zimmerBlog

This book has been on my shelf for a while- actually since seminary (which would make that almost 10 years). Although I have started it a couple times before, I am glad to say I finally finished it. I am also glad to say that it was worth the wait.

Follow up:

Methodology
Let me first say that I think the methodology of this book is a model that should be used more in the church. The format of the book allows an expert advocate for a particular perspective to provide a substantial argument for their position and then the rest of the experts each have their chance to give a brief rebuttal. I think this avoids the inevitable straw man problems in many theological texts that inevitably results from our feeble attempts to justify ourselves by our theology.

It also allows for a more sympathetic understanding of each perspective. Every one of these writers (with the last, perhaps, as the exception) wrote an excellent article- clear and deep. It is hard to look down on these men when you see their sincere love for Jesus and the Word. Even if I don’t agree with the position, I have to admit that this person is my brother in Christ and worthy of my respect.

Conclusions
I make no apologies for being Reformed in my theological perspective. Knowing that one of the authors agrees with me on this, it is admittedly hard to be “objective” in reading the other perspectives. Nevertheless, each of the articles were written so well that I could see things from their perspective even though I disagreed.

It seems to me that the real question each author was asking was summed up best by Walvoord in the first sentence of his article,

Ever since the time of the early church fathers, theologians have struggled to delineate the moral character of individuals before and after their salvation. There is general agreement that a person is sinful before salvation, but what has been debated is the extent of the transformation after the new birth.

We all know people who have claimed this transformation but who have not exhibited this transformation in the way they live their lives. How can this be?

Almost all of the authors (except for Hoekema, representing the Reformed perspective) says this is because there typically is a crisis event in the lives of Christians from which they start to begin to transform. This event can occur upon the initial point of conversion but usually it follows it. Before someone experiences this crisis event they are a Christian, but not sanctified. After it they being to live consistently. They believe you can be a follower of Christ without following him, in order to explain the dichotomy.

After such an experience most of these authors (besides Hoekema and Walvoord) would claim that christians begin to live a life released from the power of sin. Although they all hesitate to call this “perfection,” its hard to avoid characterizing them in that way.

Of these three perspectives that believe a Christian can live free from the power of sin, one diverges because they believe that this second event in the life of a Christian is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit- manifesting itself by the speaking of tongues. There is really very little difference between the remaining Keswick and Wesleyan understanding of sanctification.

These perspectives all diverged from the Reformed perspective due to the influence of John Wesley (founder of the Methodist movement). As Dieter points out every one of the non-Reformed positions toward sanctification comes from (in his mind) a misunderstanding of Wesley.

If I could add my two-cents, even though I am not a world-class theologian as these men are, I would argue that the reason Wesley branched off of the Reformed perspective is not so much about his Arminian theology as much as his doctrine of sin. Sin, Biblically defined, is not just what we intend to do but what we don’t intend to do. It is not just our actions, but when we neglect to act. It is our thoughts and our actions. It is by redefining sin that these theologians are able to claim that Christians can live without it- although they guard their statements to say that no one really lives without sin this side of eternity.

It is interesting to note that even the authors who want to redefine sin as “willful” actions only, they have to admit that no one really achieves perfection in this life. The Keswick proponent (McQuilkin) even admits that if sin is more than “willful” actions then no one can live without sinning.

If sin is defined to include this falling short unwittingly, Keswick does not teach that a person ever in this life has the ability not to sin.

In fact McQuilkin brings up another problem with redefining sin- who decides whether an action is intentional or not?

Though the distinction between deliberate an unintentional sin may be doctrinally sound and a helpful key to unlocking some of the mysteries of our salvation, in everyday life the borderline between these two cannot always be easily or precisely identified…. The greatest hazard in distinguishing between presumptuous sin and unwitting sin is in the infinite human capacity to rationalize. Furthermore, should we classify habitual sins like drunkenness or gluttony as voluntary or involuntary?

Back to the initial question- how can someone claim to be a Christian and not live like it? Every one of these theologians attempts to explain this phenomenon. Besides the Reformed perspective, each author attempts to explain this by saying they have not yet come to their second crisis event (whether that is baptism in the Holy Spirit or making Jesus not only their Savior but their Lord). Only the Reformed perspective can really embrace this question Biblically- talk is cheap, you can claim that you are a Christian all you want but if your actions don’t reflect that truth you might not be a Christian in the first place (1 John 1.5-7 and James 2.14-26). While the other perspectives say you can be a follower of Christ without following Christ, the Reformed perspective is alone honest to ask, “How can you call yourself a follower of Christ unless you are following him?” This is a challenging truth that I hesitate to state except that the Scriptures are clear. LET ME BE CLEAR: I don’t want to confuse this with our salvation- which is never by our own works, but only through faith- but faith without works is dead.

I have seen the damage such a false-dichotomy can hold in the church. If you think salvation can occur independently from sanctification, it gives people a false hope in their lives as the engage in a particularly enslaving sin, excusing it because they are saved. There has been no doctrine that has done more injustice to skeptics of the church who already think we are all a bunch of hypocrites, who observe people calling themselves by Christ’s name, but not living like it. Only the Reformed doctrine of sanctification does not allow these abuses to continue.