Doctrine of SANCTIFICATION

[Berean]

As a child I attended a Nazarene Church and I remember that they taught that sanctification was obtained in like manner as salvation. After Christ came into your life sometime later if not immediately you "went back to the alter" and asked that the carnal nature ("the ole man") be remove from you and afterwards you would be free from sinning. This was referred to as a Second Definite Work of Grace. I do not remember their teachings on Eternal Security, falling from Grace or perseverance of The Saints.
My question; is there any present day mainline churches or otherwise that teach this?

 

[thegospelgeek]

I was saved in a "Church of Christ in Christian Union". This doctrine of sanctification was one of the main reasons I left. It is still present in Nazare and CCCU churches. It may be taught in Wesleyan churches also, but I am not sure about that.

As for their doctrine on Election and preserverance of the saints they would be Arminian (sp).

 

[hillclimber1]

In the late 60's we had a local preacher that claimed he couldn't sin. He was cleansed, so every decision he made was righteous. He bilked the public out of millions of dollars in his construction business. He had two daughters (late teens) for whom he furnished liquor, and prophylactics, and openly condoned their aberrant behavior. But, later in life both girls found Christ, and have good marriages.. I just saw this preacher on TV, a short time ago, on a local cable show... Don't know his condition.

I was a brand new Christian at that time, and wanted to go speak with him, or his daughters, and when the opportunity presented itself to see the older girl, the Holy Spirit stopped me dead in my tracks on the way there. That has happened to me several times in my walk...Never did talk to them...

 

[Jon-Marc]

I was born again on May 18, 1963 and have been a Baptist all that time. The Baptist churches I've been a member of don't teach that. Sanctification is a "setting apart" of an object or person for God's use. It is not something we ask for (not that it would hurt to ask--I do), but we as believers are already "set apart" from the world and are sanctified for God's use. How much use He gets from us depends on our willingness to be used.

 

[trustitl]

I was born again on May 18, 1963 and have been a Baptist all that time. The Baptist churches I've been a member of don't teach that. Sanctification is a "setting apart" of an object or person for God's use. It is not something we ask for (not that it would hurt to ask--I do), but we as believers are already "set apart" from the world and are sanctified for God's use. How much use He gets from us depends on our willingness to be used.

I like that answer. Most of the Baptists I know think sanctification is a work that happens as they read the Bible, pray, humble themselves is some way,...

 

[nodak]

My grandma was a Nazarene and many family members still are. The old idea of going to the altar and coming away "perfect" has transitioned. The denomination seems to me to have moved more into alignment with the teachings of Baptists such as Ryrie and Stanley concerning this.

I am coming to the conclusion that IF you understood the Lordship of Christ when you were saved, you will probably fall out understanding progressive sanctification.

If you did not and God in His great grace saved you anyway, He is surely going to deal with you at some point. Better late than never! If that is your experience, you will probably understand sanctification as both instantaneous and progressive.

It helps me to remember there is positional sanctification and experiential sanctification.

 

[Marcia]

As a child I attended a Nazarene Church and I remember that they taught that sanctification was obtained in like manner as salvation. After Christ came into your life sometime later if not immediately you "went back to the alter" and asked that the carnal nature ("the ole man") be remove from you and afterwards you would be free from sinning. This was referred to as a Second Definite Work of Grace. I do not remember their teachings on Eternal Security, falling from Grace or perseverance of The Saints.
My question; is there any present day mainline churches or otherwise that teach this?

Nazarenes came from the Wesleyan movement, which also taught this, I believe (at least originally). They also taught you can lose your salvation (I know some Nazarenes and they do believe this).

Are you asking if there are present mainline churches that teach as the Nazarenes do, or that teach eternal security?

I'm pretty sure most Baptists teach eternal security (except maybe a few sects I'm not aware of - I don't know what Free Will Baptists teach on this, for example).

I think the biblical view of sanctification is that it follows justification. Justification happens at salvation; this is when you are declared righteous in God's eyes because the righteousness of Christ is imputed to you (not because you are righteous).

Following this, you are being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, an ongoing process your whole life. You are never completely without sin while alive.

 

[thegospelgeek]

I'm pretty sure most Baptists teach eternal security (except maybe a few sects I'm not aware of - I don't know what Free Will Baptists teach on this, for example).

The Free Will Baptist teach (and I believe the Bible does also) that salvation is by grace through faith alone. It is not earned by works nor kept by works. A person can become apostate by abandoning the faith in Christ and so shipwreck their faith. The following is from the Treatise of the Free Will Baptist.

1. We believe that salvation is a present possession by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and that a person's eternal destiny depends on whether he has this possession. This we hold in distinction from those who teach that salvation depends on human works or merit.

2. We believe that a saved individual may, in freedom of will, cease to trust in Christ for salvation and once again be lost. This we hold in distinction from those who teach that a believer may not again be lost.

3. We believe that any individual living in the practice of sin (whether he be called "backslider" or "sinner") must be judged by that evidence to be lost should he so die in his sins. This we hold in distinction from those who suggest that pernicious doctrine that a man may live in sin as he pleases and still claim Heaven as his eternal home.

4. We believe that any regenerate person who has sinned (again, whether he be called "backslider" or "sinner") and in whose heart a desire arises to repent may do so and be restored to favor and fellowship with God. This we hold in distinction from those who teach that when a Christian sins he cannot repent and be restored to favor and fellowship with God

You will find slight variations of this doctrine by Churches and individule members as that each church is autonomous(sp). The Free Will baptist teach sanctification pretty much the same way all Baptist do, that it is a progressive work, not a second work of grace.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Marcia:
"I think the biblical view of sanctification is that it follows justification. Justification happens at salvation; this is when you are declared righteous in God's eyes because the righteousness of Christ is imputed to you (not because you are righteous).

Following this, you are being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, an ongoing process your whole life. You are never completely without sin while alive."

GE:
What you have here stated, just so, also applies to 'sanctification' and can easily be confirmed with just the use of a concordance: Look up the NT texts; even more than 'justification' it says 'sanctification is 'extrinsic',
The biblical view of sanctification is that it is simultaneous with justification.
Sanctification just like justification happens at salvation;
this is when you are forgiven your sins and are declared righteous and holy in God's eyes
because the righteousness and holiness of Christ is imputed to you (not because you are righteous or holy).
Holiness is imparted in secondary sense only. Following sanctification - in Christ, that is -, you are being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, an ongoing process your whole life.

New Testament 'sanctification' means while alive you are never without less sin or without less of a sinful nature and propensity to sin than you have been before salvation, or need less mercy or forgiveness; you are only stronger established in Christ and more depending on Him and the most primitive principles of ordinary grace.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Hillclimber: In the late 60's .......

HP: What is your point? Are you saying that the doctrine in question is in error because one you say you knew claimed he couldn’t sin? If that is the case it would be your first duty to show that the doctrine of sanctification suggests such a thing, something you have as yet provided for the list.

Possibly you are also trying to suggest guilt by association, in that one that you say believed he could not sin, and with your obvious implication that that is what the doctrine of sanctification in reality supports, that the doctrine must be in error due to this man’s beliefs and or failed personal life in your estimation from your limited perspective.

From what I read your post has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP in the least and in no wise sheds light on the doctrine as commonly taught in Arminian and other circles.

 

[DHK]

HP: What is your point? Are you saying that the doctrine in question is in error because one you say you knew claimed he couldn’t sin? If that is the case it would be your first duty to show that the doctrine of sanctification suggests such a thing, something you have as yet provided for the list.

Possibly you are also trying to suggest guilt by association, in that one that you say believed he could not sin, and with your obvious implication that that is what the doctrine of sanctification in reality supports, that the doctrine must be in error due to this man’s beliefs and or failed personal life in your estimation from your limited perspective.

From what I read your post has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP in the least and in no wise sheds light on the doctrine as commonly taught in Arminian and other circles.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Isn't it interesting to note that in such a large crowd surrounding Jesus, there was not one that could say: "I am without sin."
That in itself would give evidence of how wrong the doctrine is, not to mention the straight forward statements of 1John 1:8,10.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, .........

HP: You beg the question as to what sanctification implies. You start pointing fingers at a doctrine that you have as of yet to establish what it is or who honestly believes it as you perceive or insinuate they believe it to indicate.

Clearly sanctification can be thought of in more than one sense. There are differing ways that one is sanctified, depending on the sense in which it is used. If one is going to intelligently address the doctrine of sanctification, one needs to set forth the sense in which one is using the term and then speak to what exactly is accomplished in ones life again in relationship to the sense in which it is being addressed.

Still yet, one has to realize that all that use the word or say they believe in the doctrine of sanctification do not agree as to what it entails in any or all senses in which it is used, nor the scope in which affects ones life in any given sense of the term. No doubt that there are some that have wrong ideas as to sanctification, but before one starts throwing generalized stones at the doctrine, one needs to establish not only the parameters of the word as they are addressing the issue, but also the parameters of the particular manner in which different groups or individuals use the term in the specific sense in which they are using it.

 

[DHK]

HP: You beg the question as to what sanctification implies. You start pointing fingers at a doctrine that you have as of yet to establish what it is or who honestly believes it as you perceive or insinuate they believe it to indicate.

Clearly sanctification can be thought of in more than one sense. There are differing ways that one is sanctified, depending on the sense in which it is used. If one is going to intelligently address the doctrine of sanctification, one needs to set forth the sense in which one is using the term and then speak to what exactly is accomplished in ones life again in relationship to the sense in which it is being addressed.

Still yet, one has to realize that all that use the word or say they believe in the doctrine of sanctification do not agree as to what it entails in any or all senses in which it is used, nor the scope in which affects ones life in any given sense of the term. No doubt that there are some that have wrong ideas as to sanctification, but before one starts throwing generalized stones at the doctrine, one needs to establish not only the parameters of the word as they are addressing the issue, but also the parameters of the particular manner in which different groups or individuals use the term in the specific sense in which they are using it.

You have read what has been said.
It has been stated clearly and without obfuscation.
Now, you have come and started to talk in circles, philosophically, and in generalities, saying nothing specific.
However the Bible is very specific.
Entire sanctification is not a Biblical doctrine.
The Bible clearly states:

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Isn't it interesting to note that in such a large crowd surrounding Jesus, there was not one that could say: "I am without sin."
That in itself would give evidence of how wrong the doctrine is, not to mention the straight forward statements of 1John 1:8,10.

HP: This is a red herring. The doctrine of sanctification, regardless of what sense it is spoken of, always involves those born again. In the illustration used those Christ spoke directly to were accusers of this women and were trying to trip Jesus up. There is NO indication whatsoever that any being addressed were saved to start with. Every indication is to the contrary.

Are we to assume that if something (whatever one might believe as to what sanctification entails, in whatever sense one is using it in) could not be accomplished after the Ultimate Sacrifice for sin was made and the subsequent pouring out of the Holy Spirit, due to the fact that it was not possible (if that is ones point) prior to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit?

I believe you miss establishing anything concerning the OP by the passage and illustration you set forth DHK.

 

[DHK]

HP: This is a red herring. The doctrine of sanctification, regardless of what sense it is spoken of, always involves those born again. In the illustration used those Christ spoke directly to were accusers of this women and were trying to trip Jesus up. There is NO indication whatsoever that any being addressed were saved to start with. Every indication is to the contrary.

Even the unsaved self-righteous consider themselves without sin. Consider the Pharisee praying before the temple in Luke 18. He, in contrast to the publican, did not consider himself a sinner.

Nevertheless, the strength of the argument against entire sanctification lies in 1 John 1, where John, includes himself, when he says:

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Do you really have any argument against this Scripture?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You have read what has been said.
It has been stated clearly and without obfuscation.
Now, you have come and started to talk in circles, philosophically, and in generalities, saying nothing specific.
However the Bible is very specific.
Entire sanctification is not a Biblical doctrine.
The Bible clearly states:

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

HP: Scripture states that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from ALL sin. Are you calling God a liar? Does God cast all 'sins that are past' at salvation away from us as He promised to do, or is that bunk as well?

When one gets up from the alter having been washed by the blood are you to tell them that their sins remain and that to say that Christ has sanctified their soul from all sin and that they are now made whiter than snow is to lie as to the work that God has done within their heart, and contrary to Scripture, as you appear to indicate, their sins still and must remain?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: So I ask you again DHK, were all your sins that were past covered by the blood in total or were they not? Were you or were you not saved to the uttermost at salvation? Was your heart made ‘white as snow’ or was that in reality not so?

DHK: 1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Do you really have any argument against this Scripture?

HP: Scripture has a lot to say in refutation to the manner in which you are using these verses. Here are just a couple of such passages. 1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:” 1Jo 2:3 ¶ And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

 

[DHK]

HP: Scripture states that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from ALL sin. Are you calling God a liar? Does God cast all 'sins that are past' at salvation away from us as He promised to do, or is that bunk as well?

When one gets up from the alter having been washed by the blood are you to tell them that their sins remain and that to say that Christ has sanctified their soul from all sin and that they are now made whiter than snow is to lie as to the work that God has done within their heart, and contrary to Scripture, as you appear to indicate, their sins still and must remain?

If I recall correctly that is another doctrine that you argued against vociferously, and didn't seem to believe. You even accused me of getting another poster banned (a false accusation) who didn't believe what you just stated above. And you agreed with him. So you have contradicted yourself. Shall I pull up old threads and demonstrate it?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You have read what has been said.
It has been stated clearly and without obfuscation.

HP: Enlighten the reader DHK as to what this ‘entire sanctification’ you speak of entails or to where it was defined in this thread. I must have missed that post(s). The OP spoke about ‘sanctification’ only as I remember, and said nothing of entire sanctification or what that might mean to differing groups or individuals.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: If I recall correctly that is another doctrine that you argued against vociferously, and didn't seem to believe. You even accused me of getting another poster banned (a false accusation) who didn't believe what you just stated above. And you agreed with him. So you have contradicted yourself. Shall I pull up old threads and demonstrate it?

HP: I would love to see you verify the remarks you just made. By all means, pull away if that is what you choose to do. But first, answer my last short post. :thumbs: