Scripture Memorization: Real Victories and Struggles

Scripture Memorization: Real Victories and Struggles

Yes you can memorize your very own Bible.  Yes you can do it in different sizes and portions.  Some people memorize very easily.  For others, it is a more intense struggle.  But I would guarantee that for many that say they struggle with scripture memory they can memorize other things (when they want to).  Ask about ball teams, stats, video games, magazine characters, tv and movie characters and/or plots.  If they can rattle these off then its not a memory problem.  The problem then lies with desire and dedication is simply willingness.

If you want to memorize a verse then work at it.  If you want to memorize a chapter then work at it.  If you are dedicated enough to memorize entire books of the Bible (which is possible) then work even harder at it.  One clause at a time, one verse at a time, and eventually entire chapters and books will follow.

It doesn't have to end with some kids club or a question/answer catechism.  Sure memorize lots of doctrinal proof texts.  But why stop there?  Memorize verse for counseling and encouragement.  Add in the ones to protect you from doctrinal error or drifting.  Be securely founded in scripture.

I would suggest there are passages that both imply and directly teach the value of hiding or placing scripture into your hearts.  Here's a couple below:

Ps 119 provides the motivation for hiding God's word, to avoid sinning.  

Jn 17 provides scripture as the means of sanctification (yes, an ongoing process), "sanctify them with thy truth."

James 1 and 2 Cor 3 provide the value of molding, shaping and changing us into his perfect image.

I would plead with you to spend time memorizing your Bible.  Not just reading it.
Both reading and praying scriptural content helps.  But actually and actively engage your mind and heart in the scriptural memorization process.  

Let's consider some detractors or discouragers to this process.

So may call daily Bible reading or prayer legalism.  Ignore them.  Read your Bible.
The same may call memorizing your Bible with the same ad hominem jargon.  Memorize your Bible.
Some may say its of no value.  Memorize your Bible and grow.  
Give the Holy Spirit tools to mold, shape and grow you into the perfect image of Christ.
In the hard times, the Holy Spirit can drawl back to mind scripture in times of temptation and trial. But it won't be there if you never take time to put it in.

You have the time in your schedule.  What is more important?
Have fun memorizing God's word.  Hope this helps some.  Comments as always encouraged.

Kewsick View of Progressive Sanctification: Spirit-filled or Victorious? (Series on Sanctification Part Six)

Keswick View of Progressive Sanctification: Spirit-Filled or Victorious?  
(Series on Sanctification Part Six)

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

Evangelical Christianity begins with what the Bible calls salvation.  The Bible repeatedly emphasizes the new position is that of a "saint."  This is how Paul's epistles (letters) address his readers.  Living, breathing, walking people with a new status in God's sight.  How then are they to live?  Do they just sit in this position and do nothing?  Does the scripture actually teach our only role is to keep reminding ourselves of what Christ did for us in the past?  Are we absolved of any personal responsibility to grow?  Do we resort to name calling if others don't share our form or practice we do (think: new evangelical, legalist, antinomian, or fundamentalist)?

Here is where we turn our attention.  How do we live?  There is a vast gap for most of us between when we became a Christian and when we each meet the Lord (either via death or eschatological position).  The previous article focused on the standard Wesleyan view of progressive sanctification.  This article will focus on what is the typical pattern of progressive sanctification found with Keswick theology.

Again a chart may be helpful in providing a picture of what is happening (See previous article for possible diagram sources).

Now to add some words of explanation to the above chart and some texts of scripture used by its advocates to teach this position.  I leave it up to you the reader to determine the merits of this particular system of progressive sanctification.  Please remember this is the general pattern not the catch all to every person holding to this position.

First, if you will note as in the previous article, growth or progressive sanctification begins at the cross (think: temporal moment of salvation, faith and repentance).  The new Christian is described as "non Spirit-filled" and/or "defeated."  So in this system of thinking you can be a Christian but living in a defeated position.  I assume this also is defining a Christian who is not filled with the Spirit.  Carefully pay attention to the fact that this new believer is also identified as a "carnal man."  I also assume that a believer will stay in this status (not sure of what growth can occur here) until the next stage of sanctification: crisis.

Second, see that the status or positional change does not change till this crisis.  This crisis is also defined as a consecration event .  Many also identify this crisis event as surrendering.  Please see the identification that this crisis point is when the carnal/non Spirit-filled and defeated carnal believer actually "lets go."  This implies before this chronological act following salvation a believer is not surrendered to God and is living in a state of defeat and carnality.  Not that once a crisis decision is made there are still arrows going up and down after this act of consecration.  This crisis event can occur in any number of venues: "revival" meetings, summer camps, rallies, etc....

Consider some of the following questions concerning this diagram (and how it reflects Christianity lived).  Whether it fits the best possible exegetical understanding of proof texts is another question.

1)  Is there any evidence in scripture that all believers are filled with the Spirit?  Are there any believers in the NT who are not Spirit-filled?

2)  How can we best explain the descriptions of believers in the book of Acts who are said to be "filled with Spirit"?

3)  How do we describe believers before Pentecost (Acts 2)?

4)  Note the descriptions in 1 Cor 2-3.  Is Paul addressing different types of believers or  believers behaving like unbelievers?  Again, what does it mean to be identified as "carnal" or "fleshly"?  Also taking into account the context of each.

5) Again how does Rom 12 fit into this system?  Rom 7-8 "flesh/law" and "Spirit."  An unbeliever?  A disobedient believer?  A mature believers wrestling with sin?  flesh?

These are only some suggestions in addressing this theological position describing the process of progressive sanctification.  There are other positions yet to come and to be discussed.

Hope this helps some.

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.

Healthy Christianity: Its Root and Foundation. Series on Sanctification (Part Three)

Healthy Christianity:  Its Root and Foundation (Series on Sanctification part Three)

Series Part One            Series Part Two

What does healthy Christian growth look like?  I would like to believe that all professing Christians were on the same page on this concept.  This is especially true when applied to the category of Christian growth (think: progressive sanctification).  Let's assume for the sake of argument that people have passed through the doorway (the right door, and there's only one), and now being in the room how will they live while in the house?  Yes, I know this is just an illustration but if a person claims to be a Christian (let's give the benefit of doubt, assuming they have true saving faith), what does or should their life look like?  Are they bearing fruit?  Are they producing good works?  Are they making any effort to obey any command period actually found in the scriptures? (Just for sake of acknowledgement: Christians bear fruit in various degrees, times, and appearance).

Let's reconsider some concepts mentioned above.  What is a professing Christian?  What is true saving faith?  Who defines these terms?  Of course whatever your answer it has something to do with a Biblically-informed content but what content (even cults can do this)?  Will it be so minimal that it basically avoids the offense of nearly every self-proclaimed church or believer (even cults can mention the name of Jesus or believe something)?

We will revisit these ideas much later down the road but let me highlight two words again, "professing" Christian and "saving" faith?  Hope you caught it earlier but these are huge concepts and areas of division among evangelicals.  Who are these people?  Eventually we will have to discuss terms like assurance, perseverance, and preservation but for now the general topic is sufficient.  So who is this person and how does this topic related to the series on sanctification?  Let's consider some options from systematic theology (which may or may not include all the available biblical data).  For sake of familiarity (I'll use the phrase, "Perseverance of the Saints").  Historically this is the the "P" from the acronym TULIP (please note I am not commenting on whether the phrase is correct or not but simply a point of reference for illustration).

1.  Why do we use the adjective "professing" Christian?  Are there fake Christians or people that only look like Christians on the outside?  Consider some phrases you've probably heard before: they have head knowledge but not heart knowledge, they are professors but not possessors, or they have religion but not a relationship.  I would suggest these phrases are all struggling with the same kind of issues (and they all have their own trumping proof texts which they believe solves the issue).

2.   Why do we use the adjective "saving" faith?  Are there Christians who have unsaving faith or a faith that doesn't save anyone?  James tells us that even demons believe and tremble.  Does hiding in the content or object of faith help any?  Can you faith increase or grow?  Again, why the need for the adjective?  Just like point one, there is a struggle here....................

3.  Why does the "P" of the TULIP use the word saints?  Why does it not say, "Perseverance of all believers"?  Why not perseverance of everyone that walks an aisle, prays a prayer, raises their hand, fills out a card, becomes a member of a local church?  If you carefully look at the text of the epistles, the audience is always addressed as "saints" or "brethren," so the writers don't seem to make the distinction we do (just to be fair, we will address spiritual/carnal later).  

4. Does God's character change if it doesn't match my interpretations of the text?  Is God not keeping his promises according to my theological boxes?  Am I creating a God of my own making who allows me to live and do whatever I want?  Is it the same God that promises both blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (or do we only want to emphasize one part)?

All these areas questions are part of progressive sanctification (health Christian growth).  Eventually we must deal with issues such as fruit bearing, good works, or obedience.  But these will come in time as we actually address specific texts in their context (especially how they get used and abused).  I would like to suggest that a great deal of misunderstanding comes from dealing with certain texts individually and then treating them alone as though they are the sole voice on this particular issue.  Struggling through multiple texts on an issue may produce brain sweat but they both are true whether we can harmonize them or not.

Hope this helps some.

Comments encouraged.