Wesleyan Sanctification: Weaknesses

Despite several strengths, the Wesleyan view of sanctification has weaknesses that outweigh the strengths. First, there is a high focus on an “experience,” or an instance in which the Christian would be perfectly sanctified. As noted earlier, this perfection is in terms of loving God, rather than absolute perfection in all things. For this position, Wesleyans argue that, “there is in the life of the believer an experiential distinction between receiving the Son and receiving the fullness of the Pentecostal Spirit” (100). Granted, there are passages that show the giving of the Holy Spirit coming after conversion, but if these passages are the exception rather than the rule, then the Wesleyan argument is greatly weakened.[1]  Sinclair Ferguson writes:

What took place in Samaria, in the house of Cornelius, and in Ephesus must be interpreted in terms of the unique historical setting of the early church. Pentecost is not ‘repeated’ any more than the death or resurrection of Christ is a repeatable event….It is an event in redemptive history (historia salutis), and should not be squeezed into the grid of the application of redemption (ordo salutis)….This is not to say that Pentecost has no existential dimension or contemporary relevance. But it does mean that we should no more anticipate a ‘personal Pentecost’ than we will experience a personal Jordan, wilderness, Gethsemane or Golgotha.[2]

The Wesleyan argument thus fails to show that Scripture speaks of two experiences of the Holy Spirit, one at conversion and another at an instant perfection of sanctification. The coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts should be best understood as a transitioning from the old covenant to the new covenant, or a “catching up” with Pentecost.[3] If it were the case that there were two different experiences of the Holy Spirit (including an instantaneous sanctification), one would expect that the Epistles would be filled with instructions to be seeking this “second blessing.” Passages that do refer to “being filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18), or that speak of being sanctified completely (1 Thess. 5:23) are not in reference to second experience of the Holy Spirit in instantaneous sanctification. Rather, being filled with the Spirit in Eph. 5:18 is in contrast to being filled and controlled with wine (drunkenness). Peter O’Brien notes that, to be admonished, ‘Be filled with the Spirit,’ then, means that Paul’s readers are urged to let the Spirit change them more into the image of God and Christ, a notion which is consistent with Pauline theology elsewhere…Furthermore, although there is a strong emphasis on God’s activity in bringing his people to fullness, this transforming work is not done apart from their personal involvement.”[4] As O’Brien observes, this change is not instantaneous and will not be fully completed until “the final day when the readers are filled with all his fullness.”[5] To use this passage in a way that would suggest Christians should be seeking and expecting any sort of a “second blessing” is a misuse of the passage. Lastly, how do Christians know that they have experienced or reached this “perfection?” Experiences are subjective, and Christians could be waiting and hoping for a feeling that never comes.

A second weakness of the Wesleyan view of sanctification is the distinction that it makes between sin and mistakes. By viewing sin as only a voluntary transgression of a known law, the totality of the biblical view of sin is lost. Wayne Grudem defines sin as “any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature.”[6] Hodge adds, “All sin, therefore, is not an agency, activity, or act; it may be and is also a condition or state of the mind.”[7] Sin is more than a voluntary transgression of a known law, for as Grudem’s definition explains, it includes thoughts and inner motives, and not just behavior. All Christians would agree that people make mistakes. The carpenter who cuts a board at the wrong angle has not (necessarily) sinned by doing so; he simple made a mistake. Mistakes do not call for repentance and the blood of Jesus to forgive. They are part of human life in a fallen world. On the other hand, to call what is sin a mistake is a huge error. Sin does need to be repented of and the blood of Christ to cover in forgiveness. Wesleyans err by limiting sin in such a narrow fashion, and by so doing, they elevate the status of man and weaken the holiness of God. 

A third weakness of Wesleyan sanctification is the view of perfect Christians in the Bible, and the location from which sin arises. Wesley believed that the “fathers” in 1 John 2:12-14 were perfect, and that the new covenant allowed Christians be go without sinning, at least in the outward sense.[8] Wesley states, “A Christian is so far perfect as not to commit sin….But elsewhere Solomon says, ‘There is no man that sinneth not.’ Doubtless thus it was in the days of Solomon; yea, and from Solomon to Christ there was then no man that sinned not. But whatever was the case of those under the law, we may safely affirm, with St. John, that since the Gospel was given, ‘he that is born of God sinneth not.’”[9] Wesleyans also believe the heart to be changed so that it is no longer evil, and no longer brings forth evil thoughts and desires. This would raise the question of where sin comes from, should a Christian commit it. As with the previous discussions, these views are only possible when the definition of sin is changed and holiness is misunderstood.

---

[1]See Acts 2 for the account of Pentecost, Acts 8 for the account of the Samarian believers who

received the Holy Spirit after conversion, and Acts 19 where those who were baptized into John’s baptism received the Holy Spirit.

[2]Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Downers’ Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 86-7.

[3]See Darrell L. Block, A Theology of Luke and Acts, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, ed.

Andreas J. Kostenberger (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 144.

[4]Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 392-3.

[5]Ibid., 393.

[6]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 490.

[7]Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (London: Offset Litho, 1960), 187.

[8]Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 538.

[9]Wesley, Christian Perfection, 17.

Wesleyan Sanctification: overview and strengths

Wesleyan View

A second view of sanctification besides the Lutheran view is the Wesleyan view. The Wesleyan view, while distinguishing between sanctification and entire sanctification, believes that Christians can be entirely sanctified in their earthly lives. Christians are sanctified at the moment of salvation, but then there is a process of entire sanctification, which is “the experience of being made perfect in love” (96). The perfection that Wesleyans argue for is not a “sinless perfection,” but rather “The loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. This implies that no wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul and that all the thoughts, words, and actions are governed by pure love.”[1] Wesley maintained a distinction between “sin” and “mistakes,” noting that sin is “a voluntary transgression of a known law” while imperfections (such as mistakes, faults, etc.) are an “involuntary transgression of a known law.”[2] Wesleyan sanctification views this ability to love God perfectly as realized in an instantaneous moment, even though the process leading up to this moment was not instantaneous. Wesley notes, “That Christian perfection is that love of God and our neighbor which implies deliverance from all sin…that it is given instantaneously, in one moment.”[3] Furthermore, the believer’s state after the experience still allows room for grace to work, so that the believer is to continue to grow in love and knowledge for Christ. Wesleyan sanctification relies heavily upon the Holy Spirit to give believers a “second blessing” after conversion so that they are able to reach this state of perfection. Personal experience also factors in heavily, in that while only the Scripture could establish a doctrine, “experience was a necessary confirmation” that the doctrine was correctly understood (96). Finally, Wesleyan sanctification does not hold to original sin in the sense that humans are responsible for Adam’s sin (only for their own personal sin) and locates the source of sin outside the human heart, which has been completely made clean. Wesley states, “it is only of grown Christians it can be affirmed they are in such a sense perfect, as, secondly, to be freed from evil thoughts and evil tempers. First, from evil or sinful thoughts. Indeed, whence should they spring?...If therefore, the heart be no longer evil, then evil thoughts no longer proceed out of it.”[4]

The Wesleyan view of sanctification does have strengths that should be commended. First, unlike the Lutheran position and like Scripture, there is a distinction made between justification and sanctification. Secondly, there is a strong emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in the sanctification process, so sanctification is not based entirely on human efforts and willpower. Thirdly, the Wesleyan view has a high regard for loving God, and tries to cultivate this love for God through holy living. The Wesleyan view reminds Christians that even after they made “perfect,” they still have room to grow, and cannot be spiritually lazy.

---

[1]John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (London: Epworth Press, 1952), 42.

[2]Wesley, Christian Perfection, 45.

[3]Wesley, Christian Perfection, 41.  

[4]Ibid., 19.

Lutheran sanctification: practical implications

Meet Ernie: 

Ernie struggles with lustful thoughts. He has prayed frequently that God would deliver him, but no release has come. Ernie believes that because God can't look upon sin that He won't forgive him. Ernie truly desires to please God, but doesn't have the discipline to reach the goal. 

What should Ernie do? Should he:

1. Rest in the belief that Christians are justified by faith alone and seek professional help for his problem?

2. Seek a special blessing from the Holy Spirit to fill his heart with divine love?

3. Remember the power of the Holy Spirit in salvation and develop this power to resist sin, and expect a new response to the world, himself, and others to emerge?

The Lutheran position would attempt to help Ernie by promoting option 1. This leads to my critique of the position based on the practical implications.

A fourth weakness of the Lutheran view is the practical implication. If Ernie was counseled from the Lutheran view, the counselor could not tell Ernie to do anything in fighting his lustful thoughts, except to continually reflect upon and remember his justification. As noted earlier, Scripture does more than only tell Christians to remember their justification. A number of passages command Christians to “put off” and to “put on,” to do right things, and not do sinful things. Ernie will need to do more than remember that he is justified in his fight against sin. He needs to be warned of the danger of continuing in sin, to be called to repent, to put off his love for other lovers than Christ, and to put on a love for Christ. Scripture does not have a problem with commanding Christians to do things, and neither should counselors in the case of Ernie. For example, Powlison points out the danger of only stressing one aspect in the Bible, especially when it comes to counseling people. He states, “Am I saying that pointing a person back to the justification of sinners could actually be pastorally hurtful? Yes. If what you need to know is ‘I am with you right now. I am your refuge in this affliction,’ then you may well go hungry if you are given ‘I died for your sins once and for all.’”[1] Powlison’s point is important. True, sometimes Christians are sanctified by remembering their justification. To only stress this however is to miss out on other aspects of sanctification that sinners need as well, such as putting off, putting on, or following the commands of Christ so that they can grow to be more like Christ.

---

[1]Powlison, “Sanctification: Part 1.”

Lutheran Sanctification: Weaknesses

While the Lutheran view of sanctification does have strengths, the view falls short on biblical and practical grounds.  The primary argument that Forde and Lutherans set forth is that Scripture does not distinguish between sanctification and justification. If they are correct, then their arguments have substantial weight. If Scripture does make a distinction between justification and sanctification, then their position falls apart. Under examination, justification and sanctification are related and have similarities, but also differences. To say that Scripture does not distinguish between the two would be to fail to consider what justification actually is and does. Justification differs from sanctification, as J.C. Ryle explains, “Justification is the reckoning and counting a man to be righteous for the sake of another, even Jesus Christ the Lord. Sanctification is the actual making a man inwardly righteous, though it may be in a very feeble degree.”[1] Ryle also notes that, “Justification has special reference to our persons, our standing in God’s sight, and our deliverance from guilt. Sanctification has special reference to our natures, and the moral renewal of our hearts.”[2] Having said this, sanctification is both definitive and progressive. Lutherans fail to correctly distinguish between justification and sanctification, but they do well to remind Christians of the definitive aspects of sanctification. A number of New Testament passages speak to definitive sanctification and include 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11; Acts 20:32; 26:18; and Romans 6. In these cases, the Greek verbs relating to sanctification are in the present tense, “which describes completed action with continuing results.”[3] Definitive sanctification is only one part of sanctification, and a number of texts speak to progressive sanctification as well. Progressive sanctification is needed as Christians still have sin remaining in their lives. Biblical passages that show progressive sanctification and distinguish it from definitive sanctification and justification (not separate, but distinguish) include (but not limited to) Rom. 6; 8:13; Col. 3:5; 3:9-19; 2 Cor. 3:18; 7:1; Phil. 2:12-13; and 1 John 3:3. While commentary could be offered on each passage, for the sake of space, one will be given. Colossians 3:9-10 reminds Christians that they have put off the old self and put on the new self, which is “being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator (ESV).” Hoekema notes, “The participle anakainoumenon, translated ‘being renewed,’ is in the present tense, indicating that this renewal of the new self is a lifelong process. Interestingly, this passage presents both facets of sanctification: once and for all believers have taken off the old self and put on the new (definitive; aorist tense), but the new self that they have put on must be continually renewed (progressive; present tense).”[4] In conclusion, to say that there are no differences between sanctification and justification, or to say that sanctification is entirely definitive, is to miss critical truths about sanctification in the Bible.

A second argument with a flaw that Lutherans use in their theology of sanctification is that the answer to the fight against sin is to simply remember one’s justification. In other words, to tell the Christian to “do” something (such as have more faith, etc) is to put part of salvation in the hands of man, which in the Lutheran view, leads to trouble especially when it does not work. The question thus becomes, “Is this argument biblical? Does the Bible say that the answer to our fight against sin is ‘a matter of getting used to justification?’” A weakness associated with this particular Lutheran argument is that it does not deal adequately with the biblical texts that call Christians to practical action or warn them against continuing in sin. David Powlison reflects whether or not it is true that Christians are sanctified by remembering and believing afresh that they are justified by what Jesus did on the cross. In answering the question, he says:

Is that true? I think the Bible’s answer to this pastoral and practical question is straightforward: sometimes Yes, often No. Here is a metaphor. Scripture portrays sanctification in a range of colors and shades. There are reds, yellows, and blues-with 16.8 million shades in between. So any monochromatic view of sanctification is like saying, “You are sanctified by the color red.” For some Christians, some of the time, amid some life struggles, to remember the color red-justification by Christ’s death-proves pivotal. For other Christians, at other times, facing other specific struggles, other colors  prove pivotal.[5]

A third major weakness of the Lutheran view is the definition of sin that Lutherans use in their theology of sanctification. For Lutherans, sin is seen along the lines of failing to remember and believe what God has done for the Christian in justification. While unbelief in the promises and work of God is sin, to limit sin to only this definition falls short of the totality of biblical view of sin. Scripture shows what sin is from a number of different angles, not just one. Jay Adams, for example, points out that in Scripture “there are more than 17 distinct terms for sin…each says something about the act of effect of sin.”[6] This has implications in counseling, for if only one aspect of sin is addressed, other aspects unchallenged and thus still a problem in sanctification.

---

[1]J.C. Ryle, Holiness (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 38.

[2]Ibid.

[3]Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved By Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 203.

[4]Ibid., 208.

[5]David Powlison, “How Does Sanctification Work? (Part 1)” in The Journal of Biblical Counseling

27-1.

[6]Jay Adams, A Theology of Christian Counseling (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 147.

Lutheran Sanctification: strenghts

Lutheran View

The first view of sanctification that will be addressed is the Lutheran view. In the Lutheran view, sanctification is not to be separated from justification. Gerhard O. Forde notes that “Sanctification is thus simply the art of getting used to justification” (13). Lutherans see a danger is separating the two, for the importance of justification is downplayed by human efforts that undermine God’s work. Forde makes it clear that justification and sanctification cannot be separated when he says, “sanctification cannot in any way be separated from justification. It is not merely a logical mistake, but a spiritually devastating one. If fact, the Scriptures, rarely, if ever, treat sanctification as a movement distinct from justification” (16). For Lutherans, a correct understanding of justification by faith alone (completely monergistic) should lead to overcoming sin, which for Lutherans, is “the total state of standing against the unconditional grace and goodness of God, … our very incredulity, unbelief, mistrust, our insistence of falling back on our own self and maintaining control” (27-28). Rather than seeing the Christian life as a journey focused on heaven, the end goal of Lutheran sanctification is that Christians will truly understand they have been saved by grace alone, and will be as human as God intended for humans to be.

The Lutheran position does have certain strengths that should be commended. One strength would be that the Lutheran position seeks maintain God’s sovereignty in salvation and to elevate the greatness of God’s grace. Forde points out how “God alone does the justifying simply by declaring the ungodly to be so, for Jesus’ sake” (15). He then argues that if sanctification becomes dependant upon humans in any way, it could potentially affect God’s work in justification. While Lutherans err in this logic, they still are to be commended for trying to maintain a strong view of grace and God’s sovereignty, and to guard against bringing human works into the equation of salvation. A second strength is the focus Lutherans place on justification. Correctly understanding what justification accomplished for sinners and how it enables them to live changed lives is something that every Christian, including Ernie, needs to understand. Along with this, the Lutheran view points out the unconditional promises associated with justification. The unconditional promises remove human works from the equation and give Christians security in knowing God will always do what He has promised. By stressing the importance of justification and the unconditional promises, Lutherans are trying to bring Christians back to focus on what Christ has done for them, and to rest securely in His promises. A third strength of the Lutheran view is the emphasis on the Christian’s newness in Christ as a result of justification. Forde notes, “Sin is a slavery from which we escape only through that death [death of the old man]” (21). While the Lutheran view is wrong in areas of the difference between the new and old man, their view is important in showing that the death of the old self has real meaning.

(Forde is cited in Christian Spirituality: 5 Views of Sanctification from his chapter on Lutheran Sanctification. Any other source will be noted as to the specific work and page.)

How do people change? What is your view of sanctification?

In this next series of posts, I will be examining several common views of sanctification including the Lutheran position, Wesleyan view, and Reformed view of sanctification. I will be critiquing each one to see which one is the most biblical.

In the meantime, I'd love to hear from you. What is your view of sanctification-meaning, how would you describe it, and what is our role and God's role in it?

What is repentance?

Repentance is a subject that comes up often. Repentance needs to be correctly understood, so that those who have sinned can learn how to biblically respond to their sin. The answer is repentance, but what is this? From the texts of Scripture, one can observe that repentance is a turning away from sin and turning to God instead.  Wayne Grudem defines repentance as a “heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ.”[1] Jay Adams would add to this definition with, “Repentance is a rethinking of one’s behavior, attitudes, and beliefs. It is coming to a different opinion or viewpoint, one so different that it calls for different thought patterns and a different lifestyle.”[2] John Colquhoun gives a slightly more complex definition of it with:

A gracious principle and habit implanted in the soul by the Spirit of Christ, in the exercise of which a regenerate and believing sinner, deeply sensible of the exceeding sinfulness and just demerit of his innumerable sins is truly humbled and grieved before the Lord, on account of the sinfulness and hurtfulness of them. He feels bitter remorse, unfeigned sorrow, and deep self-abhorrence for the aggravated transgressions of his life, and the deep depravity of his nature; chiefly, because by all his innumerable provocations he has dishonored an infinitely holy and gracious God, transgressed a law which is ‘holy, and just, and good,’ and defiled, deformed, and even destroyed his own precious soul.[3]

All of these definitions contain common characteristics. They call for a recognition that something is wrong in a person’s life and needs changed. They note that a different way of living is needed, and that the whole body, including the emotions and the mind, are involved in the change. They also recognize that an offense has been committed which ultimately relates to God. Repentance is going to have fruit, or effect, that comes from it, if indeed it is a biblical one. John the Baptist called for the people to “Bear fruit in keeping with repentance.” What would the fruit of repentance look like? John MacArthur points out that the Jewish Rabbis considered Isaiah 1:16-17 to record nine activities related to repentance.[4] These activities or fruits can be seen in “Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.” One then can see that there are results that flow from repentance, such as the washing, the removing of evil, the ceasing of wrongdoing, etc.

It is helpful at this point to know that the Bible uses different Greek and Hebrew words for the English word repentance, and the meaning of each is significant. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word Shub is frequently used, and means to change a course of action. It can be used to describe a turn to or away from God, but mainly it means turning from rebellion against God to God (Num. 14:43, Josh 22:16, 18, 23, 29; 1 Sam. 15:11, 1 Kings 9:6).[5] In the New Testament, Metamelomai, Metanoeo, Epistrepho are the Greek words that are commonly translated as repentance. The primary word for repentance in the New Testament is Metanoeo, and, “it always speaks of a change of purpose, and specifically a turning from sin.”[6] Metanoeo differs from Metamelomai in that Metanoeo speaks of true repentance and turning to God, while Metamelomai expresses a regret that does not always involve turning from sin to God. This is significant because many people commonly assume that regret or penance is the same thing as repentance. Penance is not the same as repentance, however, and the difference needs to be established. Two places in Scripture where the difference can be seen are in Matthew 27:3 and 2 Corinthians 7. Here we see that:

The example of Judas makes it clear that metamelomai and metanoeo are not simply interchangeable in the NT. When Judas recognized that Jesus had been wrongly condemned, he regretted (metamelomai) his betrayal (Matt. 27:3). However, he did not find the way to genuine repentance (metanoia). We find the same distinction in 2 Cor. 7:8-10. Paul did not regret that he had written a sharp letter to the Corinthians, for the sorrow it caused had led its recipients to true repentance (metanoia), to an inner turning to God.[7]

The difference between repentance and penance then is that penance is sorrow that does not lead to a change of heart and direction, while repentance involves a sorrow for sin and leads to a change of heart and direction. The example of Judas in Matt. 27 shows this, with Judas regretting his actions but not turning from his sin to God and asking forgiveness. The example of Esau in Heb. 12:17 is another example of regret without repentance. Esau was sorry he lost the birthright, but did not confess his sin and turn to the Lord. Penance often is a sorrow for the consequences of sin, but not a godly sorrow that turns the sinner to Christ for the change that is needed. It is sort of like the kid who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and is sorry for the spanking he gets, but not sorry for the sin against God and his parents. Even a resolve not to commit the act again, or as many would make, “New Year’s Resolutions,” do not necessarily mean repentance has taken place. On the difference between penance and repentance, John Calvin remarks:

Others, because they saw the various meanings of this word in Scripture, posited two forms of repentance. To distinguish them by some mark, they called one ‘repentance of the law.’ Through it the sinner, wounded by the branding of sin and stricken by dread of God’s wrath, remains caught in that disturbed state and cannot extricate himself from it. The other they call ‘repentance of the gospel.’ Through it the sinner is indeed sorely afflicted, but rises above it and lays hold of Christ as medicine for his wound, comfort for his dread, the haven of his misery.[8]

While Judas and Esau are examples of what repentance is not and what penance is, Psalm 51 provides a beautiful example of true repentance. David begins by admitting that what he did was sinful and primarily against a Holy God that had every right to judge him for it. David does not shift the blame like Saul in 1 Sam. 15: 24-31 (another example of penance, not repentance) but takes full responsibility. He cries to God for mercy and asks to be washed from the stain of his sin. David notes the effects of his on his body (broken bones) both in this Psalm and in even more detail in Psalm 32. David has turned from his sin and to God, asking forgiveness and then singing of the joy and gladness that follow as effects of repentance. There are a great number of other places in the Bible besides Ps. 51 that mention repentance. Some of these references include: 1 Kings 8:46-53; 2 Chron. 6:36-39; Job 42:1-6; Jer. 25:4-5, 34:15-16; Eze. 14:6, 18:30; Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 17:30-31; Rom. 2:4; and Rev. 2:5, 22-23, 3:15-19.

Difference between Worldly Sorrow and Repentance[9]

Worldly Sorrow                                                 Repentance_______________________________

Short lived                                                                        Long term

Involves emotion                                                            Involves emotion and will

Makes vague resolutions                                                Makes specific restitution

Wants public attention                                                Humility

Desires immediate return to position

and ministry                                                                        Recognizes need to rebuild trust

External displays of contrition                                    Internal development and change

Finds fault in how treated in discipline            Exhibits submission to the humbling of discipline

Hesitates to follow counsel in reconciliation

and restitution process                                                Initiates action in restoring broken relationships and                                                                                                 making restitution

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 713.

[2] Jay Adams, How to Help People Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 142.

[3] John Colquhoun, Repentance (East Peoria, IL: Versa-Press, 2010), 2-3.

[4] John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 181.

[5] Sinclair Ferguson, The Grace of Repentance (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 16.

[6] MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, 178.

[7] Verlyn D. Verbrugge, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Abridged

Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), s.v. “Metamelomai.”

[8] John Calvin, The Institutes of Christian Religion, ed. John T. Mcneill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol.

1 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 596.

[9]Taken from Davey, In Pursuit of Prodigals, 64.