COG Doctrine of Sanctification and the Aorist
For Melvin Harter or any others who want to comment. I wrote this in another thread, but wanted to start a thread on it.
Melvin Harter, is there any use of the aorist regarding sanctification that you believe shows that sanctification was a completed action in the past BETWEEN an individual’s conversion and the time the statement was written? I showed an aorist that points back to the believer’s sanctification at the time Jesus was sacrificed.
anything that was accomplished by Christ on the cross (all our benefits from that) and applied to us as individuals was predestined by God.
I do not believe that sanctification is included in that. Calling, justification and glorification are included but not sanctification.
Therefore sanctification is subsequent to regeneration.
That’s why we have the declaration of faith, it helps navigate these issues.
not changed and watered down totally ignored!
Well maybe that is a better way to look at it.
The CoG Declaration of Faith was brought about in 1948 when there was a possibility of a split over the doctrine of SANCTIFICATION in the CoG denomination. Dake, formerly AoG, was brought into the CoG and was serving as an Instructor at the old CoG Bible Training School in Sevierville, TN and along with DC Barnes were teaching the AoG doctrine of progressive sanctification. It created such an uproar that the Declaration saved the CoG from splitting, something that many were trying to prevent, especially since there was a large split 20+ years earlier with the Tomlinson situation.
Jesus Christ is my sanctification 🙂
I believe in eternal justification
Link Hudson, are you even CoG, present or past?
Link Hudson I have already mentioned to you numerous times in the past on this blog as well as others my position with full biblical support. You have tried to get support from the Koine Greek, which is simply not there because you have absolutely no knowledge of the Greek text. I am not trying to be mean or unkind, but you continue to bring this matter up. You stated you have “showed an aorist that points back to the believer’s sanctification” and then give reference from the OT whose original text is written in Hebrew and Aramaic. None of the original OT text was ever written in Koine Greek. As I have stated in the past, go to school and learn these biblical languages and you will discover all the answers to your proposed questions. I really do not care to address these issues with you any longer because you lack the formal theological knowledge that is obtained through a qualified educational institution. You are not of the CoG doctrinal statement of belief so I fail to understand why you propose a modest Calvinist viewpoint in a Church of God (Cleveland, TN) forum?
Melvin Harter, That looks like a major cop out. It seems likely to me that you don’t know enough about what you are talking about to present a clear argument for it, so you make an appeal to authority. The LXX is in Greek. It may not be Koine, but it still is Greek, and the LXX gets quoted plenty of times in the NT. Some would argue it influenced NT Greek. As an educator, I don’t care for the use of an appeal to one’s own authority as an expert, which can be considered a logical fallacy, to shut down opposition to an idea– without dealing with the meat of the argument.
Based on your own knowledge of Greek, would you argue that the meaning of the aorist in its usage in reference to sanctification changed so dramatically between the LXX and Koine Greek? Besides, I referred to the LXX ONCE. Most of my points have been that, aorist or not, the context of the passage doesn’t support your position. It’s a matter of logic and context rather than Greek grammar.
If you think the arguments about the Greek are too in depth for me, you could still share them for those on the forum who understand them. If you are good at explaining them, the less informed may be able to follow your argument as well.
Just saying, “The aorist proves my point” doesn’t cut it. If you argue that sanctification is a completed action in the past, you need to prove it occurs after conversion. Then there are issues like the Corinthian readers already having been sanctified, but Paul warns them against sleeping with prostitutes. If some of the sanctification theories are true, why the warning to sanctified people? And why would Paul correct them for all those sins if sanctification has to do with not having a compulsion to sin.
Link Hudson, do you even remotely think that when Paul addressed the problems of the CoG at Corinth that he was speaking to every single person? I think not. The majority of them remained as Saints; however, there were certain ones who were not saints and needed to be dealt with. Those are the ones Paul was speaking to.