Sanctification

[Soli Deo Gloria]

I want to hear (read) your thoughts about a fundie's view of sanctification. I went to school in an environment that enforced rule-based sanctification but would protest till they were blue in the face that salvation was by grace through faith. Regeneration is God's area but sanctification is my job is the prevailing attitude. Thoughts?

[Faith]

It seems to me like fundies behave as if God's grace is only available once, at the moment one is "saved." After that it is up to you to be holy enough for God's approval. It's a really weird disconnect, how they preach salvation by grace given in return for faith, but then run like hamsters on a wheel trying to be good enough for God to love them.

[Historian]

I'm not convinced that your average fundy really considers their own view of sanctification, any more than they consider their view of justification. Justification is by faith in Christ alone–only I have make the decisions, so really I save myself by my smart choice. Sanctification is the same. God helps me, but when it really comes down to it sanctification is my work. Why? For the same reason man has struggled with the true Gospel since the very beginning: pride. I MUST help. It can't be all God. That's shaming and humiliating to me. In theory I can sing about "such a worm as I," but in reality I really think I'm pretty good, and I have something to contribute to God. God chips in about 70%, and I do the other 30%. Yeah, I could never reach 100% by myself, I'll admit that. But "I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector." My 30% is essential.

One of the best responses I've read to this came from (I believe) Micheal Horton. He said (and I'm paraphrasing wildly here, and expanding with some of my own thoughts) the problem is that people conceive of the distance between us and God as being something like 20 feet over the canyon. If it's only 20 feet than someone who can jump 12 feet is more than halfway there on their own. They're in much better shape than someone who can only hop a foot or less. They just need a bit of a push and they've made it. In reality, the distance is like standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon. It is miles across. It doesn't matter if you can jump 12 feet or 12 inches––getting across is still utterly hopeless and if you try you die. Someone has to take you over, and all your jumping won't do a thing. When you can't see how helpless and hopeless you are, you aren't ready to see the overwhelming grace of God and the undeserved love of Christ.

[exIFB]

As a non-calvinist, I want to first say I don't believe I have anything to do with my salvation.

IFB's often have faith in faith. In other words, they preach justification by faith, but what they really mean is that if you believe people are justified by faith (ie, the doctrine) and have faith in that doctrine, you are saved. Very little is put on what that doctrine entails - total forgiveness, imputed righteousness - lip service is given but most don't believe that they are actually forgiven, which is why they have the constant altar calls, invitations to "get right" etc.

I finally understood what it meant to "Believe in your head" and "believe in your heart" recently. Actually, it was only yesterday that I recognised a fundamental difference - truly believing is actually believing in the results of the doctrine - ie, I have been justified by the blood of Christ THEREFORE, I am saved, secure, sealed, sanctified, totally forgiven!

Believing the facts without the result often shows in the following - "I believe we are justified by faith alone and I believe that so I am saved". It's a subtle difference - the latter is faith in faith, where as the first, faith is passive - it is formed from hearing the word - it is not an active thing you do (ie, I can be saved now all I do is believe I am justified by faith, there I believe that fact bam saved). It's more (Wow, Jesus died for me. I've never heard this but it sounds so good. That's wonderful! He died for me! Praise the Lord") - belief is there in both, but in the former, the faith is in faith itself. In the latter, the faith is in Jesus and is more passive (ie, the focus is on Christ and the faith reaches out and accepts).

Not sure if I made any sense.

[Tony Mel]

(01-04-2011 12:12 AM)Faith Wrote:  It seems to me like fundies behave as if God's grace is only available once, at the moment one is "saved." After that it is up to you to be holy enough for God's approval. It's a really weird disconnect, how they preach salvation by grace given in return for faith, but then run like hamsters on a wheel trying to be good enough for God to love them.

Good observation, Faith. Someone from SFL once coined the term "Listmania Sanctification," and I believe that is the best way to describe their position. It's incredible the amount of things they'll tell you to do in order to "grow, grow, grow." They admit that they believe in a synergistic sanctification, and in practice, I think they mean that God does a little bit of work (like, writing commands on the Bible) and you do the ACTUAL work.

[captain_solo]

(01-07-2011 10:48 AM)Tony Mel Wrote:  

(01-04-2011 12:12 AM)Faith Wrote:  It seems to me like fundies behave as if God's grace is only available once, at the moment one is "saved." After that it is up to you to be holy enough for God's approval. It's a really weird disconnect, how they preach salvation by grace given in return for faith, but then run like hamsters on a wheel trying to be good enough for God to love them.

Good observation, Faith. Someone from SFL once coined the term "Listmania Sanctification," and I believe that is the best way to describe their position. It's incredible the amount of things they'll tell you to do in order to "grow, grow, grow." They admit that they believe in a synergistic sanctification, and in practice, I think they mean that God does a little bit of work (like, writing commands on the Bible) and you do the ACTUAL work.

Its pretty easy to refute if you just do a word study on sanctification in the actual scriptures. (using the greek - English uses several different words)

Most fundies are Keswick/Oberlin in their Sanctification theology. They believe in the Victorious life, even BJU espouses this if you have read anything by Burg you know that whichever dog you feed wins. (I dont' remember the scripture reference for that one) They essentially think they are being biblical but they actually are just demonstrating that their roots are in the holiness revival movements here in America which spawned such heretical teachings about sanctification.

[Tony Mel]

Isn't Keswick, "Let go and let God"? I didn't think Fundyland preached this..

[lighthousebwk]

I was just reading Watchman Nee's book The Normal Christian Life on the subject of sanctification today. He said, "God's means of delivering us from sin is not making us stronger and stronger, but by making us weaker and weaker. That is surely rather a peculiar way of victory, you say; but it is the divine way. God sets us free from the dominion of sin, not by strengthening our old man but by crucifying him; not by helping him to do anything but by removing him from the scene of action."
Most believers don't understand justification by grace, so it is impossible for them to then grasp sanctification by that same grace. God has done all, and until I realize that I am living what I like to call a "humanistic Christianity" with Christianity as my religion, Christ as my idol, and self as my god.[/i]

[Tony Mel]

(01-07-2011 01:55 PM)lighthousebwk Wrote:  I was just reading Watchman Nee's book The Normal Christian Life on the subject of sanctification today. He said, "God's means of delivering us from sin is not making us stronger and stronger, but by making us weaker and weaker. That is surely rather a peculiar way of victory, you say; but it is the divine way. God sets us free from the dominion of sin, not by strengthening our old man but by crucifying him; not by helping him to do anything but by removing him from the scene of action."

What would this mean in practice?

[captain_solo]

(01-07-2011 01:47 PM)Tony Mel Wrote:  Isn't Keswick, "Let go and let God"? I didn't think Fundyland preached this..

Well, this is not across the board for sure.
I am not saying they adopt the whole concept - its more complicated than that. The primary linking idea between Keswick, Oberlin, and Wesleyan Theology is the idea that sanctification is a second work of grace post salvation. In that sense, anyone who has been to fundy camp knows that the primary decision they pushed for was the "re-dedication of your life to Christ" - an idea that I heard preached many times as the work of the spirit and essential to growth. In fact still today guys like Ferrell will use this terminology.

The second common point is the idea of the victorious life, the higher life, (have you ever sung "Higher Ground" in a fundy church? or perhaps "He lifted me?" which is definitely a "let go and let God" song) These are staples, even though their theology is highly suspect. The Wesleyan view is that a plateau is reached where one does not sin intentionally any longer - and the holiness and Keswick revivals in U.S. and U.K. show many people claiming this state (while subsequently having to leave the ministry because of "emotional breakdowns" which usually involved having young ladies in their hotel rooms who were not their wives) So I see the commonality in those two points.

Fundies actually believe that in the process of pursuing holiness, they are eliminating sin, reaching a "Higher Plane" if you will, saying believers should experience consistent victory over sin, while for the most part what that means in practice is that they are eliminating the appearance of sins that happen to be on their particular lists from any venue that can be seen by others. They call this "sanctification" when I call it the dung of a domesticated farm animal. Again, they would deny that they actually believe these things, but by their fruits...