Sanctification

KJV Dictionary SANCTIFICA'TION definition: The act of making holy, the act of consecrating or of setting apart for a sacred purpose.


(MY NOTE: In Ex 40:
9 and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels thereof: and it shall be holy.

10 anoint the altar of the burnt offering, and all his vessels, and sanctify the altar.

11 anoint the laver and his foot, and sanctify it.

Ok, All the vessels: altars, laver, the utensils used for offerings: tongs, pans, forks, basin etc. This oil anointing, made ALL the vessels Holy/setting then apart for a Godly work. These vessels never followed a law, never did a good deed. Yet, when the priest anointed them with oil, they were made HOLY/SET APART.

Likewise, when the Great High Priest/Jesus (Heb 4:14) anoints the believer, based on FAITH, with His FOREVER (Jn 14:16) indwelling, salvation SEALNG (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, 2 Tim 1:14), eternal life giving (Jn 10:28) Holy Spirit! They are saved/justified (declared righteous by a sovereign God) & sanctified/made holy/set apart for a Godly work.

Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship [His own master work, a work of art], created in Christ Jesus [reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, ready to be used] for good works, which God prepared [for us] beforehand [taking paths which He set], so that we would walk in them [living the good life which He prearranged and made ready for us].)

Bradskii said:

No, this will be a different 'programme'. This is a decision on whether the US remains a democratic republic or becomes a theocracy. It's a simple question: Do you want others to decide or do you want a say in the matter?

Click to expand...

I go along to get along. The stripes of my oppressor aren't all that interesting to me.

Bradskii said:

The bill of rights was mentioned earlier. Do you know how that came about? States voted on it. Do you know who proposed the rights? Men who were voted into their positions. Do you know how amendments to the constitutions are made? People vote yay or nay. Do you know why you have freedom of religion? It was passed by a vote.

Click to expand...

I seem to recall a couple of wars involved.

Bradskii said:

Now we're talking about changing the whole system into one that might take away your freedom of religion. Again, do you want to have a say in that?

Click to expand...

I don't think theocratic governance is the sole threat to my freedom of religion, especially when we've already got secularists who want government to wield the power to destroy against religious institutions and we have laws that appear to target specifically religious political activities.

Akita Suggagaki said:

The GIRM calls for it

Click to expand...

I would suggest reading the article you posted in your OP.

I know this is from a while ago but thank you to all of you for praying and supporting me in this. While there may be a few people that may look at everything through the lens of race and skin color, there are many that don't, and God sees me as a human being made in His Image, and not as a "race" or skin tone.

Also I shouldn't brag, but having multiple heritages is actually a cool thing to have, and I should embrace the identity God gave me and definitely not throw pity parties about envying people with blond hair and blue eyes or whatever. (Also I don't complain about my skin color when I don't get sunburns lol)

But the most important thing is that I am Christ's son and that I was made in the image of God. While the world might discriminate or do something contrary to God's Word, God loves me and protects me.

- ProsopoMillion

ThatRobGuy said:

I don't think most folks would say that one justifies the other...

I do, however, think that if a person sat quietly for one set of pardons (and didn't appear to be all that bothered by them), that would preclude them from feigning outrage and and getting all "hot & bothered" about another set of pardons.

So it's really the perceived hypocrisy that people are providing a rebuttal against.


Speaking personally, I have a love/hate relationship with pardons.

I understand why that power exists (as it's pretty much the only "check" on the judicial branch that comes from an external branch -- every other "check" on a judicial ruling comes from within the judicial branch itself)

But I would like to see that power refined just a bit... so that it exists less within the realm of "yeah, the did it, but meh, they're a close friend and family member, so I'm letting them off the hook" and bring it back more into the realm of "correct a mistake or overstep by the judicial branch".

Click to expand...

Absent the presidential pardon power, this check is available: As far as I understand, Congress can just pass in both houses and have signed by the President an act pardoning any specific individuals or groups of individuals. It's right there. Eliminating the presidential pardon would simply require the President to get two houses of Congress to agree to pardon someone in order for the President to sign it and make it effective. This would ensure that any pardons would be for clear problems that both Congress and the President agree with, and also make it so Congress has to take the first act.

It'd also stop those annoying pardons that are literally issued on the very last day of their presidency, because a President would need congress to pass it first before they sign it.

rambot said:

That doesn't matter whatsoever, does it?

Click to expand...

In a way, yes...

Because there are multiple channels by which "influence leveraging" can be carried out.

I know this to be the case because people were understandably suspicious when Don Jr. was using his dad's name to carve out some nice deals for himself.

One could argue that "letting it happen, because there may be a little something in it for me later" is corruption-by-proxy, wouldn't you agree?


As history would have it, Hunter Biden's entire adult life was holding outsized positions that were way out of his league and expertise. His Dad being a long time senator, then a VP, then a P, certainly isn't coincidental.

He got a high ranking position (Executive Vice President) within MBNA (a bank holding company in Delaware) while his Dad was a senator there... for those who remember, Joe used to be referred to as "The Senator from MBNA".

His Dad was taking him on Air Force 2 to close business deals in China.

Hunter ended up getting appointed to the Department of Commerce by his dad's buddy Bill Clinton. Joe had nothing to do with that?

And then of course there was the Burisma fiasco, where he was put on the board of an industry in which he had zero experience, in a country whose language he didn't speak.

His dad (and his dad's position) had nothing to do with that? People with severe substance abuse problems just "luck into" 8 figure board positions in overseas energy companies with zero experience in the sector all the time, right?

His dad was clearly "hooking up" him up?


There's only two options:
1) Joe was using his positions over the years to help his family make some money.
2) Hunter is the most over-achieving, luckiest cocaine addict in the history of the United States.

There's only 2 kinds of people who can make that kind of money while being mediocre and having a substance problem. Kids of "connected" people who pull some strings, and members of Fleetwood Mac.

Merchant Taylor

WordSword said:

Jer 31:31-33; 32:40 Eze 36:24-27. These are prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled. It will involve only Israelites. I don't expect others to accept this as truth, but it's what I presently believe.

Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding those passages. If there are any passages in the bible that refutes a concept you believe, you can't just disregard the passages. You have to accept Jesus, there is no way around it. The new covenant was already established with Jesus as the Jews who were saved by Jesus, accepted him. All of Israel will be eventually saved, that means all of Israel will accept Jesus but if you disregard him, then you will not be saved, even if you are Jewish.

Always in His Presence said:

Does that mean you can't back up your grand claim?

Click to expand...

No, it means that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re attempting to shoot more blindly partisan barbs, but are so uninformed about the subject that all you’ve succeeded in doing is make yourself look foolish.

Many of us have given you examples of goals that were realized. Why not take that as a jumping off point from which to educate yourself?

Guojing said:

Its most interesting that both of you stated you are "Baptist", and yet do not have the same view on whether salvation is by faith alone or require works to show faith.

Click to expand...

Hi Guojing. , it seem. that most of those here have NEVER heard off Eph 1.:4. ??

dan p

Pet Alien

Apple Sky said:

2 Timothy 3:12-14​

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it​

Click to expand...

Proverbs 3:5

I note that 2 Timothy 3:12-14 can't apply to you, because you don't know Dean Odle or Rob Skiba. You've never met any of the people you put forward as your teachers.

rjs330 said:

Dude, im for releasing the files and letting the chips fall where they may. I could care less about protecting anyone who was involved in pedophilia. If you are a pedophile you should be locked up forever as far as Im concerned.

You do know that just because you emailed Epstien doesn't mean you are guilty of pedophilia right? Or even if you ride on his plane or had dinner with him?

Click to expand...

No but also having victims (who are known to be a link between those two fellows) accuse you of such things doesn't exactly "wash him squeaky clean".

dms1972 said:

What is the difference between these two groups? I've been in churches, and had elders trying to instruct me, and they claim to be Evangelical, but I think they are closer to Fundamentalist.

Click to expand...

Hello! Part of it might be how they relate to secular society around them. Evangelicals might see themselves as in the world but not of it, trying to permeate many parts of society with a gospel witness. Fundamentals on the other hand might want to come out and be separate from the world, protect themselves form being polluted by the world and worldly things.

For example nightclubbing. An evangelical might go along if invited, but draw the line somewhere in regards to amounts of alcohol, the skimpiness of clothing and sex, while trying to do some good for their friends. A fundamentalist would perhaps say no to the whole experience.

God Bless

ChubbyCherub said:

Why do we have to give birth to redeem ourselves of Eves sin in addition to having to redeem ourselves in the way men do?

Click to expand...

Paul does not tell the women to have babies, if I remember right. He says that if they live in a holy and sober way, they will be saved while bearing children. What especially matters is not the baby upbringing, but how they stay right with God in holiness and sobriety. And do this while in their lifestyle calling of having and bringing up children.

ChubbyCherub said:

My husband has a similar view and suggests that Jesus doesn't expect us to understand the apostles who were Jewish, we are not, and although they preached to the Gentiles, they were of a different time.

Click to expand...

I think what Paul means is for all of us. He says for the lady to learn in silence. Well, leaders are to be "examples to the flock" > so, we too need to learn in silence, as an example > 1 Peter 5:3. Plus, Paul says not to usurp authority "over" her man. However, she does have authority, by having authority over his body, as we can see in 1 Corinthians 7:4.

Mark Quayle said:

—"What more is needed"? Context is needed. It is not talking about him desiring that absolutely all sapient sentients responsible to God be saved, nor even all humans.
—"What more is needed"? Reasoning use of language is needed. It is not double-minded for God to feel outrage at disbelief and to call it desire for the opposite (I say, supposing, for the sake of argument, that the verse was stand-alone, which it is not).

Click to expand...

"Reasoning use of language"? Sounds like you're trying to deny what is written in the Bible because it doesn't suit your doctrine.

Mark Quayle said:

Frankly I doubt very much that is what you mean by it, though what you do mean by it may be understood by you to be implicative of that conclusion. "Of their own accord" can mean something along the lines of independence from others of our kind, but it cannot be independent of God's causation.

Click to expand...

It is what I meant, because your "reasoning" is unable to connect with the efficient cause of your belief.

Mark Quayle said:

I don't think you would say that your reasons not to believe in determinism are unrelated to your belief in free will.

Click to expand...

Nope, but that's because there is a straight line between my exercise of said free will and my reasoning faculties.

Mark Quayle said:

Confirmation bias. That we must (and do, constantly,) choose does not imply free will.

Click to expand...

Oh? So that we must exercise free will doesn't imply free will? Sheer confusion.

Valletta said:

It's common sense that with less people and the same amount of doctors that doctors will have more time per patient and thus better healthcare.

Click to expand...

Then show us what sort of figures we're talking about. Don't treat us like morons, making claims and expecting us to accept them. Back them up. Who is getting health care that you think shouldn't? How much does that cost as a percentage of overall costs? How much will healthcare drop, if at all, for an individual?

I know you won't do any of this because all you have is a fact free claim. I'm only asking the questions to show that you cannot answer.

JimR-OCDS said:

My former parish has embraced the LGBTQ+ ideology. Conservatives and of course Trump
supporters, are convinced to leave. It doesn't matter if you don't support Trump, but as
long as they think you do, you're not welcomed.

Click to expand...

I find that surprising. Our parish is mostly GOP

According to AI - it is a close up photograph of the top side of an intel Xeon Platinum 848+ processor

The golden/bronze color and the distinctive pattern of circles and squares are the exposed copper layers of the processor’s integrated heat spreader (IHS) after the nickel plating and lid have been removed (a process called “delidding”).

What you’re seeing is the actual silicon dies (the four large rectangular chips arranged around the center) and the surrounding copper heat-spreading structure that sits directly under the lid on these server-grade CPUs. The circular features are thermal vias and structural supports in the copper IHS.

Perhaps you have a different view of these tiles?

Job 33:6 said:

The ACA has decreased costs for million of Americans.

Click to expand...

I stopped there because it is an inaccurate statement.

stevevw said:

I have been thinking about the current political claimte and how people are being cancelled and even killed for their views. Is street preaching or declaring the gospel in public now a dangerous occupation.

Click to expand...

The main danger is myself, how I might take preaching into my own hands, possibly in order to make a show of myself. However, if I am doing the preaching which God has me doing, that is all that matters.

I suspect there is persecuted stuff which is not for preaching the cross of Christ. But it is mixed with political and business and land conflicts and other things of this life which are connected with desire for what money can do.

Er, people get murdered in America all the time? I get that she is a young photogenic white woman but she’s one of many women killed in America every day (probably).

Sad for the people who loved her.