Christian Growth: Misnomer or Necessity? (Series on Sanctification) Part One
Believe it or not every form of religion teaches and practices some form of growth or maturing process (even if dying, rebirth, or rituals). It is not my intention nor purpose to encourage or teach on the belief and practices of what I consider to be false religions. It is however my intention here to discuss the differing views of sanctification within what is called Biblical Christianity (yes many use the name but have dramatically different definitions for the term).
So before we can dive into this topic I need to elaborate on several specific terms (mentioned already above).
(Caveat: I am well aware of many textbooks (written or electronic), systematic theologies, creeds, confessions, lectures, sermons, etc. that begin their topics with definitions. Many times their entire argument is a defense of their own definitions, which have been carefully crafted, whether they be self-derived straw men, either/or, or other fallacies is another question entirely). So with that in mind let me craft some straw-men, how well they burn is up to others. I will list some recent publications at the end of this article.
Click link here to review the previous article on informal fallacies. Informal Fallacies Article
First, in reference to the term Christian growth. I am referring to what is known in broader evangelical Christian circles to what we call progressive sanctification. I wish it were true, but not all Christians actually believe sanctification is progressive (chances are, you've got some of their books and aren't aware of what they actually say--a hidden danger). We will address this issue in time.
Second, in reference to sanctification. I am referring to the traditional three-part division. It commonly is divided with the use of adjectives (you should be concerned if the speaker/author denies one of these three). Consider the terms, you'be probably heard before: (1) initial (maybe even "definitive" sanctification perhaps chronological placed near justification), (2) progressive sanctification (actual daily Christian growth and maturing), and (3) final sanctification (related to issue of glorification). These three terms can also be identified with actual Greek verb tenses. Many verbs related to this topic occur in the past tense (both aorist and perfect tense). In a similar way a vast selection of verbs appear in the present tense (now). Lastly, verbs associated with this issue occur as future tense verbs (things that will happen).
Third, many polarizing terms appearing under this theological umbrella have multiple meanings (equivocation, see blog post on Informal Logic). These different meanings have actually changed over time. Someone can be accused of one definition of the term but not the other definitions of the term. Let's consider one example here of a term which does not appear in scripture: antinomianism. Does this mean only "against the law" or "no law" (easy bullet to dodge if definition is restricted only here)? Does it mean that part of the Mosaic law doesn't apply today or all the mosaic law doesn't apply today? Is there a sanctifying or even teaching purpose for the law? Does it mean obedience to NT commands/imperatives is not necessary or required of believers? Does it mean I should use the term grace in every other sentence so that I'm not accused of being a legalist (whatever this term means)? Can it be both a theological and practical concept? You decide.
Lastly, when I use the term Biblical, I am referring to the idea that all of our theology and practice must find its source within the scriptures. Much disagreement happens with people who don't agree on acceptable proof texts, exegetical methodology, or systematic theology grids. This is just my opinion but I would challenge you if you claim to believe sola scriptura (then do you actually believe it includes every area of life (theology, daily living, morality, ethics, music, culture)? Or is it only the convenient to believe this when I can self-create adiophora boxes (think: "things indifferent").
Let's take one of these terms just as an example to show the varying degrees of difficult grappling with this topic. Consider the term: believe.
It appears as both a substantive (think: noun or subject) and as a verb.
The verb can appear as a command and as past, present, and future verbs (including infinitives and participles).
The verb for believe has varying relationships to the word repentance (vast groups disagree here).
The verb has multiple chronological and theological positions in relation to the ordinance of baptism (both with water and spiritually).
The verb even has moods and motivations (this is a key area where ad hominems emerge--think name-calling).
And yes, all these examples for this one term are related to the concept of Christian growth. How it starts, presently occurs, and finishes. Even the continued concepts of prescriptive and descriptive verses comes into play in this conversation. Consider some abuses (even informal fallacies) made from the above data:
1. I could present sanctification as though it is completely past tense (making no reference to present or future verbs)? This turns it into a indicative only form of sanctification (little room if any for obedience).
2. I could present sanctification as though it is completely present tense (making no reference to past tense verbs)? This creates a imperative only form of sanctification with what motive?
3. I could take a verse here or there and create a mood or motivation that trumps even direct biblical statements in many other places (then call others names for disagreeing with my motivations).
4. I could accuse others of not being Christians for not seeing all the specifics of salvation just the way I do (insert terms like faith/repentance, faith/regeneration, faith/baptism, etc...).
5. I could make up my own list of tasks and/or beliefs for sanctification then evaluate my progress based on my own list (even worse I could evaluate others sanctification based on my list). Principles derived either through a descriptive and/or prescriptive means have dramatic implications in this area.
Please consider a sample listing of the following recently published books directly addressing this issue in relation to progressive sanctification. Most of these were written directly or indirectly to address an error they perceive on this subject--some more helpful, others less (listed in alphabetical order). I have deliberately selected broader conservative or new evangelical sources to show they are struggling with this issue as well as Biblical Fundamentalists.
Bridges, Jerry. The Pursuit of Holiness: Run in Such a Way as to Get the Prize 1 Corinthians 9:24. (NavPress, 2006).
DeYoung, Kevin. The Hole in Our Holiness: Filling the Gap between Gospel Passion and the Pursuit of Godliness. (Crossway, 2014).
Ferguson, Sinclair. The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance--Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters. (Crossway, 2016).
Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? (P&R Publishing, 2013).
Piper, John. Acting the Miracle: God's Work and Ours in the Mystery of Sanctification. (Crossway, 2013).
Ryle, J. C. Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots (Multiple Printings).
Tchividjian, Tullian. Jesus + Nothing = Everything. (Crossway, 2011).
Hope this helps some. Hope you are growing (whatever this means).
There will be much more to come in this thread.
Thoughts and comments encouraged.
No comments:
Post a Comment