The Pentecostal Perspective on Sanctification

Summarizing the Pentecostal doctrine on sanctification is either very easy or extraordinarily complex. The reason for this is the wide range of Christians that congregate under this umbrella and the corresponding wide range of application for this important aspect of the believer’s life. The doctrinal range extends from the very conservative two step positional-progressive sanctification to holiness as a second work of grace to be followed by baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Myer Pearlman (Knowing the Doctrines) provides the most general definition of the Pentecostal doctrine as including separation from sin and the world and dedication or consecration to the fellowship and service of God through Christ. This may translate into different practices among the believer groups; some will abstain from ‘wordly’ thing (e.g. tobacco, drink, short dresses) while others interpret this more liberally as simply the search for holiness according to specific biblical standards. In general however, the Pentecostal observes sanctification as occurring in the three familiar events. It is instantaneous at the moment of belief, where the new Christian is immediately set apart from sin. Sanctification is progressive as well, continuing throughout the term of one’s life as we are transformed into the likeness of Christ. Finally, using a term that can have a variety of definitions, there is entire sanctification. This final state is almost universally seen as occurring only at glorification when the believer passes into the immediate presence of the Lord.

Progressive sanctification is viewed as a tri-cooperative effort. Our progress comes through the work of the Holy Spirit, our cooperation as we surrender to His work, and through the Word of God (John 17:17). The Word of truth comes alive only through the intervention of the Spirit as He interprets for each believer how that truth applies to our lives. All of this combines to attain a maturity that God desires for us, continuing in this process until we return to our heavenly home.

Controversy arises when the doctrine of Baptism in the Spirit enters the discussion. Many of the Oneness (Jesus Only) Pentecostals take the extreme position that one cannot be saved (thus be sanctified) until receiving the baptism in the spirit and giving evidence through the gift of tongues. Trinitarian Pentecostals view the Baptism as a secondary event subsequent to regeneration. The Assemblies of God for example, sees the progressive sanctification and the visible change in their life as evidence of the infilling of the Spirit.

Conclusion

As stated in the initial paragraph, there is a wide range of belief in the Pentecostal congregations regarding sanctification and its application. For the most part, the combined instantaneous and progressive nature of this doctrine can be found in the statement of belief of nearly all of the churches. Ultimately, there is a common goal of holiness in the believer that is standard to all of the doctrines, something held in common with the Calvinist and Arminian doctrines as well.

Thursday Rocka-Rolla

Too bad the boys in Spinal Tap broke up before the days of sponsored rock tours. With Amex using their hit song from the sixties ‘Gimme Some Money’ in their new ads, rather than the harrowing Tap Into America tour that disintegrated into folly so many years ago, the new tour could be Tap Into American Express! I’m an idea guy, can’t help it…

Wearing the Scarlet Letter C

To critique something carries with it a far different connotation than simply criticizing something. For example, I can criticize Senator Obama for his empty rhetoric about change. That is simply voicing my opinion in a rather negative sense without investing too much effort into discovering what lies behind his words. On the other hand, to critique some means that you have read it critically, paying attention to the arguments of the author and voicing either positive reinforcement or a contrasting position. A critique is often distinguished by the existence of arguments and facts supporting the critical positions of the critic. For this I’ve been condemned.

I do not suffer theological fools lightly. Teaching God’s word, exclaiming His promises, and writing and speaking of Him is something that I take quite seriously. I read many people who have staked out theological positions and yet they are unable to support these positions when challenged. Someone taught them A or they read B in a book and it is therefore assumed to be fact. Theology demands more than this however. To speak of God and His Church and the theological tenets that undergird it requires more than single source scholarship. If, for example, you are going to argue against Arminian or Calvinist theology it is incumbent upon you to be well versed in the correct positions, sources, and scriptures of both before exclaiming one side or the other is correct. What we encounter many times are believers who study in one theological school of thought, read only those sources and their interpretations of opposing positions, and form their opinions and beliefs without determining how correct their sources might be.

I recently critiqued a posting published on another blog that taught the authors beliefs about Calvinism. As I said in my earlier piece, after attempting to engage the author to discover the source of the facts she presented through her comments section, it appeared that she resented the challenge and deleted the comment without reply. BECAUSE false teaching is far more dangerous to those who read and are affected by it than simply poor teaching that is factually correct, I decided that it was appropriate to address the piece and write a corresponding post for anyone who cared to read it. It appears that the author is a bit upset about this, posting two (uncommentable) responses on her blog here and here.  I don’t know why she chose this avenue rather than posting a comment here so we could engage the conversation and I could clarify any issues that arose that brought her distress. I will try to address them here.

She says:

Hopefully people realize that each of us have our own name that’s for the purpose of others to respectfully use when they want our attention. To call attention to a person by using his or her name (especially without that person’s approval) for the sake of degrading him or her is gossip. It’s usually done out of the motive of pride. You can’t look good in the eyes of God by trying to make others look bad in the eyes of the world.

Dear sister, your name is published as the name of your blog. If you don’t want others to know your name, perhaps a nom de plume would serve you better. Regardless, it bothered you and I have corrected it, redacting my original posting so that you name does not appear. Now, on to your other issues of being degraded and gossiped about. If challenging your arguments about the God of the universe, the merciful God of love is degrading to you then all I can suggest is that you stop writing about Him and presenting theological opinions that are not universally shared. (Especially when you refer to those who believe them to be “duped” and “deceived”.”  You cannot expect to post something on a public blog and have no one question it, can you? Gossip is a very serious charge as well but, as I understand it, gossip is speaking ill of someone rather than addressing them directly. Since there is no way of addressing your faulty analogy directly but considering the damage that it might do to a non-believer who accepts it as fact, I decided to address it. No one is trying to make you look bad; we are simply valuing the truths of God above your need not to be challenged.

I take from your later posts that you feel attacked and this is certainly not the case. You are challenged though. Your posting entitled “Are you looking for trouble” goes on to excoriate those (and I assume myself among them because of the clever Jacob jab) who hate you because your beliefs are right. Again, you are taking theological liberty with the word of God. No one hates you or is attacking you or is threatening or denigrating you and your Christian beliefs but if you are associating the word of God with the analogy that you laid out in the earlier post, you had best be prepared to teach others from where you derive this theological position. Calvinists, Arminians, Pentecostals: they all support their theology all the time. You are not being martyred as your post attempt to convey.

My dear sister also wrote:

I knew that my refusal to permit someone, who disagreed with my expression of faith on my Calvinism Analogy post and believed I should permit him to publish his negative comment on my weblog, would seek revenge because of my exercising my right to protect the honor of what I believe on my site, but to do so on a blog he names Love Acceptance Forgiveness?!?! Oh well . . . I guess that says it all — actions speak louder than words. I won’t even mention names. I don’t want to be a hypocrite by not honoring what I said in my post on the Golden Rule found in Matthew 7:12. He knows who he is and so does God, so please don’t google his blog. Such a thing could not bring glory to God.

Revenge??!! Why would I seek revenge? I have in no way been harmed by your words. No one challenged your honor or what you believe. I simply asked you to support it scripturally before some other impressionable person read it and accepted it as fact. And yes, sister, in great love and humility I did apply the golden rule as our Lord voiced it:

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Mt 7:12

I would fully expect that if I write or preach on the word of God, on the theological positions that I take, or the way that I live out my calling as a servant of Christ and someone finds something incorrect in it that they will challenge me out of love. I take no greater risk than incorrectly speaking of or for God and I hold others to this same accountability. You included yourself in my purview by posting your theological opinions.

And yes sister, I do know who I am and so does God. Humbly I kneel before him, grateful that his grace covers me and and my family and that he knows my name.

God Bless.

Isn’t He Rightly Named Jacob?

Our Lenten exercise this year is to put off those things that keep us from Holiness and one of the greatest practices of our hearts is the art of deceit. You and I can so easily convince ourselves of our righteousness, justifying every one of our actions and thoughts and saying that God understands, that he overlooks our subtle sinfulness since he has clothed us in His grace. We refuse to call on the Holy Spirit to convict us of our God-dishonoring behaviors and so further deceive ourselves. As we see in the story of Jacob stealing Esau’s blessing, deceit that we might think minor can have long term consequences.

One of the first steps in growing in a life of holiness is to restore the voice of the Holy Spirit in our lives. The internal dialog that He will hold with us will remind us, gently or not, of our misguided thoughts and deeds and give us the opportunity to shift our course back toward the light. All we have to do is listen.

The Wesleyan Perspective on Sanctification

Perhaps no doctrine of sanctification has undergone so many and varied permutations as the Wesleyan view. The Wesleyan’s view is best known by either of the two names given to the process: entire sanctification or Christian perfection. As Holiness churches have grown away from the Methodist beginnings of this theological idea, they have often radically transformed it to the point where an accurate definition is required to state what the idea is and is not. According to Wesley, sanctification is that part of God’s plan in which He renews the hearts of men and women in His own image. By His grace humanity would be turned from all willful sin and restored to the holiness that had been lost in the Fall. John Wesley’s words from a sermon serve to summarize:

Ye know that all religion which does not answer this end, all that stops short of this, the renewal of our soul in the image of God, after the likeness of Him that created it, is no other than a poor farce, and a mere mockery of God, to the destruction of our own soul…By nature ye are wholly corrupted. By grace ye shall be wholly renewed. [ Wesley, Works]

Far from a fabrication of Wesley’s intellect, he points to numerous passages of scripture in support of this doctrine, each one, he says, should bring the reader to a similar conclusion. Here are a pair of examples:

The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. Deuteronomy 30:5-6

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. Romans 8:3-4

Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. 2 Corinthians 7:1

Taken in whole, Wesley sees in these and other passages the promise of freedom from the dominion of sin for every Christian. He states that God’s grace is ever at work in the heart of the believer progressively sanctifying the entire life of the Christian releasing the heart to fully love God and others. It is critical to note the difference here between Wesley and some later Holiness doctrine. He views entire sanctification as a continuum of grace and response, God giving and the believing transforming, with no conclusion prior to glorification. In other words, while the believer increases in holiness, there is no point of perfection this side of heaven in which every scintilla of sin has been removed and the believer is perfect, as a nominal definition of the word would have the reader understand. Some Holiness movement doctrine has evolved to this conclusion but it never originated with Wesley.

Some are also tempted to link Wesleyan sanctification to works. This can perhaps derive from Wesley’s insistence that the Christian faith is experiential; it is not simply head knowledge in which one believes, it is also practice that is a product of the transformed heart. As the believer was further and further sanctified, the new zeal for loving the Lord and others would be demonstrated through the interactions of the Christian. These actions are not quantitative measures of belief but products of the transformative power of that belief.

Conclusion

Though it has been modified considerably through the years, linked by Charismatic believers to a second baptism, taken to ultimate measures by some Holiness doctrine, Wesley’s idea of entire sanctification is thoroughly rooted in the Bible and the Royal Law of Love. Jesus serves to summarize the objective of this doctrine in his words of Matthew 22:

Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Mt 22:37-40

Despite the name that is often attributed to it – Christian Perfection – Wesley foresaw no moment in which we would be entirely free from the possibility of sinning, only that our love of God and others would lessen our desire.

Critiquing the Calvinist Critic

How an author treats the comments posted in response to something they have written tells the reader quite a bit about the strength of their convictions. In a dynamic forum such as a blog, one should be prepared to defend what has been written. If I voice an opinion or state something as fact, readers are free to disagree, point out the flaws in my thinking, correct what I interpret as fact, and generally call me to task if there are damages that result from my words. The comments tool that appears at the bottom of most blog postings gives the readers an opportunity to immediately make their thoughts known, not only to myself but to all of the others who might read the same piece. Blog software generally allows for a ‘moderation’ setting, giving the author the chance to review the comments before he or she displays them. Often, this is for the purposes of filtering the language, etc. so as to maintain a predetermined level of civility in the discourse. Occasionally, it is used to hide from opinions different than yours, to shield the weakness of your position from the buffeting of opposing arguments and facts. On most issues, we could dismiss this weakness as simple cowardice and not be too concerned with reading that writer again, but when the eternal destiny of the human soul is the topic being discussed, it is too important to let pass.

Recently I came across this piece, ‘Calvinism Analogy’ by REDACTED on her blog. I began reading with interest as a theologian but quickly saw the tenor of the post when she casually refers to Arminian believers as “duped” and “self-deceived”. Her exact words are:

Calvinism is a theological expression describing those who believe man, by his own “free” will, is not able to sincerely “accept Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and savior” and to confess Him as Lord. People who are duped in this way are called Arminians. The reason self-deception happens is because human nature is corrupted with pride and Arminian theology complements this.

The factual error here is simple but important: the assumption is that Arminian theology does not account for the total depravity of man [which of course it does] and the necessity of the sovereign grace of God [again, which it does]. Whether through malicious intent or ignorance of the facts, Ms. REDACTED sets up a straw man argument to support her attempt at analogy. She goes on to point out that Arminians are further guilty of misinterpreting the word ‘all’ and the ‘world’ throughout the Bible. Most of you who study theology are familiar with the Calvinist/Arminian arguments on these words so you already know the direction that her thoughts take.

She continues then, after presenting these incorrect arguments in favor of the Calvinist position, to give us her analogy:

I sometimes equate salvation to be a bit like we’re dogs at the pound awaiting our death sentence. God is the dog lover looking to adopt. He decides what dogs He wants, goes home to prepare a place for them, and then comes back to bring them home. I know it’s not quite like that (especially since God elects His children before they’ve even been conceived), but still in all, it describes love. Dog lovers don’t adopt every single dog that has ever been born and/or is alive; but yet one can still be a lover of dogs even if he never adopts more than just one dog.

Here is where Ms. REDACTED thoughts really run into trouble. Her scenario positions the dogs in the pound as though they were magically created or simply the products of biological interaction between other dogs. God, in her mind, is this distant observer of the kennel, graciously coming in and granting freedom to one or two of the creatures while leaving the rest to their destiny. The problem here is that God is not a distant observer but he is intimately involved in the creation of the creatures:

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. (Psalm 139:13)

“Your hands shaped me and made me.

Will you now turn and destroy me?

Remember that you molded me like clay.

Will you now turn me to dust again?

Did you not pour me out like milk

and curdle me like cheese,

clothe me with skin and flesh

and knit me together with bones and sinews?

You gave me life and showed me kindness,

and in your providence watched over my spirit. (Job 10:8-12).

Her analogy of the Calvinist supralapsarian position is better voiced (using the same language) portraying God as the breeder of the dogs. He purposely creates many dogs, some intentionally created for eternal torment and destruction while some are adopted and saved. Not only did he create them, He continues to create them centuries after the original genetic sin that infected their parents occurred.

What is most troubling about this posting is the not inaccuracy of the arguments (you can read similar threads every day) or the poorly constructed analogy (for which the author claims to have been praised) but the fact that when her facts and illustrations are challenged theologically she refused to engage. A lovingly worded response was posted in the comments of her blog asking for Scriptural and textual support to the various incorrect assertions made in her writing and gently providing an alternative view on her analogy which fell into “awaiting moderation” limbo. Apparently unwilling to support her thoughts are address the Scriptures, the author chose to simply delete the comment as thought it never happened, thereby cementing her notions as correct and worthy of praise.

Teaching about God and His ways is a risky endeavor and not one to be taken lightly like this (“Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”) If you think that I have erred in discussing ideas that have eternal importance, I expect that you will correct me and likewise others who presume to teach should also stand ready to be challenged. The souls of men and women are at stake in these types of discussions as they read them and accept the ideas as fact and simply having your feelings hurt by a theological challenge is not an acceptable reason to avoid engagement. Blog authors are free to run their world however they like, but to speak of about God is another dimension altogether.

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort toe keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. (Eph 4:2-3)

Sacrifice Your Soul

Nearly one full week of this glorious Lenten season has passed and many feel the pangs from the sacrifice of chocolate or television but what of those who have sacrificed their life, the control of their soul given fully to the King of Kings. Isaiah speaks of the sacrifice of Christ, the King James version best translating the Hebrew word for soul where the NIV and others insert life:

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isa 53:10)

The sacrifice of the soul was damnation and yet He gave of it joyfully, trusting fully in the Father’s divine plan. Brothers and sisters, we too must give of ourselves all the way down to our soul. We often give of our time, our treasure, our bodies even but we protect our soul, preferring to keep it under our own control. Release it! Trust in the Father and the sacrifice of the Lord. We have nothing to lose and the Kingdom to give. As we move towards the Cross and the Resurrection, give up not your feasting but the control of your soul to the Father. He will raise us all up in the end.

Lent Sunday One

lent Our reflection for the first Sunday of Lent this year comes from Daniel.

So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes.

I prayed to the Lord my God and confessed:

“O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

“Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the men of Judah and people of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. O Lord, we and our kings, our princes and our fathers are covered with shame because we have sinned against you. The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him; we have not obeyed the Lord our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets. (Daniel 9:3-10)

Peace be with you.

Lent with Joel

Our reflection today is short and simple; the call of the Lord is for all of His children to return to Him from whatever distance we have placed between us.

“Even now,” declares the Lord,

“return to me with all your heart,

with fasting and weeping and mourning.”

Rend your heart

and not your garments.

Return to the Lord your God,

for he is gracious and compassionate,

slow to anger and abounding in love,

and he relents from sending calamity. (Joel 2:12-13)

The sacrifice of our Lord and His grace are the only things that enable us to return to the security of His arms. This season reminds us of this sacrificial action and the love in which it is rooted. Be blessed today.

Lent with Leonard

The Church can ask herself today, is this what our Savior sacrificed His life for? Did He give us the Church so that we can be comfortable, occasionally running guerilla missions out into the world and then returning to the safety of the sanctuary? As I think about the spiritual state of much of today’s Church, I am reminded of Ravenhill’s words:

The true man of God is heartsick, Grieved at the worldliness of the Church,

Grieved at the blindness of the Church, Grieved at the corruption in the Church,

Grieved at the toleration of sin in the Church, Grieved at the prayerlessness in the Church.

He is disturbed that the corporate prayer of the Church no longer pulls down the strongholds of the devil.

He is embarrassed that the Church folks no longer cry in their despair before a devil-ridden, sin mad society, “Why could we not cast him out?” (Mt 17:19)

Before we pray for the change in others, let us each pray for the transformation of ourselves. Let the tears come searing hot down our cheeks at the mockery our own lives make of the holiness that grace offers to us. Let it begin with me.