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.
No comments:
Post a Comment