I have wrestled with the holiness doctrine of “Entire Sanctification” for a number of years, and I am still not resolved on the issue. The difficulties I have with this doctrine are not so much based on theological issues but on the way the doctrine is often preached and lived out. I do believe that God calls his people to be holy. I believe that the salvation Christ offers is fundamentally transformational in its nature. I believe that Christians are to be filled with the Spirit and empowered to live holy lives.The problems I have with the doctrine of entire sanctification arise from those who emphasize the instantaneous act of “entire sanctification” to the exclusion of progressive and continual sanctification. To such people, entire sanctification seems to be a state of sinless perfection that anyone can attain simply by asking the Holy Spirit to sanctify them. Don’t misunderstand me. I do believe that God desires to and does sanctify his people. However, I believe that those who overemphasize the crisis event of sanctification have turned sanctification into a kind of “name-it, claim-it” experience and have actually watered-down the true holiness message. Here are two difficulties I have with this kind of “name-it, claim-it” sanctification:
First, I believe an overemphasis on the initial act of sanctification tends to divorce sanctification from the need of continual sanctification through discipleship and ongoing communion with God. We implore people to receive the grace of sanctification, but once they finish praying at the altar, we send them back into the world without taking the time to disciple them and walk with them in their experience. We preach at them to receive the grace of the Holy Spirit, but we fail to teach them how to live and grow in the grace they have received.
Second, I believe that the emphasis on initial sanctification often leaves people believing that they are entering a state of “sinless-perfection,” and such a belief can actually be counterproductive. If sanctification is a state of sinless-perfection, then those who are sanctified either cannot or do not sin. Once such a state is reached there seems to be no more need to confess one’s sins or to search one’s heart to discover attitudes that are contrary to God’s will. I’ve heard a number of “sanctified” people give testimonies like, “I was sanctified fifteen years ago, and I haven’t knowingly sinned since then.” This doesn’t impress me! In fact I think it sounds spiritually arrogant and contrary to true holiness. I’m not saying that all Christians must sin everyday; however, people who are truly holy do not have to toot their own horns regarding their personal sinlessness. I believe that most people can conform to a superficial form of legalism and claim to not sin as long as they narrowly define sin as the things that are easy for them to avoid (like drinking, smoking, cussing, etc…), but is this true holiness? Does this mean that they love God with their whole heart? Does this mean that all of their hidden slothfulness, bitterness, pride, selfishness, hatefulness, lust, and jealousy have been cleansed and that they are now perfected? I doubt it.
I read something in Dennis Kinlaw’s book “Preaching in the Spirit” that is truly helpful. He writes: “Some people think the sanctified life is one in which a person never errs; but when we seek God’s grace to live a holy life, we know that’s not so. As much as anything else, the sanctified life is one sensitized to error” (46). (By the way, Kinlaw is a man of such love and grace, that if he claimed to be utterly sinless, I would believe him). I think Kinlaw’s words are very helpful. Those who are truly holy are those who constantly allow the Holy Spirit to probe their inner life and who confess and repent of errs and sins that are revealed. They do not settle for a false sense of sinlessness, but continue to grow in sanctification until they are completely perfected in Christian love.
4 comments:
Nice user pic! How did Jill get her picture taken with Keith Green? :) Seriously, the hair is way cool.
You've raised some good points here. Good stuff. I'll offer a few comments.
1. I read a good quote by H. Orton Wiley this morning that fits here. "Those who over-emphasize the progressive element in sanctification will ever fail to bring seekers to the point of entire consecration; while those who emphasize the instantaneous element to the exclusion of the progressive will ever make profession too easy, and develop among the people a shallow and legalistic type of profession." You're right--we must not do away with the progressive. I've seen a lot of time wasted with people debating "crisis vs. progressive", when the answer is "both".
2. Be careful about how you talk about the beginning of the entirely sanctified life. "Initial sanctification" is a technical term already in use as a synonym for being born again. It's meant to highlight the fact that all Christians receive the Holy Spirit when they are born again and begin to be holy.
3. Wesley specifically taught that there is no such thing as sinless perfection, and he was able to maintain this by recognizing that there are more ways than one in which scripture speaks of sin. The primary way is "known and intentional" sin, but there is such a thing as unknown sin too. Every Christian has the grace to avoid known sin. Even those who are not entirely sanctified should be able to say "I haven't intentionally sinned since I became a Christian" according to Wesley, though no one should say that for any reason other than to give credit to the Lord that his promises are true. He also insisted that there are things we do on account of our frailties, etc., that are sins in one sense, but not in the sense that the Bible primarily speaks, so everyone should continue to pray the Lord's Prayer (forgive our trespasses), for example.
4. If someone claims to be entirely sanctified, then yes, there should be no remaining lust, pride, bitterness, and the rest of the sins you listed in his heart. There may be new situations in life that tempt one toward such sins, but the inner compulsion to those things should be gone. Probably there are a lot of people who think they're entirely sanctified and aren't--at least according to the best (i.e. clearest, most Biblical) Wesleyan theology out there.
If you ever want to talk about this in person-ish, feel free to call!
--Peach
Peach,
That's a good quote from Wiley. He seems to give words to the tention I'm feeling.
You're right about my poor use of "initial sanctification." I do know the distinction. I just wrote the email quickly and was admittedly sloppy in my terms.
I have so much that I want to write regarding this issue, that I'm afraid this thread will end up taking up more time than what I have to devote to it right now. I would REALLY like to talk to you sometime about all of this. I think it would be more helpful for me to verbally dialogue with you on this issue because I have so many questions, and I'm afraid I would forget many of them or not express them properly if I wrote them all out. Also, I know you are a good one to talk to on this issue because you both believe in entire sanctification and are a clear thinker. I've had a few conversations in the past in which I raised questions about entire sanctification, and I was made to feel that I should not question it; I should just seek it and believe it (which annoyed me to no end). Maybe they assumed my questions were a sign of inner rebellion....I don't know...
Anway, I know that you care about truth, and I know that you've read quite a bit on sanctification, so it would be good to talk with you.
I don't think I have your current phone number, so if you could send it to me in an email, I'll be sure to give ya a call.
Thanks man,
Tristan
Oooops, tension....not tention..
Tristan,
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessments in the initial post. A consistent, practical, and biblical concept of sanctification must balance both the instantaneous and progressive elements.
My own personal problem (not with the doctrine, but with its articulation) is how seldom it is couched in a relational context, one that is connected to the Triune being of God and corporately experienced/lived out. We have tragically reduced holiness to subjective lists of "dos" and "don't", quite indicative of our Western/Modern/American individualism.
In my own humble understanding, it seems to me that your thoughts are really headed in a great direction. As a pastor you are perfectly positioned to not only correct people's understandings but see the reality of Christ's incarnation lived out in their lives.
Great post.
Post a Comment