On Entire Sanctification
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 02. 2019
- My website: www.jordanbcooper.com
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video addresses the Wesleyan idea of entire sanctification and its connection to what I have called Christification. I discuss a Lutheran approach to the topic.
The rationale behind the Wesleyan doctrine of 'entire sanctification' is a trust and hope in the power of God.
Romans 7:25. "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."
All believers will be sanctified fully and glorified at the day of the Lord (Philippians 1:6).
But Wesley believed that if it was God's will that a believer could be utterly transformed and sanctified in this life, then it was possible. According to him, it was not a certainty, but should be a desire for the believer.
the traditional Lutheran view appears to limit the Santifying power of God and the promises of the NT on victory over sin before death. the Ancient Church-Orthodox-Catholic-Wesleyan-Anabaptist view is more faithful to the Scriptures.
As a believer who has departed from the Wesleyan path toward ordination, their doctrine on Entire Sanctification is one of the reasons that I disagreed with. As you stated, they start having a weaker view of sin and they view some things as willful violation of the law (sin), and others as unwilling transgressions (not sins). They weigh things in that regard and it starts a process towards measuring yourself against the laws and the standards that they have. It puts believers on a path towards pride (actually being successful) or despair (realizing that we can never do enough). That was the breaking point for me, and when I cried out to brothers in despair, saying I'm doing everything that I can think to do, but I feel like I'm failing, the response was "Just love God." They fail to see that as heaping on a load of law, and it becomes a burden that cannot be borne. Their doctrines drove me to scripture, and in the scriptures I saw what was missing in their teaching. Sadly, since to achieve entire sanctification, one always needs to work according to the law; their teaching is heavy on law and practical application of the Bible. The Gospel gets confused, and too often, Jesus and what He has done to free us from sin is left out.
Could you go into what scriptures led you to your conclusion and conversion? I’m currently in the other boat but since everyone is so against the idea of it being possible to not sin, I’m scared and I’m looking for scripture.
@@losmcdonalddid you find answers?...
Putting any denomination before your personal relationship with God will create problems
This is incorrect understanding
Christ said we must become sinless and perfect to enter heaven.
Thank you
I read an explanation of the Wesleyan view of entire sanctification by a Wesleyan theologian in which he referred to it as an "imperfect perfection." I think that's a rather extreme amount of over-qualification. Why not just be honest and call a sin a sin instead of having to excuse sin as being merely an error or a mistake or poor judgement or whatever just to maintain one's status of being without sin?
@@Jonathan-si2nd Sin is sin, whether it is willful or not. Can I go without sinning for two minutes? Maybe, if I'm asleep. While I'm awake, can I perfectly love God with all my being and perfectly love my neighbor as myself? Can I be totally free from sinning in thought or word or deed, by what I have done or what I have left undone? I wouldn't bet on it. That's why I seek to be blameless by being clothed in Christ's perfect righteousness. I don't want to have to stand in judgement before God based on my own righteousness.
I am neither Weslean or Lutheran, and I think that the confusion is firstly because both approach the subject from entirely different positions and secondly because ultimately we don't get a clear answer from scripture to this question. The Wesleyan view is arguing about the power of God to completely change a man and let him loose from the bondage of sin. And the critic they get is either that they claim to be sinless and/or that the human errors, misjudgements, mistakes etc. that remains are not regarded as sin. On the other hand, the Lutheran approaches the subject from the position of the indwelling sin: no matter how holy you get, you will always do sin. They critic Lutheans get is embracing antinomianism: believers are not even expected to repent or give up their sin.
I live in a Lutheran country, and I know Lutheran priests who loudly voice their conserns over christians who testify how God changed their life, saying that the Lutheran teaching is not one of change, but one of grace.
An unbelieving person asked my Lutheran friend: "If every person is a sinner and does sin, and those who believe the gospel are still sinners and do sin, then what is the reason you believe?" My Lutheran friend could not answer because the consept that
1) Sin sets up apart from God,
2) When we believe we are juridicially forgive, but still continue to sin (but this time it will not set us apart from God);
This was not understandable to the unbelieving person.
I am not waging war against Lutheran theology, and I have wonderful Lutheran friends. I just think that easily dismissing the Methodist theology over Lutheran without trying to understand what is behind it might sometimes be like removing the speck from the other person's eye while letting the plank be left in the own eye.
@@joakimrantanen3401 Well said.
@@sarco64 sin is not sin because it is willful or not...Now if that which pertains to the eternal is what makes the blood of Jesus holy and acceptable with the Father then we must....yes we must concede that the conscience is the dividing line of sin imputed and sin not imputed.
Mistakes, faults of character and errors of judgement DO NOT HAVE THE CONSENT of the conscience therefore theses kinds of sins are our humanity--- or our flesh that serves sin--re: we shall never be sinless or equal to God in this life. An example of a mistake in the old testament that is a sin but not imputed as sin to ones charge is when one mistakenly killed another and ran to a city of refuge whereas no punishment was to be given and the the persons was free to live a life without charge.
And through Christ Jesus we can with our mind serve the law of righteousness....which is what defines one truely "born again"......read 1 john 3: 9...............but few find it
@@joakimrantanen3401 "If every person is a sinner and does sin, and those who believe the gospel are still sinners and do sin, then what is the reason you believe?"
If this is one's objection to the Gospel, they do not understand it. The Gospel is specifically for those who sin. Not a single believer has ever been sin-free. We believe so that we can have communion with God through the work of Christ and the grace of God despite our fallen nature, not so that we will be perfect in every way in this life. Even Peter, the leader of the Apostles, sinned after receiving the baptism of the holy spirit when he showed partiality between gentiles and Jews, acting hypocritically (Galatians 2:11-13).
Additionally, the implication from the verse below is that the day we stop sinning, we no longer need the Gospel.
"And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.' " Mark 2:17
I am not sure whether what I am responding to is your objection or is just a argument used as in as a devil's advocate point. I just though I would explain my thoughts on it.
Wesley himself believed it was important for believers, even those mature, to pray for Jesus' blood to cover their sins. The problem here is the definition of sin, as you say, but I disagree that the Wesleyan view is a weaker view of sin. Why do I say this? Because by conflating unintentional sins with willful sins, you actually weaken the severity of what willful sinning actually is; you numb yourself to it. Psalm 19 clearly speaks of both willful as well as unintentional sins. We see this distinction in Numbers 15 as well.
The reason why I believe this is important to understand is that if a believer thinks there is no difference, this can lead them to living a defeated life. They live in a defeated way because satan uses their unintentional errors to lessen their confidence that Christ is at work within them.
Understanding this difference has brought a lot of peace to my life because I can have confidence that Christ is at work within me and this his Spirit is powerful enough to destroy the desire for voluntary sin in my inner man.
The body will only be freed from involuntary sins upon death and glorification.
_"the desire for voluntary sin"_
Wow! What a hero you are. You never sin voluntarily! You never sin by desiring to sin! St. Brian, teach us poor miserable sinners how to be free from all voluntary sin and the desire to sin. How can we completely overcome voluntary sin and the desire to sin when our will power is worn out from a difficult day? How can we completely overcome voluntary sin when and the desire to sin when the devil, the world around us, and our own fleshy desires are constantly attacking the weakness of our minds, the weakness of our desires, and the weakness of our flesh?
One QUESTION I have is whether you find fruitful discussing together the notion of human perfection found in Friedrich Nietzsche’s thesis of the Ubermensch, William Blake’s poetry, Siddhartha Gautama’s enlightenment, and Wesley’s entire sanctification? Are there any common grounds besides the notion of human perfection that we can put all of these writers on (I would also love any recommendations for similar themes of perfection argued by women writers and non-white writers).
But in Buddhism (and Christianity) the end goal seems to be a dissolution of selfhood into non-self (anatman) or Christ (and in turn God) in “us.” Nietzsche seeks to free the greater humans from low morality to reach an existence beyond the degenerate human condition, but part of his anti-philosophy is also this emphasis that language has deceived us into thinking that things and selves actually exist. And we place more importance on nouns than verbs.
Christianity does not pursue the dissolution of the self, it aims towards Theosis, submitting your will in perfect agreement to God’s. If there is no person- you- left, there is no possibility for love.
The Lutheran view of sanctification you've expounded here seems to bear resemblance to Lewis Sperry Chafer's theology. Is that a correct assumption? Or are there distinctions?
I came across the Wesleyan doctrine in a state of desperation. I read "Forty Witnesses" by S. Olin Garrison, which is 40 testimonies of saints from the "holiness" era who had received entire sanctification, some after years and years of struggling against their carnal nature. I started speaking to other 'believers' about it, and many discouraged me and said it is not possible to be free from sin this side of heaven. Have you ever read any of the testimonies of those who received this blessing? They are some of the most humble, loving people I've ever encountered. They truly have a knowing that they are nothing, and that the LORD is everything.
Well, I thank the LORD that He out of HIs mercy and answer to my prayers encouraged me through a brother in Christ. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. He gave me Psalm 93:5 which reads -
"Thy testimonies are very sure: holiness becometh thine house, O LORD, for ever."
One sin caused Adam and Eve to become spiritually dead. Jesus came to save His people from their sins. He whom the Son sets free, is free indeed. He is able to keep us from stumbling, and preserve us BLAMELESS unto the coming of the LORD. Will there be sin in any of God's people in eternity with Him? Absolutely not. Why if He is able to cleanse us from all sin then, can't He do it now? He can, and that is part of the Gospel. We through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the flesh. Dead is dead.
You and all who speak against entire sanctification are wrong, and are leading people astray. Repent and ask the LORD to reveal the truth to you, and to make you a lover of the truth in the first place.
One of the worst things plaguing 'believers' today is making doctrines based on their experiences. The word of God is true. Your experience of lack thereof doesn't change it.
As you know, we have to get our witness of the truth and testimony from Holy Scripture itself, and not from the testimony of figures in history that are as fallible in their understanding and experience as you and I. As much as any true Christian desires to be holy like Christ, the question we have to answer from Scripture is can I be truly sinless this side of heaven just like Jesus(God Incarnate) is and was while He was on this earth? Is this even a possibility? The definite answer we get from Scripture so that we are not decieved is "No"!
The Apostle John writes in
1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
This in the Greek is also present tense. If anyone could claim sinless or moral perfection after all these years it would be the Apostle John or the other Apostles, right? Well, note that in verses 8-10, again in Greek this is written in the present tense that aged Apostle includes himself when he says " We". "If WE say we have no sin,, WE decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us" just as "if WE confess" and "if WE say WE have not sinned, WE make Him a liar, and His truth is not in US". If the aged great Apostle John was aware that he himself was not morally perfect and included himself in this passage, dare any of us presume that we are or can be morally perfect this side of heaven?
@@EmV-si1euRead the entire letter of 1 John. Specifically, chapter 2! If you claim Christ, you must live as He did.
No one claiming full sanctification says they are not sinners but the opposite. They are saying we were born into sin, but in finding Christ, we died to sin and find our identity in Him, the sinless one!
@jacobkelch123 Forgive me if I misunderstood you. I thought you or your position postulated actual sinless perfection or moral perfection. We are positionally righteous because of the Person and perfect work of Christ alone. However, if someone has been truly justified, the inseparable work of sanctification has already begun in that one's life. I would hope that someone who claims to be a follower of Christ isn't just as sanctified as they were years ago or when they first got saved!
@@EmV-si1eu Reminded of the two great commands Christ gave… Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
If we pursue these two things, HOLINESS will be the result. 😭
You'll live like He did, as John says we should.
If you love Him, you will hate sin. And if you love Him, you will love like he did, even if that means being persecuted for sharing the gospel with others.
Holiness is not a matter of our own doing but an outgrowth of LOVE!
@jacobkelch123 If salvation is the work of God and sanctification is the result of justification because His Holy Spirit and z love dwells in us, where then is the disagreement?
Is it biblical to defend being stuck in sin…..or benign free….?
I'm Enjoying reading
I would argue that when God calls us Justified, we are Justified. We dont seem justified, we are, in our being, justified. When God said "let there be light" there didnt "seem" to be light, there was not darkness covered with light so that it appeared to God there was only light, there was light and so there was no more darkness where the light existed. Luther's "Shit covered in snow" wholly undermines God's authority and ability to make us new creatures, holy, blameless, and irreproachable. If we are to exist in the Glory of God, we are to be Holy, not just appear Holy
The Lord Jesus Christ said Go and sin no more. St John said, I write unto you that ye sin not. Lutherans (and others) seem to say they were wrong to command this. That is a denial of the power of God to transform the Christian.
Lutherans rigorously teach the 10 commandments, the sermon, on the Mount and the whole Bible. We certainly teach people to pursue perfect obedience. We also teach that, since we will always have awful sins, we cannot keep the command to be perfect. We will always need grace, and always need to pray the 5th petition.
@@Mygoalwogel ,Why God will ask us to follow his will if is impossible?
@@angelbonilla4243 His will is simply right whether you are able to obey it or not. Have you managed to love God with absolutely all of your heart, soul, strength, and mind, and to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself?
@@Mygoalwogel . No, I don't love God with all my heart. But God himself has command us to Love him. Which means that is possible, with the assistance of the Spirit, to do so. If not, God will have not command us to do so.
@@angelbonilla4243 So you believe that God's Holy Spirit has enabled you to love God and neighbor perfectly? Then why don't you love perfectly?
Thanks my friend, I do think it is good to inform that Wesley's fight was against the Augustinian Gnosticism of his day. "sin in the flesh ''is an analogy of my hearts intent to use my flesh to sin ( sin being moral choice rebellion, against the light of God you have from the hearts intent, not a dead body) it being morally neutral, or actually good,, seeing as God made it, and Jesus came in exactly the same flesh as me and you. IE the root is the hearts desire to rebel against God, using GOD CREATE FLESH. "An evil eye"" in Christianity is not the same as in Gnosticism, i.e. In Christianity, it is simply me, using my God created, miraculously made , God ordained, morally fine, eyeball to sin from my heart. The idea that the flesh is a sinful thing, or personality is Gnosticism, not Christian. IE"" I can sin every day, or my flesh can, but I am sinless"". ( the "two age" theory, but a new body and age, cannot by fiat, and will not, change my moral character, if I am filthy every day, I will remain filthy still).. So the gnostic Augustinian may not, because of their doctrine say "Jesus came in exactly the same flesh as me and you"" ask one and see, its easy, they will always change his nature to other than fully human in flesh that got tired, hungry, could be killed, but what made him prefect was his moral life of obedience, or non sin. Ask an Augustian if Jesus came in the same nature, they get angry as if you are the one in the Antichrist spirt and say" of coarse not, he had a different nature". So they equate sin with flesh, and change the nature of Jesus. They also affirm a salvation apart from faith, so include boasting, its a type of awakening, change of nature, ( none can explain to what, seeing as they remain fully human) without faith, also an illegal move. This was Wesley's fight, against the spread of false gospel for which a big chunk of the bible is written.,
I confess to not reading enough Wesley, but this view seems to continue to this day. How little attention do we pay to the "goodness" of creation. How much do we emphasize our status as sinners IN BEING HUMAN. Yes, we are sinful, yes we need grace, but we are not sinners because we are made of matter, we are not sinners because we are not God. "God saves by grace SO THAT NO MAN MAY BOAST". We should be deeply wary of self-righteousness, of looking on others with judgement, seeing ourselves as "higher" "better" "more righteous" than our brothers and sisters, this is the true danger of Pelagianism that it should grant us warrant to be prideful, the worst of our sins. But does this mean we should not hope to through grace be made holy, do good, not sin, because we were not made by God to sin. If we use this language too strongly we may wrongly think that being human is whats sinful, and THAT is a horrible thing to say. We desire to not sin to make our physical flesh "more alive" because man is created in the garden to do the good of God in creation. And this is what Ive been dwelling on lately, that salvation redeems the fullness of our humanity, it doesnt make us into a different thing....its just that sin is so much a part of us it seems odd. How would one with a disease from birth feel after being cured of it after living many years? Strange indeed. This is I think the danger of "flesh" language. We must be clear on what Paul means by it.
Where’s the joy of being connected to your Creator? Christianity is losing adherents left and right because people need to know there’s peace and joy in the process of sanctification. If it feels like another “checklist” of things to do . . . Well, life has enough burdens already.
Those 5-Point Calvinists can be negative and evil.
first
All protestantism is in error and heresy my brother. There is only one church that Jesus Christ established himself in 33AD. The holy catholic and Apostolic church.