Yes, some people look at it that way. And some of those people conclude that sanctification is the result of salvation. I guess that would fall under William's "Evangelical" list.

Others conclude that sanctification is a part of justification, or vice versa. IOW, justification cannot really be distinguished from sanctification.

Others see a distinction between justification and sanctification, but no separation.

But if we're going to stick with the definitions most people have in mind, I'll stick by me previous comments. If we're going to throw in exotic definitions, such as some of the stuff Waggoner wrote somewhat melding the two concepts together, then all bets are off.

Some would add "in our own strength" or "by ourselves" to that, implying, if not teaching outright, that works of righteousness done in Christ's power are salvific in some way.

I would just take it as is. Works of righteousness which we have done, period, are not salvific. What is salvific is "His mercy."

Something just hit me right now. Who is it that needs mercy? The one who doesn't quite measure up to the standard.

It seems Jesus Christ was one of these. When Jesus said of the publican who asked for mercy that "this man went to his house justified," couldn't he have just as well said, "this man went to his house saved"?



What you are referring to as "exotic definitions," Ellen White referred to as the first clear public teaching she had heard on the subject:

Here's what she wrote: "I don't think it's ludicrous to believe that such an experience is possible right now. . . I believe it's possible in this lifetime to reach the point where the Christian's thoughts, words, and deeds are in perfect harmony with God's will. . . However, until the Christian is mature enough to reach this point, Jesus makes up for his unavoidable sins and it is in this sense that God considers him sinless and safe to save. I must assume you disagree with this."

She says it's possible now but then goes on to say it is reached at some point in the future. Before that point is reached they sin unavoidably. If it is possible "here and now", as you put it, why doesn't she think it happens until sometime in the future?


By "err" do you mean I sinned in assuming you meant something you didn't? Just curious since the word "err" came up in one of the SOP quotes. By "claiming the promises of God" I mean experiencing them. That is, they are a reality in our life while we are abiding in Jesus. Do you think it is "dangerous" to claim the promises of God here and now, to believe they describe your experience while you're abiding in Jesus?


Yes, I believe with all of my heart and soul that 1 John 3:6-9 describes my experience while I am abiding in Jesus. Of course it doesn't describe my experience while I am *not* abiding in Jesus.

Jesus said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." In the passage above John describes what it means to be born again. "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

For you to say you have not reached this point is to say you have not experienced rebirth. If you have not been born again then you cannot see or enter the kingdom of God. I am not saying you are unsaved, teresaq. I am simply pointing out the logical conclusion of the view you hold. Do you think it is possible that the promises of God mean exactly what they say, that is, born again believers who are abiding in Jesus do not and cannot sin?


I’ve met people who think the verses you posted above make it clear born again believers will continue to sin until the day Jesus returns. What do you believe John is conveying? What do you think he means by the following expression?

1. “Have no sin” and “Have not sinned”
2. “Cleanse us from all unrighteousness”
3. “That ye sin not”
4. “If any man sin”

Here’s what I think he means:

1. To say I “have no sin” or I “have not sinned” is to say I have never sinned. People who believe such nonsense are deceived and do not understand the truth about it. They are in essence calling God a liar, who said, “All have sinned.”

2. The moment we confess our sins and experience rebirth, Jesus forgives us, justifies us, and cleanses us from “all sin” and unrighteousness.

3. John wrote out the truth and it is the truth that enables believers to “sin not”, to “go and sin no more”.

4. Sinning is not inevitable. John did *not* say “when you sin we have an advocate with the Father”. Instead, he very clearly said, “if we sin”, which means it is not inevitable.

Please see my comments above. John is not saying believers who are abiding in Jesus continue to sin or continue to have sin (in the sense of unknown sins). He is debunking the Gnostic idea that 1) we are spiritual beings and as such we have never sinned, that instead 2) it is our flesh that is guilty of sin.

Do you agree?

He could have, but He did not. That would make it seem that there's a difference, despite what some believe.


Is Waggoner's definition the common definition? I don't think so. If it was, things wouldn't be so muddy.

And it would seem that EGW herself contributed to the muddiness, since she made distinctions between justification and sanctification. You can find some of it in SC, published in 1892, 4 years after Waggoner's presentations.

I know you didn't really mean to imply that EGW could muddy anything (naught boy), but I believe I understood your salient intention.

If she made distinctions it's only because there are valid distinctions—the old title and fitness nuance—in order for MAN to better comprehend the conditions of salvation.

But does this negate the thief's salvific justification?

To answer Elle's earlier question, the thief surely would have sanctified in Christ had he lived. And thus the invitation to immortality.

William

Was EGW one of those people?

“God’s forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation. It [God’s forgiveness] is not only forgiveness for sin, but reclaiming from sin” (MB 114).

How should we responsibly interpret her intended meaning, considering that justification here appears to be not only be legal but transformative?

William

Mike,

Sinlessness is the condition of the 144,000. If we were today in the time of trouble, could your present condition be described as sinlessness?

Here's another:



Another: