |
I suppose a man’s reputation is important. I believe you consider influence for Christ more important. It was only a rhetorical question. |
| Joe Absher |
God has many means of breaking a man. Some very gentle a mere whisper others need substantially more. Isaiah 28:22-29″22Now therefore be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made strong: for I have heard from the Lord GOD of hosts a consumption, even determined upon the whole earth.23Give ye ear, and hear my voice; hearken, and hear my speech.24Doth the plowman plow all day to sow? doth he open and break the clods of his ground?25When he hath made plain the face thereof, doth he not cast abroad the fitches, and scatter the cummin, and cast in the principal wheat and the appointed barley and the rie in their place?26For his God doth instruct him to discretion, and doth teach him.27For the fitches are not threshed with a threshing instrument, neither is a cart wheel turned about upon the cummin; but the fitches are beaten out with a staff, and the cummin with a rod.28Bread corn is bruised; because he will not ever be threshing it, nor break it with the wheel of his cart, nor bruise it with his horsemen.29This also cometh forth from the LORD of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working.” |
| Link Hudson |
Btw Troy Day, about Exodus 19, notice that.1. The people were to sanctify themselves. They weren’t told to sit around waiting for an emotional experience that was supposed to hit them.2. They were to wash their clothes.3. They were told to abstain from sexual relations?Do you believe in being sanctified as a matter of choice, something we choose to do? Are we sanctified by washing our clothes and not having sexual relations with our spouses? |
| Link Hudson |
Can someone who is entirely sanctified lose his salvation? |
| Gabroo Shah |
Its like asking why lucifer fell? Are you asking or suggesting haha |
| Gabroo Shah |
So if Jezebel was Hebrew, would you approve of her for Ahab. She doesnt has to worship Baal openly to deny Christ. Worshipping God isnt obeying then? |
| Gabroo Shah |
Link, a person was drunk n slept well, n other person worked hard n slept well. The idea is about hangover the drunk person will get after Judgement day (or when he wakes up). |
| Link Hudson |
Gabroo Shah I don’t see how your posts are related to my question. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Once Lucifer was fully saved but not anymore |
| Link Hudson |
Gabroo Shah Are you familiar with the term ‘entire sanctification’ and some of the teachings about this terminology that have been taught in the Holiness (and Pentecostal) movement? |
| Gabroo Shah |
Pentecostal movement? There are 2 main branches; traditional n oneness. Are you in support of OSAS? |
| Link Hudson |
Gabroo Shah I am not writing in support of OSAS. But I wonder how those who take entire sanctification to mean reaching a state of sinless perfection (if we have any on here) reconcile that idea with not being OSAS.Also, if people who get sanctified can sin and need to be sanctified again, what’s the point of seeing it as a one-step process.The traditional branch could be categorized as ‘Holiness’ in terms of sanctification doctrine and the majority group which doesn’t see sanctification as a one-time event, a ‘step’ that has to precede being baptized with the Holy Ghost. Those two categories emerged or were clarified within the first decade or so of Azusa. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Are you specifically talking about ppl who claim “speaking in tongues” save? Its kinda difficult to be talking on same point. |
| Link Hudson |
No. Those are Oneness. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Coz when you say Holiness movement, I feel its a biased term in itself. Pentecostalism has different branches n 2 main theologies. Yes world see things as what happens in US as central but well there are other pentecostal branches too. US has kinda increased in the kind you mention |
| Gabroo Shah |
So to answer your question, taking an extra cookie from your plate is not as big as a sin compared to any bigger sin |
| Gabroo Shah |
This is basis behind the realization |
| Link Hudson |
Which kind. Most Pentecostals from denominations in the southeast used to believe in a one time experience of sanctification after salvation as a prerequisite of being baptized with the Holy Ghost. Now it seemed like a lot of those denominations have mixed views on it, the people at least. People can’t find evidence for the one-off post converssion sanctification experience in the Bible so it has lost a lot of steam. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Link Hudson i feel you met ppl who could be somewhere between oneness n traditional pentecostals. |
| Link Hudson |
I do not get your point with the cookie cmment but I do not consider all sins to be equal. |
| Link Hudson |
Oneness split off the A/G early on. I’ve never heard of a oneness with the crisis onetime sanctification view but my interaction with them is limited. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Try it as this- John the baptist condemns the king but Jesus said dont look at the small ‘idontknowword’ in your neighbor’s eye when you cannot see a log in yours.This can be a good comparison to reflect that if you offer me one cookie n im hungry so I had two, but you wouldnt take it a big sin right compared to other sins |
| Gabroo Shah |
Link Hudson i still feel ppl you met arent fully traditional pentecostals. Many time ppl are confused in pentecostalism as to where they belong lol. Some are still in transition n oscillate between oneness n traditional form.Traditional pentecostals would tell you salvation is by living in Christ n purity or 100% maturity is possible altho rare. They dont believe salvation is one time thing but they stress more on living in Christ |
| Gabroo Shah |
n again US forms can be even more in transition. I guess your “Holiness movement” in discuss is also limited mostly to originating or based in US |
| Link Hudson |
The doctrine of one-time sanctification might not have made it to all areas where Pentecostalism reached. It was taught at the Azusa Revival. After the Revival died down, a preacher, Durham, preached the ‘Finished work of the cross’ at Azusa and was locked out. He planted a church in LA. A lot of Christians from non-Holiness backgrounds had experiences at Azusa Street that didn’t fit with Seymour’s theology and couldn’t find the one-off crisis salvation experience in the Bible, and appreciated Durham’s message.Many of the Pentecostals who’d joined COGIC who did not believe in one-time, crisis moment sanctification like they did (or episcopal church government) left and started the Assemblies of God. The Foursquare demonation started by a woman who had been under Durham’s ministry, if I remember right. The COG affiliates with Gereja Bethel Indonesia. Historically, the COG taught the one-off sanctification view, but I’ve never heard of anyone in GBI teaching it. I suspect a lot of US COG folks don’t hold to the traditional Holiness view anymore. The doctrinal statement is non-specific enough for people from either camp to feel comfortable there, but also worded in such a way that those who believe in the traditional view will see it as affirming their viewpoint. |
| Link Hudson |
Gabroo Shah, Maybe it is limited mostly to the US. I don’t know. The Holiness movement teaching on sanctification did not seem to find roots in the Charismatic movement of the 1960’s. I think it’s dying out among the denominations that once held to it because they hear other teachings outside of their own denominations and can’t find it in the Bible, and many in their own denominations don’t teach sanctification like it used to be taught.Some peopel who study Pentecostal history see it as coming out of Azusa Street, or if COG, from North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia area, too a few years before, and being spread by Azusa. But there seem to have been Pentecostal movements starting about the same time in India and South America (or a little earlier in India) that merged with the movement out of LA.At Azusa Street, Seymour taught ‘saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost.’ But the revival wasn’t about him speaking and he’d spend a lot of his time praying. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Link Hudson Pentecostalism isnt bad haha pentecostal churches are bad. True pentecostals are rare tho. |
| Link Hudson |
Gabroo Shah Okay, well I was raised Pentecostal. This is a Pentecostal discussion forum. I’m not slamming Pentecostal. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Link Hudson That’s alright. Even if anyone did, its perfectly their freedom of choice to discuss. Apparently church has its problems inside and not outside church today. I wasnt aware of your pre-knowledge of pentecostal churches, still dont know |
| Melvin Harter |
I have had indepth discussions with Link Hudson. He rejects the Koine Greek that explains clearly the doctrine of Sanctification in the NT. He admits he is not a Greek Scholar. It is a waste of my time to have further discussion with Link Hudson. He states he wants me to show him in the Bible. Well, I already done that many times. He wants to continue to believe in Progressive Sanctification. That is his prerogative. However, he is far off base in his theology as it relates to this blessed doctrine. |
| Link Hudson |
No. You haven’t shown me in the Bible. Who has an issue with ‘santctified’ being a completed action in the past in some passages? That is not evidence that it occurs after salvation. Paul lumps being washed sanctified and justified together in I Corinthians 6. It Is false to say I reject the Koine Greek and comes off as rather unsanctified. You fell short of actually presenting a case for your viewpoint. Trying to make yourself out to be an expert and accusing those who disagree doesnt substitute for evidence for your case. Saying the Greek proves it doesnt prove it and many Greek scholars would disagree with you. |
| Melvin Harter |
Yes, I did show you many times Link Hudson and I dare say that you are making a false statement against me. I showed you numerous times the Apostle Paul stating to CHRISTIANS they needed to be sanctified. For example, Ephesians 4:22(f); Colossians 3:5-15; and there are as well numerous other NT passages that I previously shared with you. Colossians uses the word MORTIFY. Everyone understands what MORTIFY means, which is certainly not a dying process. And then, TO WHOM WAS PAUL SPEAKING TO IN THESE PASSAGES? It was Christians. Saved people. Thus, another fact to prove that there were saved people who at the time WERE UNSANCTIFIED. There are other Pauline passages as well. The Gospels reveal the same fact. You too should enroll in some biblical institution of higher learning (I stated this in the past already to you) and get proper exegetical understanding of the scriptures. |
| Link Hudson |
Melvin Harter You are the one making the accusations. I believe Christians should be sanctified as well. I believe Christians are sanctified when they become a new creation in Christ, and need to be sanctified going forward. The issue I was discussing with you previously was the idea that sanctification is a one-time, once-in-a-lifetime crisis experience that happens after salvation. Is that your position? Do you have anything in the Bible that shows that sanctification is a one-time thing that happens after salvation.As much as I appreciate education, I also realize it is also unbiblical to insist that all Christians or all preachers enroll in an institute of higher learning. Most of the apostles did not. It isn’t a Biblical requirement for eldership. And the Biblical example is for teaching and training for ministry should occur within the local church, under the direction of other ministers, or through some sort of divine intervention. |
| Link Hudson |
Also, when I read ‘sanctified’ in the Bible, I do not assume it means ‘a one-time experience at an altar some time after someone got saved.’ Can anyone find scriptures that teach this view of sanctification that don’t require such circular reasoning? |
| Joe Absher |
If bringing the conversation back to Jesus and his words is circular reasoning sign me up. Maybe sincere godly sorrow and repentance needs to be entered here. Because that’s your real turning point. Turn away from sin and turn towards God in the person of Jesus Christ. |
| Joe Absher |
And being emptied out. All that pride, self assurance, contempt for others it’s all got to come out. |
| Link Hudson |
Street Preacherz, we are sanctified at the new birth, and we are to continue to be sanctified continually. The problem with the crisis moment teaching is that it discourages people from having faith to believe God to be filled with the Holy Spirit if they sit around waiting for some emotional experience they think they have to have first. Also, depending on how it is taught, it can distract from the fact that we continue to have to walk holy. If someone thinks he’s reached sinless perfection, it can be a pride issue and he can be hesitant to repent. |
| Joe Absher |
Pride is awful sneaky. We can agree on that. I see your point against. Do you see any points for giving your soul entirely over to God care. It is remarkable really and show how good and patient and gracious our Lord is. He will work with us to our dying breath. Don’t you think God is able to set a man entirely free from sin and keep him in the narrow way. A way God knows and speaks of often from Psalm 1 and throughout the prophets. “When the LORD turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them that dream. Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing:…”Seems like a negligent gospel that says sin is a part of life. |
| Link Hudson |
I am pro sanctification. I am addressing the idea that there must be a one time crisis experience of sanctification after salvation. I can’t find that in the Bible. I don’t read that idea into the word sactification in the Bible eithe. |
| Melvin Harter |
Link Hudson, why don’t you ask the same question regarding one’s salvation – “there must be a one time crisis experience of SALVATION.” Perhaps you can’t find that in the Bible either. Why is it so difficult to accept the experience of salvation on one hand and reject the experience of Sanctification on the other? Why is it that you seem to be unable to separate the experience of Sanctification from that of Christian Growth? |
| Link Hudson |
Melvin Harter, the issue is whether the Bible teaches the one-time sanctification experience (that never needs to be repeated.) I can show you where the Bible talks about becoming a new creature in Christ. Show me the scripture about sanctification being a one-time experience after salvation. |
| Melvin Harter |
Good bye Bro Hudson. |
| Link Hudson |
Melvin Harter This is typical of our conversations. If you don’t want to talk, that’s fine. But don’t go posting about me that I reject the Greek text or similar accusations when you are not willing or able to explain why you believe what you believe. Our last conversation on the Greek text went something like the conversation above. |
| Walter PolasikWalter and 74 |
Melvin Harter “Dr.” Melvin Harter; (I put it in quotes out of exasperation that you, purportedly a legitimate scholar of New Testament Greek, still have failed to show where and how the Greek shows that sanctification is not only a fait accompli (the Bible certainly teaches THAT, positionally) but also that it is a post-salvation distinct event. Regarding, then, the passages you DID cite let’s look at them shall we? 1. Ephesians 4:22 (And I believe I already covered this in ANOTHER post). Paul here writes to the Ephesians about something that can only be termed “progressive”. Why? He writes, “that YE put off concerning the former conversation the old man.” This then is not termed as a “zap’ from the Holy Spirit but rather as a cooperation with Him day by day on OUR part. No ES teaching here. 2. Colossians 3:5-15—-Here again, as in the previous passage, Paul writes about things that YE must do, not about a distinct Holy Spirit experience. At issue brother Harter is NOT whether I, Link Hudson and others support the teaching of HOLINESS. Of COURSE we do! The issues is, what is the MODE of that holiness. Does the Bible teach a “holiness baptism” if you will, like it does an empowering Holy Spirit baptism? These verses certainly don’t support that idea. Also, you focused on the word “mortify” You then wrote, “Everyone knows what ‘mortify’ means which is certainly NOT a dying process.” Au contraire. Did Paul say anything about a process of dying in the Christian life? Did Jesus. Yes, indeed He did. Jesus talked about dying to self, dying to the world, carrying your cross daily. Paul said in I Corinthians 15:31 “I die daily”. Yes, he most certainly talked about a process of dying. I’m not a professional Greek scholar Dr. Harter. How is it that you failed to recall this key passage? I Corinthians 9:27 also has Paul saying that he “mortifies the flesh” or “puts his body under” daily lest he fall into condemnation himself and be disqualified both as a preacher and a Christian. Yes, it IS a daily process. Yes, we are “conformed into His image” day by day. Where is the Greek that says otherwise? Pardon me, I only have a lousy Bachelor’s degree in History and a lot of independent Bible study. 3. “Thus there are passages that prove that there were believers who were at the time unsanctified.” —-That doesn’t even make LOGICAL sense. Why? Because when a person comes to Christ they are loosed from their sins, washed in His blood (Acts 20:28; Rev. 1:5) and are made holy (Rom. 8:29,30). Notice, that the just-cited passaged mentions the Roman believers being “justified”. In that same tenor, however, they are also “sanctified, as were the Corinthians (even though they had all the problems we read about in the 1st letter. I Cor. 6:11). Had the believers NOT been sanctified, they would NOT have been able to come into the presence of God (that is, through the torn veil into the Holy of Holies by the merits of Christ). Those who are called “saints” (in the present) are, indeed, sanctified. There is no such thing as “unsanctified saints”. As well, when we talk about “sanctification” or any of its’ form derivatives (adjective, verb etc.) we must also look up two things: a. What is the word usage in the Greek? b. What is the word used mean in the CONTEXT of the larger passage? Or, in other words, HOW is the word used. As the late Dr. Walter Martin once quipped, “The cults usually take the text out of context in order to make a pretext.” Sadly, some Christian theologians do shoddy, sloppy theology and do the same thing. As proof of what I’m talking about, I offer you John 10:36. In context, is this verse saying that at one time Jesus WASN’T sanctified? Hmmm? In John 17:19 Jesus says He sanctifies Himself. Now, how are we to take that? That Jesus, once unsanctified could do that Himself TO Himself? Clearly we must first understand what the meaning of “sanctified” usually is in the Bible. Genesis 2:3 has God “sanctifying” the 7th day of the week. Here, as in other places, to “sanctify” something simply means to SET IT APART UNTO GOD. Once we understand that meaning, all other quandaries should vanish like the morning dew. |
| Link Hudson |
Walter Polasik That reminds me of a point I wanted to make earlier, that someone could be walking right with the Lord and still sanctify himself. The Israelites were to sanctify themselves. But the way to do it in the passage wasn’t to put away their idols, etc. It was to abstain from sexual relations (not sinful in marriage) and to wash their clothes. It wasn’t a sin to wear dirty clothes. They were walking around in the desert. But these were things they were to do to sanctify themselves, set themselves apart, for an encounter with God.We have often discussed ‘sanctification’ in the sense of being cleaned up from sin, living holy– in the sense of not sinning, living a more spiritual life, etc. But it isn’t always used exactly that way in the Bible. The idea of ‘progressive sanctification’ if you mean by that that you don’t fully surrender your life to God and get cleaned up, experientally and practically, from sin, until some point before you die is a problematic view. But who really holds to it? There are thousands and thousands of words and topics in the Bible. I suspect that a lot of Pentecostals not from the Holiness movement background, and some who are, do not dig deeply into the various arguments about types of sanctification, and just try to read the word for what it means in the Bible. It would be interesting to ask A/G preachers who said they believed in progressive sanctification if they believed that it was normative or acceptable to harbor sin or not be completely surrendered to God early in your Christian walk. I think most would say, ‘no.’And if you don’t think of ‘sanctification’ as meaning, ‘abstaining from sin’, etc., then ‘progressive sanctification’ doesn’t sound like such an evil thing.Sanctification in the sense of abstaining from sin and living holy, as we often use it, is an ongoing thing. Paul wrote that he died daily. We are also sanctified when we become new creatures in Christ Jesus, and are called saints. |
| Joe Absher |
Brother Link I would suggest letting go of your crisis sanctification as an objection. Now if you mean a deep unshakable knowledge that you have offended your only help and Saviour in heaven and your character is in direct opposition to God then yes crisis is appropriate. But some undefined crisis no. |
| Gabroo Shah |
I feel OSAS is big reason for lust n racial ways in church. It gives them easy way out while they enjoy Sinful path. Living in Christ or Works wont save in OSAS theory. |
| Link Hudson |
What’s a ‘racial way’? |
| Gabroo Shah |
as if you dont know haha |
| Link Hudson |
Is a black choir singing like a black choir a ‘racial way’? What if French preacher preaches with a French accent?Unless you mean ‘racist’? Why pair that up with the word lust? |
| Gabroo Shah |
interesting, what I think after reading your comment is that I dont have to explain this further as haha. You know what it means |
| Link Hudson |
Gabroo Shah, I’m still not completely sure what you mean. I think you mean racist, but maybe you mean something like cultural imperialism in church culture. Still I’m not sure. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Never mind. Teaching one wouldnt make much difference to world |
| Dan Irving |
We are sanctified by CHRIST (Heb. 2:11), and yet, we sanctify OURSELVES (II Tim. 2:21) . How is THAT? What has happened, is that Christ has provided the MEANS of our sanctification through His a atoning sacrifice. (Heb. 10:10) This is the place wherein which we ABIDE and continually RESORT as the SOURCE of which we WERE sanctified, are BECOMING sanctified, and shall ever REMAIN sanctified. While God may reveal Himself (through Christ) in a sudden and powerful (sanctifying) work upon the soul, this is not a magical moment aloof from this principle of ABIDING, RESORTING, and REMAINING in the place of the Cross. Therefore, this principle “progressive sanctification” is something of a misnomer, as we are already “sanctified,” what we require is maturation and perfecting into His Holy IMAGE. |
| Dan Irving |
But this is only true if we in fact, HAVE been sanctified experientially. ie. “sanctification” is a real experience; a point many/most believers seem to miss. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Yea we became mini Jesus n saved forever like angels! Yay! He didnt even had to die, He didnt set an example of life there to follow, He just was a sacrifice after all. |
| Dan Irving |
Gabroo Shah I’m sorry. I don’t follow your thinking. |
| Gabroo Shah |
But arent we saved without working for it? |
| Gabroo Shah |
Isnt Jesus’s crucifixion meaningless if we were elected before the beginning of time? |
| Dan Irving |
No. (I Peter 1:2) |
| Gabroo Shah |
1 Peter 1:2New International Version (NIV)2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:Grace and peace be yours in abundance.Obedience is not a work?? |
| Gabroo Shah |
I wonder why use the term sanctification than living in Christ… |
| Gabroo Shah |
So we are saved through obédience which is living in Christ or not living in Christ?What that basically means is that He is fully aware of our tendencies as humans but He allowed us opportunity to live in Christ n be obedient to be saved.It will be hilarious if Jesus allowed disobedient to be saved coz that would make Christianity breeders of lukewarms in world, considering almost all other faiths call for obedience to their deities…n church ppl seek easy way out. Of course there is lack of shame. A lil shame helps a person to understand verse better too |
| Marc Jackson |
Topic worth paying attention to |
| Dwayne Mull |
I have come to know experientially that sanctification can be both a finished work and a progressive work. Some people who had bondage in their life were instantly delivered of it when they got saved. Others still have to work on their smoking habits after they come into the things of God. I quote Eph. 5:26 (AMP): “so that He might sanctify the church, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word [of God]……” If we look at this scripture from one angle, if the church at large is sancfied wholly in one big swoop, then we would not be here on earth. We would be in Heaven. Christ saves our spirit by recreating our spirit for Him to dwell in. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Again, I repeat that our spirits are recreated in Christ, and old things are passed away, and behold, all things are become new. But our souls have need to be saved by a continuum (a continuous journey.) Becoming new depends on how much the believer believes on this principle. God Who is the One mightier than a sword, speaks of Himself in Heb. 4:12 KJV: “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” This denotes to me that God may continually pierce our hearts to the dividing asunder and discern accurately our thoughts and intentions of our soulish realm of our hearts. Would He do this only one time for a one-time act of sanctification? Certainly not! Why do you think He gives us this life to live on earth, and gives us time to repent of things and strives with man? He has been patient with me, and He can be patient with everyone else……lest they, who have tasted of the Heavenly gift, fall away and cannot be renewed to repentance. |
| Melvin Harter |
There can only be one; either a second definite work of grace that occurs sometime after salvation or else a Progressive Sanctification that culminates at death. The two cannot be mixed. |
| Dwayne Mull |
Then Progressive Sanctification that culminates at death is the view that I would support. |
| Melvin Harter |
Dwayne Mull but that is the Baptist teaching and not the holiness. And besides that, there is no scriptural support for such, rather the Bible is the opposite. |
| Link Hudson |
No. There is also the idea that we have grace to follow God from the time we are saved onward with grace to not sin. This is as opposed to people thinking they don’t have power to overcome sin because they haven’t experienced a ZAP yet. That kind of idea can give people an excuse to sin. More likely it can hinder their faith to believe they can overcome. Instead of thinking they can’t experience victory unless they experience an extra zap that isn’t taught any where in the Bible.We are to mortify the deeds of the body now. We’ve got grace to do it. It says mortify. It doesn’t say to tarry for the zap first. Paul said reckon yourselves dead indeed unto sin but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. He ties it to being baptized into Christ and being with Him in the likeness of His death not a post_baptismal, post-salvation…after you tarry a long time…..ZAP.But someone walking rightly can sanctify himself too. Ege spending a time of fasting. Before hearing God Israel, on one occasion, was to sanctify themselves and abstain from sexual relations and wash thei clothes. |
| Dwayne Mull |
Melvin Harter Baptists believe in unconditional eternal security also, which is a faulty doctrine, BTW.Allow me to share my testimony. I was addicted to sexual addiction and pornography for 25 1/2 years. As of today, I have been in repentance from that activity for over 2 1/2 months. My sanctification was not instantaneous. I didn’t go to an old fashioned altar and find my freedom in one big swoop. By the way, neither did Jimmy Swaggart. Swaggart was addicted for a longer period of time to hookers than I was to porn…..though he has come out with the message of the cross, a concept he says that brought him to a point of freedom for him in the latter 1990s. But looking back in time, do you think for one minute that Swaggart thought it would take him a journey of healing and sanctification to get free of his vice? No! He thought all he had to do was give his sin to the Lord – confess it, obtain forgiveness, and then ‘walk in freedom’. It doesn’t always work that way. Do you know why? Because people like me and Swaggart were very broken hearted. Swaggart thought all he had to do was make one confession, and then get some deliverance from a demon of lust with Oral Roberts praying with him over the telephone, and voila! Free as a lark! Or so he thought. He told Geraldo Rivera in 1988 he was restored. Maybe Swaggart thought that sanctification was a second one-time work of grace. The fact is, Bro. Harter, that not all of us are of the same composite of our makeup of personality. But God gave us all hope when He said in Isaiah 61:1 and Luke 4:18: “He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives, and release from darkness for the prisoners……” The sins of our hearts can be purged, and that self-same body of sin as described in Col. 2 can be circumcised, or cut off. But the insecurities of our hearts may remain, unless we come to terms with the revelation that our Messiah is the Wonderful Counselor as mentioned in Isaiah 9:6. Now Christ is spoken of as Counselor, but you can still use the word Wonderful as an adjective to describe what kind of Counselor He is. Would this scripture debunk the theory held by a lot of old time Pentecostals that psychology is of the devil? Jimmy Swaggart believed that, and it was to his chagrin. I say this at the risk that you and others in this forum will disagree with me. But I bring out the point that if God binds our broken hearts, and we find healing in our soul, not only will our sin be gone, but we will never sin in that wise ever again. I am drawn to do my own study of Colossians 2:10-15 about the matter, and will post those scriptures I have been studying here:”And you are complete in him, who is the head of all principality and power: In whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, in which also you are risen with him through the faith of the working of God, who has raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, has he made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.”The bottom line for me is, is that it is not God’s will to merely just cleanse us from sin, but also to make us complete in Him. Completion to me means having all things present, like a body having arms and legs, a head, feet, fingers, etc. Does that mean that we will sin again? I was made complete in Him in the area of a pornography addiction. Therefore, I have this knowledge that I will not sin again. Jesus made the woman caught in the act of adultery complete in Him through His love and forgiveness and said to that same woman: “Go, and sin no more.” She was free from the adultery. Does that mean that she might say something dumb later in life? Yes, but she would no longer be involved in adultery, and no Pharisee living at that time could cast any more condemnation on her. Selah. |
| Dan Irving |
Melvin Harter It sounds like you’re teaching the eradication of the sin nature. |
| Melvin Harter |
Yes, but the Adamic nature can enter back |
| Dan Irving |
Eradication was a doctrine common among Second-Work Methodists in the 19th Century, and today, it is becoming common in the modern New Apostolic Reformation, which teaches that we do not have to crucify our sin-nature because it was already defeated at (for many 19th Century Methodists) upon our “Second Work” event, and (for modern New Apostolics) upon our conversion. In the 19th Century, Keswick Holiness figures came against this doctrine as dangerous and tending to place believers into a condition of presumption regarding indwelling sin and the need to continually resist, put down, slay, deny, and crucify it through the indwelling Spirit of Christ. I believe the doctrine of Eradication is a heresy, based upon 1) Scripture, and 2) my own personal experience with the Holy Spirit. |
| Melvin Harter |
Dan Irving but it appears that you believe that God permits sin to enter heaven. |
| Dan Irving |
Sin began in heaven, and it shall be cast out of heaven. The danger of believing one “has no sin” is the divine Oracle that renders the first to cast stones. (I speak generally, and certainly not of anyone in this discussion.) |
| Melvin Harter |
Dan, sin was already cast out of heaven, not “SHALL BE.” (Luke 10:18, “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” Sin will never be permitted to enter those pearly white gates. |
| Dan Irving |
Your proposition related to God never permitting sin to enter heaven. I replied that is where sin began. If you will not concede sin’s origin, it seems premature to discuss it’s end. But most critical, is that you did not reply to my suggestion you are maintaining you have no sin. I hope THAT is not the case. |
| Dwayne Mull |
Let me post this thought and question within this post – There is righteousness, and there is holiness. A prophet minister once said that righteousness is being in right standing with God, and that holiness is defined as being set apart unto God. These two words sound similar, but yet seem to also be, in a way, antonyms. Any thoughts? |
| Joe Absher |
Church words are a bear. But I don’t know how you could be right with God and not be holy. You know under the blood of Jesus… |
| Dwayne Mull |
My past sins are not under the blood of Jesus. They are wiped away under the New and Living Way of the New Covenant we live in. |
| Joe Absher |
Are they gone? Down to the root or just the fruit |
| Dwayne Mull |
Progressively! 🙂 Down to the root, and now my life bearing fruit. And if I act like a whack job, then you can call me a fruit cake. |
| Joe Absher |
I luv ya brother. You’re not a fruit cake. I’m so happy right now. I was just praying, a little. Some quiet time and some verses you know and a couple of thank you Jesus. Just like that assurance and joy. Then I said I’m going take some time to pray for church tomorrow. And boom I think I got my breakthrough!!! |
| Dwayne Mull |
(Thumbs up) |
| Marc Jackson |
Good point Melvin Harter |
| Terry Wiles |
Melvin HarperThere you go making charges. Please give a full explanation of your full belief about sanctification. |
| Dan Irving |
Who is that addressed to? |
| Melvin Harter |
Did you know that when Progressive Sanctification was started, it was exactly like Progressive Salvation. You start out and must progress daily until you died. Only then would a person be saved. Glorification offered salvation. No one had any assurance of salvation before death. Sounds just like Progressive Sanctification. |
| Link Hudson |
Melvin Harter a difference is that Paul writes about becoming a new creature in Christ Jesus when we talk about salvation. But there isn’t any scripture that teaches that all believers have a one-time distinct crisis sanctification experience after salvation. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Example of crisis intervention? You mean pentecostals taught you a person can be saved n then undergo sanctification? Define sanctification as different from being saved? |
| Link Hudson |
Gabroo Shah Yes, exactly. That was the Azusa Street teaching at first, under Seymour. Pentecostals in the denominations historically rooted in the Southeastern US historically believed in that: Church of God, Pentecostal Holiness for example. Also smaller denominations like Congregational holinesss. My impression is that many do not believe this way anymore.Prior to the Pentecostal movement many in the Holiness movement believed in getting saved, and then some time later getting sanctified (e.g. going up to an altar, praying and experiencing ‘entire sanctification’ as a one time experience.) This evolved out the teaching of John Wesley, who wrote a book suggesting that a sanctification experience could happen at a moment (as a possibility or one way of looking at it.) Another preacher Durham went to Los Angeles after the revival had died down some. He got locked out at the Azusa Street mission and planted a church in LA. A lot of the Pentecostals couldn’t find the one-time sanctification experience in the Bible and hadn’t been taught it, so Durham’s ‘finished work’ doctrine found an audience. The A/G did not believe in the one-time sanctification experience after salvation. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Idk never heard of such theology |
| Marc Jackson |
Stan Wayne Terry Wiles- In sanctification subsequent to the new birth, through faith in the blood of Christ; through the Word, and by the Holy Ghost.- Holiness to be God’s standard of living for His people.- In the baptism with the Holy Ghost subsequent to a clean heart.http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/what-virtually-all…/ I QUITE STRONGLY DOUBT Link Hudson knows what was Azusa Street teaching at first, under Seymour {strongly} |
| Stan Wayne |
Yes Azusa taught 3 step Christian initiation but the second step held to by Holiness doctrine became confusing – was step 2 the B/HS or not – no not – then what is step 2? Not the B/HS so it must be something else but there was no precedent in NT for 3 steps. Then Durham came had conflict with Seymour but won the argument that there are still only 2 crisis steps. The 3rd step of sanctification is a gradual ongoing step after initiation. |
| Marc Jackson |
Durham messed things up for AG forever |
| Angel Ruiz |
Santificstion is the second work of grace, it is a transforming interaction with God which may occur in any moment in the life of a Christian. The defining characteristics of this event are that it is separate from and subsequent to salvation (the first work of grace), and that it brings about significant changes in the life of the believer. |
| Marc Jackson |
ANY moment BUT prior to the HS baptism, right? |
| Stan Wayne |
Angel Ruiz you need to give an example in Acts of 3 step initiation. Acts 2,8,9,10,19 are all less than 3 steps. |
| Angel Ruiz |
The Holiness movement, has always taught that there were two distinct phases in the Christian experience. During the first phase, conversion, the believer received forgiveness and became a Christian. During the second phase, sanctification, the believer was purified and made holy.Sanctification is an instantaneous experience just as Justification, but living out holiness is a gradual process. |
| Marc Jackson |
Done it SO many times for you Stan Wayne Acts 2 – Jon 17Acts 10 – Cornelius a pious man |
| Angel Ruiz |
People must first “receive forgiveness of sins†before they can obtain the “inheritance among them which are sanctified†(Acts 26:18). It was to the brethren at Thessalonica, to those who were “in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ†(I Thess. 1:1), that Paul wrote when he said, “The very God of peace sanctify you wholly†(5:23).From these scriptural statements it will be seen that sanctification is A Second Work of Grace…. |
| Stan Wayne |
Angel Ruiz you need to explain then what is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. We are aware that the Holiness Wesleyans conceptualized the B/HS as sanctification. Then the Pentecostal movement realized from Acts 1:8 that the BHS is not primarily about Holiness but Power to witness- external action rather than internal action.So Now what to you is the B/HS? |
| Angel Ruiz |
the Gospel of John 20:22 shows that the disciples of Jesus were already Justified, regenerated and born again before the Holy Spirit fell at Pentecost. |
| Stan Wayne |
Angel Ruiz I agree |
| Stan Wayne |
So then came Acts 1:8 explaining the second step and Acts 2:4 the fruition.Is that the Baptism in the HS ? Is that sanctification? Is it both or one or the other. That is the question that was faced by our forefathers. |
| Terry Wiles |
I agree with the COG statement as written. However, this group seems to want to take it far beyond what the written statement says. |
| Stan Wayne |
Just please as a COG friendly person explain to this AG friendly person what Acts 1:8 and Acts 2:4 represents – B/HS or Sanctification or both. |
| Angel Ruiz |
the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is the 3rd act of grace |
| Stan Wayne |
Angel Ruiz I need an example of it in Acts |
| Stan Wayne |
So all the incidents in Acts 2-19 were B/HS so where is 2nd act of grace in Acts |
| Angel Ruiz |
The Scriptures do not teach that Sanctification is the improvement of the unregenerate nature, nor that it is the eradication of that nature thereby rendering it impossible for a child of God to commit sin. |
| Angel Ruiz |
We know that our Lord Jesus Christ was sinless and therefore free from all moral impurity, and yet He prayed, “And for their sakes, I sanctify myself…†(John 17:19). In this statement He was simply testifying that He had set apart Himself to fulfill the holy purpose for which He came into the world. |
| Angel Ruiz |
Sanctification means that God the Holy Spirit sets apart every saved person. It is the first step before the experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The preparatory work has been going on for some time according to Divine plan, but now that work becomes effective in the life of the individual person. He is now actually set apart as God’s possession and for God’s purpose. |
| Angel Ruiz |
Who then are the sanctified? All who have received Jesus Christ have been “sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ†(Jude 1). |
| Angel Ruiz |
First Corinthian Epistle contains some passages on this theme. “And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God†(I Corinthians 6:11). Notice that justification and sanctification are express as euqeals; they are said to have been Sanctified and Justified. We can see that the Holy Spirit prepares the heart of the individual, making him ready to receive what comes comes next…. |
| Stan Wayne |
Angel Ruiz yes – this means salvation is both positional sanctification and the beginning of real sanctification – the second crisis is B/HS – that is it |
| Link Hudson |
I know Seymour taught saved, sanctified and filled with the Holy Ghost. |
| Stan Wayne |
Yes no one disputes that – but prior to Parham and Ozman he taught Saved Sanctified / Now the question is where is the THIRD step in Acts or the Second of Three steps? Where !I cannot see it and I have Acts almost memorized. |
| Marc Jackson |
This is not the same as discussed here Link Hudson Please give a source to your claim |
| Link Hudson |
Azusa Street newsletters.Troy Day |
| Marc Jackson |
newsletters? |
| Link Hudson |
Yes, ‘The Apostolic Faith’– Seymour’s own words |
| Marc Jackson |
Link Hudson So you admit first Pentecostals believed in entire sanctification as prerequisite to HS baptism. Thank you very much – I rest my case Melvin Harter |
| Gabroo Shah |
No doubt. HS baptism is not possible without a clean heart n if you wanna call that sanctification. The word sanctification I guess can be different to different ppl. Sanctification means purification n God can totally bless a person spiritually only after the person repents n his heart is clean.But again. Dont ppl who speak in tongues or pretend to, dont they have evil desires..yes most do.Which proves tongues is very basic n not necessity to enter heaven. 1 corinth 12-28There are different levels of belonging to God. However if a person speaks in tongues n still shows lust, he or she is definitely faking it.I haven’t seen an advanced pentecostal lusting or doing evil things.Baptism of 🔥 Fire has to do with real speaking in tongues n identification is a changed heart n not tongues as tongues cannot really be proved |
| Link Hudson |
Gabroo Shah Judas had power to do miracles, and Balaam and Caiaphas prophesied. We probably wouldn’t consider any of these men to be sanctified. But we definitely would not consider them models of behavior. |
| Link Hudson |
Troy Day If you think Seymour was the first Pentecostal, you can make that argument. The COG denomination or precursor to the denomination apparently got the three-step idea after Cashwell went to Azusa Street. But if you are talking about Pentecost in Acts 2, that’s another. I don’t care if my beliefs are not all the same as William Seymour, who I can count as a brother. I do care that they line up with what Jesus and the apostles taught in the Bible. |
| Link Hudson |
Troy Day, is it possible that you do not make any attempt to defend your stance on this issue from the Bible, other than to quote verses that do not support it, because you can’t? The Bible tells us to be sanctified. It does not say that sanctification is a once-in-a-lifetime crisis experience that happens after we get saved. When did Cornelius get sanctified. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Their sins were cleaned but they fell away from God. Doesn’t mean a prophet is perfect but he or she can choose God or sin eventually.Again we see ppl who wish to enjoy world n then when old, they enter all kinds of church rituals…they would be assessed by God |
| Stan Wayne |
Gabroo Shah I am waiting for the Acts citation and the concept that hearts are not clean enough for filling at repentance and salvation |
| Gabroo Shah |
Stan Wayne re-phrase your statement. filling with what? say that again |
| Gabroo Shah |
Stan Wayne I feel Bible shouldnt be taken literally, when it says that our bodies are temple of God, a lot of ppl wish to take it as an awesome chance to say Jesus lives in them but basically we dont become mini-small Jesus, instead what it means is that we belong to Him strongly n more than before. If someone wishes to say that God dwells in him n not have clean heart, its an obvious contradiction (not to baptiso-reformed ppl). How can evil n God dwell in the same place? We know that satan influenced Judas n he betrayed Jesus right, again if satan was influencing Judas, he cannot belong to Jesus at that moment. Peter was affected by fear n he denied Jesus thrice n at that moment his heart was not clean. In order to perform any advanced spiritual gift, clean heart is a must (not the only criteria tho). Repentance is somehow related to cleansing of heart. Salvation has nothing to do with one time repentance but it has to do with a person’s lifetime walk with God, which is why it says ‘one’s deeds’ would be tested in fire n that repentance can save but a person needs to prove himself/herself worthy of salvation. Salvation is last step basically n not the first. There is possibility that some ppl have truly mastered their lives n live in Christ after repenting, its still rare. (those who wish to be called christian n worthy of heaven n still dont want to live in Christ n become convenient christian, their mindset would automatically seek to prove that salvation is the first step) |
| Stan Wayne |
Please just give one Acts citation of 3 step Christian initiation |
| Gabroo Shah |
Stan Wayne i told you whole story. Unbelievers ask church ppl same question. If church ppl can find one statement by Jesus where he claimed to be God. You are asking me similar question. |
| Gabroo Shah |
Why book of acts anyways? |
| Stan Wayne |
Not similar at all besides – Holy Spirit says Jesus is God thru John at John 1:1,14 |
| Gabroo Shah |
We know that but unbelievers don’t interpret it that way. n your question is on somewhat similar line. |
| Stan Wayne |
Gabroo Shah because the book of acts cleaarly describes salvation and Baptism in HS |
| Gabroo Shah |
I guess salvation n gifts are better explained in Corinthians Salvation is well discussed in Romans too |
| Gabroo Shah |
1 Corinthians 12: 28’30 for gifts |
| Gabroo Shah |
Either way its an obvious thing that if a girl or guy seeks salvation without living in Christ, that person is basically licensed by church to be racist rapist evil n all kinds of evil…certainly churches promote division in Christianity through OSAS kind of theology |
| Link Hudson |
Gabroo Shah Do you know of any churches that endorse rape? I’ve heard of churches (nowadays) that had some racism in them, but that doesn’t seem common among American evangelicals, not promoting racism from the pulpit. |
| Marc Jackson |
BTW Link Hudson you may wanna check what exactly Seymour taught about being sanctified You will be greatly surprised. I have found only one book series that explain that Very few have understanding on the subject |
| Link Hudson |
Troy Day Maybe someday. I have a lot of other things to read, and what Seymour believed on that topic does not have much bearing on what I do in life. |
| Link Hudson |
Troy Day If my belief system were defined by tradition and not the teaching of the Bible, and I were asked to defend a belief of mine from scripture, I might dodge the issue like you do. |
| Marc Jackson |
Link Hudson until that day someday you should probably refrain from speaking about what Seymour taught or you can just keep on talking BTW The COG denomination or precursor to the denomination claim Holy Spirit baptism as early as 1896 and taught sanctification much much earlier. Cashwell came around them about 15-20 years later Check your sources again please |
| Link Hudson |
Troy Day I posted within the knowledge of what I read on Seymour and did not go into any more detail than that.I read that about Cashwell from an online post, a secondary source, so you could be right about COG and Cashwell. And it may have been the position on initial evidence and my memory could be failing me a bit.It isn’t that relevant to the issue of what the Bible teaches on the subject. History is interesting and can inform how we minister to people. |
| Marc Jackson |
Exactly my point – your knowledge about Pentecostalism comes from secondary sources, namely Bapticostals BTW you brought COg into the discussion SO it falls to you to prove how is it relevant I cant keep and guessing what you believe, practice or know. You have to tell us and from what you are telling us right now… |
| Link Hudson |
Troy Day I have written a few pages on what I believe about sanctification on the Pentecostal Theology group (which is also a forum and discussion board) over the past week or so. You constantly ignore questions and decline to give any detail about what you believe about the relevant points of discussion. Your resort to labeling (Bapticostal) and unsubstantiated accusations (e.g. false tongues.)If you don’t have anything to say, don’t say anything at all. |
| Link Hudson |
Btw, one of my sources was a COG discussion. Another source was Seymour’s words in his Apostolic Faith newsletter. I’ve also spent years and years in Pentecostal churches since the 1970’s. |
| Link Hudson |
I brought up COG because many in the COG denomination do not see Azusa Street as the historical root of Pentecostalism. |
| Marc Jackson |
Link Hudson You said:The COG denomination or precursor to the denomination apparently got the three-step idea after Cashwell went to Azusa Street. This is simply NOT true! The COG denomination or precursor to the denomination claim Holy Spirit baptism as early as 1896 and taught sanctification much much earlier. Cashwell came around them about 15-20 years later |
RichardAnna Boyce
Entire sanctification is an important doctrine in Wesleyan theology. It offers the hope that Christians are able to live without sin during their lives on Earth. But this claim doesn’t account for numerous New Testament texts which describe a struggle between the flesh and the spirit. In Galatians 5:17, Paul describes struggling against the sinful tendencies of our flesh as if it were a normative part of the Christian experience. In Romans 7:18 Paul says, “the wishing (of doing good) is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.” How does the doctrine of entire sanctification explain how statements like these can come from a mature Christian?
RichardAnna Boyce
Wesley’s doctrine of entire sanctification leans heavily on his vague definition of sin. He believed that a Christian who has experienced entire sanctification enjoys freedom from deliberate sins. Slip-ups in behavior can still occur, but these result from living in a fallen world. Wesley called these lapses “mistakes.” He said, “because we are imperfect persons in an imperfect world, perfection ‘in love’ is consistent with a ‘thousand mistakes.’ But limited as we are by our own and the world’s imperfections, we may still enjoy a relationship in which, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we can fulfill the great and final commandment of loving God with our whole heart…”
By creating the categories of willful sin and “mistakes,” Wesley erodes a broader definition of sin found in Romans 14:23: “whatever is not from faith is sin.” The Bible portrays sin as any action, deed, or thought that falls short of God’s perfect character (Rom. 3:23). This is clear from Jesus’ repeated contrasts, “you have heard… but I say to you,” in the Sermon on the Mount. By equating murder with anger and lust with adultery, Jesus is trying to expose the superficial, shallow view of sin held by his audience. Wesley’s attempt to separate “sins” from “mistakes” misses the all-inclusive spirit of these and other New Testament passages.
Varnel Watson
You are wrong about Wesley RichardAnna Boyce I will respond more in a bit after cleaning some trolling here