By David Cox
We should begin by admitting that the Bible itself speaks in a cryptic way about sanctification. On one hand, God calls ALL Christians, "saints", implying that we all are holy. In some sense we are. Yet in passages like 1 John 1:8-10 God clearly declares that every single person is sinful, no exceptions. 1 John is written to new Christians. So to truly understand Sanctification we must understand this divine dynamic in how we are at the same time, holy, and not yet holy even though we are saved.
By Justification, we mean to say that before the holy court of heaven, in God's sight, we have no sin. This is a single event that we can say took place on the cross, or when God decided to do it before creation, or on judgment day, or when we individually get saved and it is applied personally. But Sanctification has an element of being done once and for all in the cross, or better put, when we were saved, God sealed our salvation with the Holy Spirit which effected immediately and for ever our Sanctification. But the practical side of this is that we still sin, and we must "learn" or "be sanctified" by the renewing of our minds and souls.
Now the debate has come about as to if there is a possibility of "perfection" (John Wesley), and this perfection would be complete sanctification before entering heaven. It would seem that this position we contradict the clear statement of 1 John 1:8-10. Part of the problem is that "perfection" is being taken by the Methodists as not a single sin (complete Sanctification), when in Scriptures that is not its meaning. "Perfect" in Scriptures has an idea of complete, but better understand as mature, adult, and not without a single sin. The concept is very different.
My reaction to Methodism (that there is a procedure, or things one does, to becoming perfectly sinless on earth) is that it is wrong. My reasoning is that the Scriptures present faith as the key to salvation, sanctification being a part of that salvation, and as Paul so aptly puts it in Galatians 3:1-3, "having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Being spiritually mature (perfection) does not come by doing, but by being. You cannot quantify or reduce this "being" to anything more than a single personal relationship with Christ. The Wesleyian-Methodist movement came out of the Anglican church, which is essentially a "warmed-over" Catholicism, with much of the fakery and false religious externalism of Catholicism. From this holiness movement basically founded in the Methodist and Nazarene movements, came the Pentecostal movement which used the externals of speaking in tongues, miracles, healings, etc. as the external signs of perfection, filling of the Holy Spirit, etc. This is always the error of Methodism, that being, something secondary is defined as being holy, and then the very essence of holy is lost in the shuffle. How can somebody so holy on one hand be so carnal (sleeping with other women, publicly becoming a money hungry wolf in sheep's clothing, lying, cheating, stealing, etc.)? This is because the word "holiness" is divorced from its meaning (not sinning, and fulfilling righteousness, what we should be doing) and given a new definition that is "easier" to comply with. This is a loop hole for arrogantly proclaiming one's own holiness (somewhere humility and meekness has to be essential in holiness too), and at the same time doing what one wants without respect to what the Bible defines as holiness, and it is all too distant from the example of Christ.
This movement has to its credit a self-awareness of the external hypocrisy of so called Christians among them, and a strong reaction against their not truly living their salvation. That is excellent. The other great advantage to Methodism (that we all can study and learn from) is that burning desire to be holy like our God. We should wish that holiness and personal piety would be the burning zealous desire of every Christian everywhere.
Unfortunately we have to abandon externals as the way to secure this holiness. No list of things a Christian does, or should do, (a method) will make a Christian a good Christian. Salvation is by faith, not works, and likewise, holiness is by faith, not works. There is a dynamic of love between us and God that defines our conduct and attitude, and that also produces maturity. This love cannot be reduced to trivial "things". Love between a man and woman cannot be reduced to flowers and chocolates, but must be "dynamic". That means at times these "things" may be very right, and at other times, they are just insufficient.
In the literature about sanctification, you should be keenly aware of the person's theological position when reading the literature. A Calvinist (Reformed) person will see election as the security of his salvation, and a Methodist, Nazarene, Holiness, will see his perfect record of living without sin as his security. Calvinism will rightly condemn and bring to light that nobody can live without sin. The holiness literature as whole does have some value in waging war against sin within our own personal lives, and they use emotions to do so. I believe this has some value, although it must be firmly anchored with Bible exposition to be useful. Calvinism is strangely cold and dead on issue of true holiness. For them, they take the position of the Old Testament Jew. They are privileged by birth, so they are elitist, and they do not have to force themselves to be holy, just enjoy their election to eternal life. Resting "on their laurels", the Calvinist does little beyond the minimum for personal holiness. This breeds hidden sins, and indeed, the rank and file Calvinist is arrogant, prideful, and self-secure in his own "holiness" even though in his actual life, he may have grave sins. Calvin himself had an opponent burned at the stake. How can a Calvinist get this attitude? Because he considers himself better than others because he has learned the secret mysteries of the "doctrines of Grace". This makes him wiser and better than others.
The issue is fraught with problems all the way around, and the trite illustration "What would Jesus do?" is actually a good guide here. If we are not walking as Jesus walked, we are far from holiness. I do not think Jesus ever was prideful, arrogant, "full of himself". I do not think Jesus would have fought such that burning his opponents at the stake would have been an outworking of his religious efforts. Jesus told Peter to put away his sword, and healed the damage Peter had already done. They opposed him to the death, but we see suffering to death, but not carnality bubbling up to provocation of sinful actions.
Concerning the Roman Catholic Church, to them holiness is a pure declaration, and we see the externals of priests in dresses, all fixed up like women going to town with talk hats, silver and gold, much pomp and pride. But the truth is we see the other side also of priests with no wife as Paul demands is the only valid situation, priests who are child molesters and pornography mongers, a church who pays millions to sell out of court accusations against their priests, but seems to be totally incapable of removing these eyesores from their midst. The lesson there is very acute. Holiness is not external, but internal. You can never have confidence in an external to represent internal holiness.
I am Baptist. Let me lambaste the Baptists while I am at this. Unfortunately I see little different with the Baptists in general. A spiritual Christian in their minds is (and what follows is a laundry list of good things Christians should do). Unfortunately the Baptists have no protection from financial fraud nor sexual improprieties in their churches. What happened?
Here I go back to Parham, the founder of the modern Pentecostal movement. He was a professor in a Bible college out west, and put to consideration and study the question, "What are the external manifestations of the filling of the Holy Spirit?" This he asked to his students, and from there the conclusion was speaking in tongues. It is always easier to copy the externals that to deal with the heart of the matter, your personal relationship with God. Doing any "thing" will not excuse sin. Sin here is defined twofold, doing what God prohibits, or not doing what God commands us to do.
Giving $10,000 dollars to your church will not balance out your not going out witnessing, not praying, not attending, not reading the Scriptures, etc. But this kind of thing has become entrenched in Christianity in churches of rich folk. In churches of poor folk, they import teachers, preachers, and evangelists to do the job which they refuse to learn how to do. Neither rich nor poor have learned the secrets here. To walk with God, to leave off sinning, and to do justice and righteousness is what makes a personal holy. Nothing else can do. Does that mean I don't have to give and I can be holy? No, it means you have to do what God wants you to do, and don't be lazy asking me what that is. You must study Scriptures and find out for yourself, and comply with that yourself. There are no substitutes here. Holiness is like your toothbrush. It is personal, individual, and when somebody else uses your toothbrush, you throw it away. Likewise holiness that is not 100% personal, born in your soul, in your desire from a scripturally informed knowledge of God's will, is simply useless.