Wesleyan View of Progressive Sanctification: Entire or Perfect? (Series on sanctification part five)

The Wesleyan View of Sanctification (Part Five)

Series Part One          Series Part Two          Series Part Three      Series Part Four


There are many view of sanctification practiced by professing Christians across the globe.  One common thread identifiable in the vast majority of them is that one key aspect of sanctification is its progressive nature.  Christians are identified as saints (note the beginning of many of Paul's epistles, "the saints at...").  Even though set apart, sanctified, or holy there is still an idea that Christians can and must grow in their sanctification.  But what does this look like?  Somewhere and somehow people will be forced to deal with God's activities in this process and man's responsibility or obligation in this process.

Scripture gives us glimpses of what this growth looks like.  And as a result many have tried to categorize this growth either in steps, phases, hills, valleys, and decisions, etc.  What I wish to do here is attempt a presentation of each position (and the scriptural proof texts employed by each position).  I leave it up to you the reader to discern the truth/error, value, strength/weakness of each position.  In some form or fashion, I'm sure you have seen and/or heard all these positions before (maybe not in full but at least some of the parts).

Each system or position has to deal with key texts in scripture.  Consider how you personally understand or have been taught concerning the following texts (Just a thought: Claiming God does or does not keep promises of both blessing and cursing will not change the exegesis of the following texts.  However, presuppositions do provide powerful "rose-colored" glasses to view all texts):

1.  Simon the sorcerer (Acts).  Was he a true believer?  Did he only make a profession?  Fruit bearing?
2. Romans 7 and 8.  Who do these texts describe? Believers?  Unbelievers? Mature?
3. 1 Corinthians 2-3.  Who is fleshly?  Who is carnal?  Who is spiritual?
4. Gal 5-6.  Who walks in the spirit?  Who walks in the flesh?
5. Romans 12.  When do we do this?  How many times do we do this?  What if we don't more/less sanctified, separated, dedicated?

We'll begin with the Wesleyan view of sanctification (please see diagram below).

Just in case pictures help to understand the theological teaching of Wesleyan progressive sanctification, please see the diagram above.  These charts are not unique to me (sources using same charts are listed at end of this article).***

If you will notice (at least in the realm of evangelical Christianity), Christian growth begins at the cross.  This pattern will appear in each chart position presented.  In this (means) of Christian growth the point of salvation is described as a first work of grace (perhaps efficacious, saving, or prevenient).   Notice also from the diagram that there is a point in the chronology of progressive sanctification which is called a crisis.  This crisis will be identified in many of the charts though with various titles/nomenclature (spirit-baptism, Christ as Lord, speaking in tongues, etc...).  Notice also that until this point the professing believer is still in a non-sanctified state (I take this to mean that they have not reached a crisis point where true sanctification can begin).

Note that when this crisis occurs (which is not actually an upward clime or progressive) but that the professing Christian actually functions on a higher level than when they began (we'll call this maturity or being a mature/complete believer).   This higher level is also identified as entire sanctification, Christian perfection, perfect love between God and man.  This crisis event will take multiple forms under different systems of progressive sanctification (accepting Christ as Lord, Life-dedication, full time Christian service, Spirit-baptism/tongues speaking, etc...).  These will be discussed in more detail with each related system (with particular system proof texts).

Lastly, please see there are arrows going up and down between this higher position and lower level.  I presume this to mean that this higher level of mature living can be lost and gained again.  Please remember this pattern it will also appear in other Christian diagrams describing Christian sanctification.  You will see this changing of levels in multiple forms of progressive sanctification.

A careful reading of original source literature denotes that advocates are not claiming sinless perfection (though some may take this position or accuse all advocates as teaching such).  Note: English translation glosses such as" "perfect"  "perfection" or "holy."  Notice the sermon on the mount or 2 Tim 3:16-17, using this terminology of "perfect."  Perhaps even in your own scripture study you've seen the terms but have used other words such as "mature" or "complete."

So how would you identify this form of progressive sanctification in a local church?  Notice how the sermon ends?  What are you actually asked or encouraged to do?  Dedication, commitment, salvation?  These type of questions (but not exclusively) help to identify what form/pattern of progressive sanctification is being taught in the local church.

*** I don't know for certain who originated these charts but the following employ them in literature:

H. Wayne House. Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Naselli, Andrew.  Let Go and Let God?  A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology.  Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010.

Ryrie, Charles.  Balancing the Christian Life. Chicago: Moody, 1969.

Hope this article and the ones to come on the issue of progressive sanctification are a help in this area of Christian growth.

Comments and corrections exegetically or theologically always encouraged.

The series will continue with other Christian views of progressive sanctification.

The Indicatives and Imperatives of Scripture: Series on Sanctification Part Four

The Indicatives and Imperatives (Series on Sanctification Part Five)

Series Part One          Series Part Two          Series Part Three

So what does right doctrine look like (orthodoxy)?  Or what does right living (orthopraxy) or right feelings and affections (orthopathy) look like?  I would again like to suggest all three are necessary for healthy Christianity.  I would also like to suggest (this is not unique to me) that these concepts mirror the truths of divine sovereignty and human responsibility.  Let's reword these to help elaborate: God has made direct promises and/or statements which are both positive and negative (think: divine sovereignty) and believers have obligations to obey/practice/do/applications (human responsibility).  Throw into this formula doing everything with the right biblical motive/feelings, affections (orthopathy).  To emphasize one of these and neglect the others is dangerous.  Consider some options in quick recap (does not exhaust every possible arrangement of the three variables):

Right beliefs but with a wrong daily lifestyle or with wrong motives and/or affections.

Wrong beliefs but with a right daily lifestyle or with wrong motives and/or affections.

It is probably easiest to believe all the right doctrinal truths.  Just pick up a theology text or read a creed and/or confession and its not to hard to see some overlapping categories of doctrinal truth.  Its hard to pass by consistent categories such as Bible, God, Creation, Sin, Salvation, Church, etc....  However, consider the vast number of sermons or text which simply explain the truth of scripture and then make no applications to daily living.  Consider in your own mind the dangers of people obeying a list of rules (applications) without scriptural motivation either by command or well-derived principles.

The emphasis on this indicative and imperative framework appears in many large sections within the scriptures (sometimes even shaping the content of entire epistles).  Consider some indicative and imperative texts in near context relation.  They both are necessary.  Having all the Christian doctrine by itself leaves your Christianity incomplete.  On the other hand, Christianity is also incomplete trying to obey or practice without a basis or foundation.  So let's compare some texts (some technical words will be used):

Romans 6:2 and v. 12.

"God forbid.  How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"  The verb "are dead" appears in the aorist tense.  This generally refers to a past action.  It appears in the indicative mood stating a past fact.  Compare this with verse 12, "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof."  "Let not sin .... reign" is a present tense (continually) command or imperative.  So the facts don't stand alone without an obligation placed upon the reader.  Based on a particular fact or reality (think promise made by God), you need to obey now.

Col 3:3 and v. 5.

"For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God."  Again "ye are dead" is a past tense verb appearing in the indicative mood and "is hid" is a perfect tense verb.  The perfect tense contains an idea/active that happened in the past but has ongoing results/benefits.  We could easily identify surrounding imperatives in this context,  both before and after.  "Set you affections" is an imperative from previous verse (drawing from reality of verse one) or "mortify ... your members" from the following paragraph (v. 5).  Both appear as imperatives placing an obligation upon believers (think human responsibility).

Gal 5:24 and v. 25-26.

"And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts" (v. 24).  Consider the following verses (v. 25-26), "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in  the Spirit.  "let us not be desirous of vain glory,..."  Here as well, we a verse reminding the reader of a fact/reality "have crucified" appearing in the aorist tense and indicative mood.  This is followed by a different nuance for a verb (the subjunctive mood).  Both verb appearing as commands or exhortations in the English text are what we might call a hortatory subjunctive or if negative a prohibition.

Eph 4:21-23 and v. 25.

"If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: that ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, ... and that ye put on the new man."  These verbs are little more tricky than the previous references.  "Put off" and "put on" are infinitives.  However they both are elaborating on the claim of vs. 20, "But ye have not so learned Christ ... as the truth is in Jesus."  The verb learned is in the indicative mood.  The putting off and putting on are realities for a believer.  But where's the command for believers?  Keep reading.  "Speak every man truth with his neighbour" (v. 25).  This imperative "speak" is followed by a string of imperatives all for believers.

We could apply this pattern to hundreds of other indicative and imperative references throughout the scriptures.  I hope this is enough to show several key concepts in relation to the topic of progressive sanctification.  We will touch more on the subjunctive mood in another post in relation to conditional clauses (for now think: "if ... then" clauses) in relation to progressive sanctification.

1. God has made promises to all believers (divine sovereignty) and believers have commands still made to them today (human responsibility).  We still need to address the relationship of obedience to progressive sanctification.  The epistles call believers "saints," people who are holy and sanctified already.

2. Denying the promises God has made leaves you with a self-defined religion of self-righteousness.  History shows this is definitely not orthodoxy. It is very easy to see how a works-righteousness can emerge: obey to be saved or bear fruit so you can be saved.  Late we will need to address a plethora of texts placing fruit-bearing as a result of justification not the means of justification.

3.  Denying the hundreds of commands God has still placed upon believers produces a religion of license and liberty that history shows is definitely not orthopraxy.  Even this cuts cross grain to many church discipline passages explicitly written to correct/confront/discipline sinful practices (of professing believers).  How we live and obey scripture does matter to God.

4.  We will have to wrestle with obeying the imperatives based on the motivation provided from the indicatives.  This will also need to tie in at a later date motivations based on "love of God" "love of Christ" and "love of neighbour."  In time we will also need to address the means by which these motivations are made possible.

We will have to address in a later post the claims of legalism and antinomianism in relation to these above points, especially how they relate to Christian growth (progressive sanctification) and assurance/perseverance issues for believers.

Much more to come.  Hope this helps some in your daily walk.

Comments encouraged.

Christian Growth: Misnomer or Personal Necessity? (Series on Sanctification) Part One

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.