Sanctification is a one-time thing after salvation

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

Rick Wadholm Jr	YES!
Rick Wadholm Jr	Obviously you meant to say “typical biblical school of thought answer” 😉
Rick Wadholm Jr	And by “biblical” I of course mean “Barthian”…and by “Barthian” I of course mean “dialectical”. 😉
Carl Murphy	So now you know the main difference between the AG and the COG
Jon Ruthven	“Sanctification” in the NT is not all about ethics! That is a Protestant, cessationist invention to oppose Catholics. It means to be “set apart” for the kind of discipleship Jesus modeled and commissioned (Mt 10; Mk 6; Lk 9&10; Mt 28:19-20 [“all things I have commanded you”= charismatic commission!!]; Acts 1:8). Here’s an abstract of an article that outlines the inadequacy of limiting “sanctification” and “holiness” (same concept) to ethics. AbstractBarthâ€™s dream of a Spirit-centered theology hints at the great disconnect between the New Testament portrayal of the mission and message of Jesus and the â€œgospelâ€ of traditional Protestantism. This disconnect appeared as a result of the Reformersâ€™ adoption of cessationism to undercut Papal authority, which rested, in part, on the idea of continuing revelation and miracle. The failure of both sides to understand the purpose of charismatic revelation and power as the central characteristic of the New Covenant (Acts 2:39>Isa 59:21; Rom 15:18-19–Paul’s summary of the nature of the “Gospel”), resulted in a misunderstanding of the mission of Jesus, the purpose of the cross, and the continuing commission of Christian disciples (e.g., Lk 9&10, Acts 1:8). In this, traditional theology significantly distorted the Christian message from that of Jesus and the New Testament witnessâ€”a gospel about Jesus rather than from Jesus.
Walter PolasikWalter and 74	Interesting comments. I assume I am addressing the author of “On the Cessation of the Charismata”? I myself am a Pentecostal who is committed to a “Spirit-centered theology” (knowing ofcourse, that, in reality, a Spirit-centered theology is also a Christ-centered theology). But from reading your comments in this discussion I have a couple of herring-bones to pick. 1) Just as an aside, how can one call Karl Barth someone who wanted a “Spriit-centered theology” when he denied any literal interpretation of Scripture (especially the first 11 chapters!). Here someone wants to follow the Spirit who at once dismisses out of hand what the Spirit inspired (instead allegorizing as Origen did or de-mythologizing as Bultmann did, him. And sadly, William Barclay is not much better in this regard, as good as some of his commentaries are). 2) To say that Roman Catholicism is based on the Biblical truth of the continuation of the miraculous is only to say that those who created a different gospel as far as salvation goes (and I hope you agree with me here) basically hijacked (in the form of the Vatican-controlled Charismatic movement and post-Vatican II Ecumenical dialogues) a biblical principle to their own advantage. Catholic claims to the supernatural and catholic mysticism is about as valid as that of the Mormon kind. (And here, Norman Vincent Peale, that great sage, went to a Mormon bishop for laying on of hands for the Spirit Baptism!). “Entire Sanctification” is valid as a doctrine in the sense that Jesus completely makes holy and acceptable to the Father those that come for salvation to Him. But this same moniker does not work in terms of experience. As you know John the apostle himself says “If we sin we have an advocate with the Father” proving that there is no such thing, this side of heaven, as a sinless Christian. It must also be admirted that much of Pentecostalism in its’ early formation lacked good Biblical grounding (hence the importance for good ministerial preparedness in the early days of the various Pentecostal denominations. The fire of the Spirit must go together with the Word of the Spirit). This is sadly still true today in many circles where tall-tales are told, “revelations” are given and a gullible audience is biblically-illiterate in the face of chicanery. While Cessationists may be arrogant against the freedom and untidiness of Pentecostal worship and expression of the Spirit, I hardly blame them for eying a lot of the mess that goes on in our circles with a bad taste in their mouths. Oh, and BTW, those who believe that sanctification is a SPIRIT-LED process of Christian growth DO NOT believe it is a matter MERELY of ethics. What sayest thou? 😉
Melvin Harter	Regarding sanctification, entire sanctification (2nd definite experience) and not progressive is the only thing the Bible teaches.
Melvin Harter	Paul says to follow holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. Holiness & sanctification are not the same.
Melvin Harter	There is no scripture that supports progressive sanctification. It is a man-made doctrine created by men who wish to continue to live their life of a little sin each day.
John E. Ruffle	I would have thought the exact opposite is true actually, but I am speaking as a layman on this issue.
Timothy Carter	Brother John please don’t believe that he’s confused.And a confused person cannot be perfect.He said our brother Rick Walter Jr is a liar.He goes around calling people a liar who is not a liar then he surely can’t be perfect.Therefore he is not completely sanctified.This man Melvin Harter wants us to believe by this statement that he is completely fully and utterly arrived at complete sanctification. Yet he has proven time and time again throughout this thread that he is not completely sanctified.Because we are to be holy as the Father in Heaven is holy. Melvin has done nothing to prove that He is holy as our Father is holy.Sanctification is a progressive work as well as a peculiar work.
Melvin Harter	Sanctification is not a progressive work. It is a continuation work
Timothy Carter	I use the word progressive because you use the word progressive. I chose that word because you had chosen that word. You had chosen that word first.Look back at the beginning I was responding to you. I was trying to use your own word.Sanctification is the way in which the Christian life is lived it is the continual work of grace in the believer’s life.the growth of a Christian’s life is a progressive work.Both of these work hand and hand they are intertwined with one another it is impossible to have one without the other.
Melvin Harter	Do not; however, confuse Christian or spiritual growth with the sanctification experience. Salvation and sanctification are a part of one’s CG, but not solely CG.
Melvin Harter	Holiness is the result of a sanctified life. A person cannot live a life of holiness without first getting sanctified.
John E. Ruffle	WHAT we MAY be taking about is the “renewal of the (carnal) mind” and bringing every thought captive to Christ.
Timothy Carter	We are transformed by the renewing of our mind
Melvin Harter	Brian, you just met the wrong people. That is all.
Melvin Harter	I encourage you to meet real sanctified people. They will certainly not be arrogant and say they never can fall into some trap of the devil.
Melvin Harter	The Greek text always speaks of sanctification in the aorist tense; therefore, sanctification is a definite experience. If it was progressive, the Greek text would use the present, active, indicative. But it never does.
John E. Ruffle	Is this not an oversimplification of aorist tense?
Melvin Harter	No John, it is not.
Timothy Carter	Brother Melvin Harter I learned the hard way not to use all-inclusive words such as ALWAYS; ALL THE TIME; EVERYONE; and so forth. The analytical community will jump on these all exclusive words and find just one exception to prove your statement is wrong. My brother it is best to use softer phrases such as “usually” or “what I have found” or “at this point in my study all I have found is”Some academics love to prove other was wrong. Using all inclusive language is a set up to be proven wrong.I hope this helps my brother.
Melvin Harter	Thank you my brother Timothy Carter. However, I have yet to find the doctrine of sanctification in any other form.
Melvin Harter	Let me ask you, “Is your salvation progressive as well?” No, it is not. Then why would anyone want to state that their sanctification is progressive? Especially when the scripture speaks against it.
John E. Ruffle	To answer your rhetorical question, Yes, obviously salvation is progressive.
Melvin Harter	So John, you can never say you are saved?
Timothy Carter	Actually brother Melvin Harter salvation is both punctual in the Greek which means right now like the beating of the drum. It happens in this moment and then it is gone for the snap of your finger it happened in a very short moment we see this “the moment in the twinkling of an eye.”Yes that verse is referring to salvation because is talking about gathering up to be with Christ.We also see salvation is a lifelong process sanctification is part of the salvation process. The purpose of sanctification is salvation living. Scripture does not speak against sanctification being progressive.If we read Romans chapter 6 verses 1 through 7 we will find The Salvation story and the sanctification purpose.Here the humble Apostle gives us insight into that punctual moment of what takes place in the spirit realm the instant of salvation.This will take away the confusion where people want to claim:” I am a sinner saved by grace”This is biblically theologically and logically impossibleWe see in this passage that we die with Christ. Because He died we die. Under the ground we are buried with Him. Because we are buried with Him we then are united with Him we become engrafted as one body. No let me ask if we are one body with Christ how can we be sinners saved by Grace? If we sin we been force Christ to sin.It is still logically biblically and logically impossible to be a sinner saved by grace.Christ rose from the grave. Just as we rise as a new creature by His power we too rise.Now we are new creatures no longer sinners. This is the moment of salvation all of this happens as fast as the twinkle of an eye.Now in this same passage Romans 6:1-7 we hear the humble apostle giving instruction that the flesh is still alive. That old man is still alive therefore we must crucify that flesh daily. Just as Christ nailed our sin to the cross we must put that flesh on the cross and crucify it daily.Crucifixion of the flesh is the sanctification process. Crucifixion is not death it is the means by which death comes.Because that old flesh is still alive this is what people get confused and think all I am a sinner but I’m saved. It’s impossible if they’re truly saved they’re not a sinner.People don’t understand sanctification. If they’re truly saved they must do the crucifixion of the flesh and live out the salvation process by crucifying the flesh daily.This is where Paul talks about that I crucify my body daily. That I bring my body under subjection daily. Paul shares with us that sometimes I do the things that I must not do. He is talking about his flesh is old sin nature. There is a war that goes on between the desire of the old sin nature and the desire of the new creature.This is the lifestyle of the Christian not the lifestyle of the sinner saved by grace there is no such thing.The lifestyle of the Christian is sanctification my dear brother sanctification is both an immediate event where we realize I must crucify my flesh. And a lifestyle of cleaning my act up. It is a progression for the rest of my life.Which is the progression of salvation. At the very moment of salvation the Christian is already saved. Yet throughout the life of that Christian Holy Spirit is working in that Christians live showing that Christian this is what a Christian looks like this is the progression of christ-likeness or what we call sanctification. Sanctification means the same thing as holiness to be called out to be set apart.
Melvin Harter	You would be far better to replace the word implying progressive with continuation.
Timothy Carter	Brother Melvin Harter thank you 🙂 I used the word progressive borrowing it from your statement above. I thought this was a word you were comfortable with. 🙂
Melvin Harter	Romans 6:6 states â€œKnowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.â€ We get a full understanding of the old man from Ephesians 4. But Romans 6:6 the word “crucified” is of course an aorist tense. Paul could have used other words to imply a daily death process, but he does not. When one further conjugates “crucified,” he soon realizes that it is a “once – for – all” death experience. Many progressives attempt to cite 1 Corinthians 15 as their basis; however, that passage has long been refuted as a support or basis for progressive sanctification due to the fact that no where in that passage does the apostle even remotely come close to giving reference to sanctification. The truth of the matter in 1 Cor 15 Paul speaks of his physical life being in jeopardy on a daily basis. The passage of scripture has nothing to do with one’s spiritual experience with sanctification. â€œAnd why stand we in jeopardy every hour? I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.â€(1 Corinthians 15:30-32)
Timothy Carter	In Romans 6:6 that is not a daily death. Crucified is not death. Crucified is a way unto death crucifixion is not dead crucifixion is torture not death.
Timothy Carter	This is teaching us about sanctification. Why do you say that it does not teach about sanctification? Sanctification is how to live after we are Christians. This passage Romans 6 tells us now that we are saved crucify our flesh daily
Timothy Carter	Or rather that our flesh is being crucified
Melvin Harter	Romans 6:6 is not a daily death. There is no such thing as “crucify our flesh daily, or being crucified.” Whoever is teaching that to you is false theology. The fact is that Paul could have very well used Greek words that would give reference to dying out daily, but he does not. Why would anyone wish to change Paul’s writings. He wrote what he meant and he meant exactly what he said. There is no daily dying aspect to one’s sanctification. He dies, once and for all. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Melvin Harter	What you are writing is what the Finished Work people wrote about during the early part of the 20th century. It was propagated by William Durham and later took on the form of the Assemblies of God. So what you are stating is the A/G’s doctrinal statement, but that is not the Church of God’s traditional view. What I post is the Church of God’s view.
Timothy Carter	No you are NOT stating the Church of God view.I am NOT stating finished work theology!Finished work claims everything is done at the cross.Finished work claims there is no need for sanctification.That’s what you continually claim that there’s no need for sanctification you even said that the Bible teaches against sanctification.
Timothy Carter	I just wrote a book on understanding salvation I had Greek scholars at the seminary go through my book to check everything before it is published to make sure that it is correct and they said yes it is I am NOT teaching Assemblies of God I am teaching Church of God doctrine.
Melvin Harter	You are confusing today’s Finish Work that is being promoted by JS. But that is not what I am referring to. I speak of the Finish Work doctrine that was promoted by William Durham at Azusa Street. They are two separate subjects.
Melvin Harter	Durham’s Finish Work doctrine appears to be what you state. For example, using your statements (1) our flesh is being crucified. (2) In Romans 6:6 that is not a daily death. Crucified is not death. (3) This passage Romans 6 tells us now that we are saved crucify our flesh daily. All of your statements are part of Durham’s Finished Work theology.
Melvin Harter	I encourage you to study William Durham and his Finished Work doctrine.
Melvin Harter	In the early days, the CoG would strongly preach against what you have stated.
Melvin Harter	The A/G was founded upon Durham’s Finish Work theology.
Melvin Harter	Are you enrolled in Seminary?
Timothy Carter	I am in my Doctor of Ministers at PTS
Melvin Harter	Where did I ever say that “there’s no need for sanctification?” “you even said the Bible teaches against sanctification.” ?????????
Timothy Carter	No sir I am following John Wesley. I do not follow William Durham.
Timothy Carter
Timothy Carter
Timothy Carter
Timothy Carter
Timothy Carter
Melvin Harter	Let me explain. Before the modern Pentecostal movement, the two basic fundamental and evangelical groups were the Baptist and the Holiness (had its earlier roots in the Methodist church). The Holiness movement held to the view of sanctification as a second, definite work of grace; whereas the Baptist believed that sanctification had its origin in salvation and that it was progressive and that one was only sanctified upon death. The Holiness movement was so powerful that it impacted the American society. Thus you have the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution and women’s suffrage. The holiness people in the Holiness Movement desired a renewal in the late 1800s. It was at this time that the Pentecostal blessing was poured out upon them. So the Pentecostal movement came out of the Holiness movement.
Timothy Carter	Please read here my dear brother Melvin Harter
Timothy Carter	This is where you say the Bible does not teach sanctification. When in fact the complete opposite is true
Timothy Carter	Maybe we need to hear what your definition of sanctification is
Melvin Harter	Where do you see that I say the Bible does not teach sanctification? What I said was there is no biblical support for PROGRESSIVE sanctification.
Melvin Harter	The same discussions regarding sanctification today were the same over 100 years ago.
Timothy Carter	Ok brother Melvin Harter I miss remembered your statement. Therefore I stand corrected. I BELIEVE in spiritual growth and sanctification are directly connected.
Melvin Harter	Everything in one’s Christian life involves spiritual growth (commonly known as Christian growth) including salvation and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. So it does not just regard one’s sanctification.
Melvin Harter	Once saved, always saved has nothing to do with one’s personal salvation. It has to do with election. Born for heaven????
John E. Ruffle	Help — beam me up, Scottie!!!
Melvin Harter	Can one’s salvation be once and forever? Just because one backslides, does that nullify the salvation of other believers? Apply the same to sanctification. So you see, I did not disprove your analogy because you had no analogy in the first place.
Timothy Carter	Once saved always saved is a deception.
Timothy Carter	Salvation is a communal process as well as an individual process.Brother Melvin Harter it seems that you are asking what election is or better stated who the elect are.The elect are the community of faith. One person can choose to turn from grace and reject Christ that does not forfeit the salvation of the elect. This does not prevent the community of fellow believers from having Jesus Christ in their hearts or from reaching Heaven.
Melvin Harter	Being transformed has nothing to do with sanctification. You are confusing Christian growth with sanctification. All of the progressionist do this. Instead, go to Romans 6:6 and to Ephesians 4:20 following. It is all aorist tense. There is no present tense there.
Jon Sellers	Sanctification is not about behavior, but about belonging to Christ. We are sanctified because we are His. We are in Him. We are washed by his blood. We have died to sin and are raised to new life. We are new creations in Christ. We are sanctified by Christ. It is His work not ours. Yet, we still have free wills, desires and the freedom to sin. We also have the freedom to be ignorant, foolish, unwise, easily deceived, misled and subject to temptation. So sanctification and holiness are about belonging and being set apart for Christ. Behaviors are the result of maturity and the work of the Holy Spirit and the Word to change our sinful tendencies so we can pursue holiness in thought and deed.So we put to death the sinful deeds of the flesh. That is only possible because we are sanctified, set apart for and by Christ.
John E. Ruffle	I detect some circular reasoning going on here. I think you oversimplify by claiming sanctification and holiness are not connected to behaviour (but forgive me if I am reading you incorrectly). I was tutored many years ago by a great man of God, Jim Durkin (Sr.) – an ex associate pastor of AoG Portland Bible Temple. He led several hundred / a few thousand during the height of the California Jesus Movement of which I was a part. He used to teach on The “renewing of the mind” and “training the soul” and it resulted (when biblically soaked and applied correctly) to a discipleship lifestyle that has held good for many of us, on our individual life journeys, for over 40 years.
Jon Sellers	The connection I was trying to elucidate was that behavioral holiness follows from our status as holy which is due to being in Christ. I think using the terms sanctification or holiness to always mean behavior is not reflective of the biblical teaching. I don’t divide behavior from those truths, but I put it as ancillary to sanctification and not primary.
John E. Ruffle	Jon – thank you. I must say, I do tend to agree with you. â˜º
Jon Sellers	The good news of this teaching is that because the flesh is weak it could never produce the holiness that is God’s will for us in Christ. But now in Christ and by His Spirit, we are first made holy, then our lives begin to reflect that holiness not only in what we turn away from, but also by what we do in service to Him and our fellow man.
Jon Sellers	Holiness is both the abandoning of the sinful ways of the flesh, and also the abandonment into service to Christ by doing His will on the earth and bringing forth the manifestation of his love and righteousness as He is reflected in us.
Jon Sellers	Holiness is first positional in Christ and then is seen in a life transformed.
Melvin Harter	James declares that we as Christians are to “purify yourselves even as he is pure.” Ephesians 4:20(f) tells believers they are to “put off” certain things, and then the apostle lists the items. So as a Christian, we too have certain responsibilities.
Jon Sellers	Yes, I don’t deny our role to decide and commit to putting off the flesh, resisting temptation and avoiding evil. All our actions come from our own decisions, even if we are subjected to numerous influences, we still make the decision. In the new creation the Holy Spirit is a powerful influence if we renew our minds and listen to Him.
Rick Wadholm Jr	FTR, aorist is an issue of morphology rather than specifically function. To declare that somehow because certain terms are aorist and thus always mean whatever utterly misses the multiple functions of the aorist (all of which are determined by usage and not strictly morphology).
John E. Ruffle	You put this far better than I ever could … Thank you! ðŸ˜Š
Melvin Harter	Rick, I am sure you know better than this. Why post such a falsehood? Pose your first question to any Greek professor, especially to the one who initially was your teacher and give him your question.
Rick Wadholm Jr	I am a Greek professor (though I don’t get to teach it as we have someone for those courses…however I tutor in Greek, am translator of the book of Judith from the LXX for the NET), thus my response. And it was through my three different Greek professors I’ve had over the years (for 2 1/2 years of Greek) and the numerous intermediate and advanced grammars I have read through and utilized over the years that I answered thus. You apparently are not aware that “aorist” does not actually denote anything in particular other than morphology. Please clarify if this is not so.
Melvin Harter	Rick, the strangest thing is that I too teach both Greek & Hebrew. During my graduate studies in theology, we were permitted to only use the Greek text. I studied Hebrew in 3 different graduate schools, including one school that was directly under the Pope at Rome. I have studied in Israel. I have taught in several colleges. I hold an earned doctoral degree. So I am fully acquainted with the Greek text, especially as it has to do with the aorist tense. I am unsure as to who or where you studied Koine Greek, but if you were taught that the aorist denotes nothing other than morphology, you need to request a refund on your tuition and school fees. You are the very first person that I have ever met to hold to such a view. Should you continue with your thought the aorist is nothing more than morphology, your peers will certainly discredit you and your work. I say this as humbly as I can, you need to rethink and re-exam your thoughts on this matter.
Rick Wadholm Jr	Apparently you studied your languages so long ago that it was believed that aorist always meant “a definite experience”. Feel free to consult any contemporary grammar at an intermediate or advanced level (even those quite dated like Robinson’s gets this right).Your pedantic comments aside, I also teach Biblical Hebrew (and could just as readily teach several other languages) which I have formally studied for 3 1/2 years at the graduate level.Your notion about language is utterly debunked by ANY functional study. One can speculate all they want about the meanings of such things as “tense”, but when one ACTUALLY examines usage it becomes readily apparent that no such neat and tidy (read: oversimplified) system holds up. Of course, none of this is to suggest that aorist morphology has no import. That is precisely not what I’m contending. While it suggests a basic orientation, it does not specify this in the manner you have stated (which is you overstating the function of the aorist…see Wallace’s “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” p. 557 for such an abuse being pointed out).
Melvin Harter	Rick, I always enjoy discussing theology and biblical languages. However, you and I differ and have total different conclusions. God bless you my brother.
Rick Wadholm Jr	You as well. BTW, are you at PTS or connected to it? Just curious given some of the folks I see that we share as mutual friends?
Melvin Harter	No. I just send people there.
Rick Wadholm Jr	Gotcha. Excellent.
Melvin Harter	No one is calling anyone a liar.
Melvin Harter	I did not call Rick a liar. I simply stated that the subject matter he posted is wrong, incorrect or falsehood. That has nothing to do with the man himself.
Rick Wadholm Jr	Here is a welcome read on the many abuses of the aorist. https://faculty.gordon.edu/…/text/smith-aorist-gtj.pdf
Melvin Harter	(This statement is not just to Rick Wadholm, Jr.) Let me ask you, “Why do you even believe in the Bible when you fail to agree with it, instead wishing it to only support your own personal theology?” There can be no dialogue because there is no basis of discussion. And then you totally accept the writings of liberals? With your theological training, you should know that every thing is to be compared to God’s word. But again, if you fail to believe and accept the word of God, upon what basis or foundation is our discussion? Notice your reference – “In the matter of ‘aspect’ the purpose of the aorist is to be invisible. The term means “no boundary,” “without horizon,” “non- specific,” “noncommittal,” “indefinite,” etc. The whole point of the aorist is to refrain from saying anything about the nature of the action. As Chamberlain said, the word means ‘I do not define.'” Then what is the purpose of the aorist? Its purpose is “invisible?” It means “no boundaries, etc.?” Its whole purpose “is to refrain from saying anything about the nature of the action?” What a joke. Your theologian throws the aorist tense out of the scripture. Why? Because it speaks against his own theology. Rick, I am surprised of you even using such a quote, especially when you are pursuing your PhD.
Rick Wadholm Jr	Just running a check on the verbal lexeme á¼Î³Î¹Î±- I note that the NT usage entails (by my count) the following regarding “tenses” regardless of finiteness or mood: Present:7Aorist:12Perfect: 9
Rick Wadholm Jr	Of course, this excludes the 196 uses of the same lemma in the LXX.
Jon Sellers	The Old Testament examples point to that whole concept I was talking about earlier about dedication and offering belonging to the Lord. So that even the vessels of the altar are holy and obviously without any kind of moral component.
Melvin Harter	Let us look at each of the points you make. (1) You are incorrect. Most of the NT is written to Christians and not to sinners. (2) The first question you pose is “How were they sanctified BEFORE they were saved?” You are really missing it on this point. What makes you think the disciples were not saved? Read Luke 10. Verse 9 Jesus commands them to heal the sick. Jesus commanded them to preach. (Notice verse 16). Upon their return, the Bible says they had great joy, saying that even the “Devils were subject unto us through thy name.” Verse 20 Jesus tells them to rejoice because their names are written in heaven.” So Devils were subject to them and their names were written in heaven; why do you say they were not saved? These were saved men of God. Your second part regarding Judas once again stands in error. Your answer is found in the Book of Hebrews. “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.â€(Hebrews 6:4-6). Judas was saved, but backslid later. If Judas could lose out with God, so can we if we fail to live according to the word of God. (3) Your OT example does not reflect your example of sanctification. In Luke 10, the disciples were saved; however, in John 17, which, by the way is later in time by chronological order, is later in time after Luke 10 where the disciples were saved, Jesus is in deep prayer. In verse 17, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.â€ Now think of this for a moment. If a person goes to the front of the church for prayer. You know nothing of the person. Yet, as the pastor begins to pray for the person, you hear the pastor pray against cancer. Do you not think that just perhaps that person has cancer and had went to the pastor for special prayer? Yes, that is a good summation. Now we have Jesus praying for His disciples TO BE SANCTIFIED. Why does Jesus pray this prayer? Because His disciples were saved, but not sanctified. Now sanctification is not both instant and progressive. It is only instantaneous. The people who get sanctified are a most happy and joyful people. Verse 13tells the results of a sanctified life, and that is JOY. “And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.â€(John 17:13)
Charles Page	the notion of a progressive sanctification proceeding from regeneration is a modern belief not more than 200 years at the most. A distinctive regeneration and a separate work of sanctification is ages old!
Melvin Harter	A distinctive regeneration and a separate work of sanctification is as old as the scripture.
Walter PolasikWalter and 74	That distinctive work being, we hope you mean, a Spirit-led process rather than some “zap” at the altar. While I DO believe in the Holy Spirit giving the Christian various experiences of Himself (the “zap” in question, so to speak), I do not see the Bible teaching that being “zapped” with instant holiness (i.e. completely sinless living) is one of them. Otherwise, I agree with your statement.
Melvin Harter	I would imagine Walter that you can at least get a “zap” when you got saved.
Melvin Harter	If salvation, then why not sanctification?
Walter PolasikWalter and 74	Melvin Harter Again, I am NOT AGAINST experiencing the Spriit and believe that this is VITAL to the Church. I am not arguing against Pentecostal doctrine as such or any particular manifestation as such. Only that it is a bit naive (not to mention unbiblical) to assume that, instead of us “working out our salvation with fear and trembling” all we need is a zap from God and, “presto!” —no more sinning in life! If it were only that easy. But many have shown the fallacy of such thinking.
Melvin Harter	True and vice-versa may I add.
Charles Page	progressive sanctification was the product of Andrew Fuller’s moderated, modern Calvinism. It gave missionaries a greater appeal to the heathen to be saved, ie. William Carey. It birthed both easy believism and lordship salvation.
Link Hudson	If Jeremiah and Paul were both chosen or set apart from their mother’s womb, does that mean that they were sanctified then? In Paul’s case, that was back before he even started persecuting the church.
Charles Page	it means Saul was regenerate immediately by the Holy Spirit below the level of human consciousness then had a conscious work of conversion at the road to Damascus. Two distinct works of grace.
Link Hudson	Charles Page, I don’t see where you get your comment. You think Paul was saved before he believed? Ananias seemed to think he still had some sins that needed washing away before he baptized him, and Paul didn’t mind repeating that part in a presentation of the Gospel before the Jewish people in the temple.
Charles Page	Ananias believe he was already regenerate – he laid his hands on him and addressed him as “brother Saul” before this he was afraid of him and believe he was unregenerate and a threat.
Link Hudson	Jews considered each other to be brothers.
Charles Page	they were all of the same Father
Charles Page	Saul did need remission of sins which comes about by believing, repenting and being baptized. First he had to be quickened to life by regeneration. That is recorded in Gal 1:15
Charles Page	Link is astute and understood my comment and responded accordingly which makes for profitable discussion!
Walter PolasikWalter and 74	Link, I am the late-comer to this discussion (already ongoing for a while, I see) and would just like to add that those who came up with the idea of sanctification as a one-time experience probably got mixed up our POSITIONAL standing with our EXPERIENTIAL progress in Christ. Experientially we are a work in progress, that is the meaning, (I’m sure you would agree) of GROWTH. Pentecostalism’s merit has not so much to do with some new twist or innovation in THEOLOGY as it does that it is the continuation of a REVIVAL movement which the Spirit began and which accepts the MANIFEST work of God in the Church (manifest, as opposed to merely “assumed”). That there are, how to put it?—gaping lacunea in Pentecostal understanding of a Biblical theology….I am only too aware of having “been around” in various churches over the years. As I reminded Jon Ruthven, (himself a critical Pentecostal thinker) we Pentecostals still have a problem presenting the full range of the Spirit’s activity to the more reserved believers precisely because we sometimes strain at technical gnats while unwittingly swallowing pneumatological and “revelational” camels. 😉
Melvin Harter	What are you A/G people doing at a CoG seminary?
Walter PolasikWalter and 74	Well, see Melvin, it’s like this. 1) We’re all brothers in Christ ain’t we? Even if we eat different cereals for breakfast. 2) I’m in the discussion board, not in the Seminary. 3) Wouldn’t have much of a discussion without a bit of difference of opinion. 4) Hey, SOMEONE has to straighten you guys out! 😉
Walter PolasikWalter and 74	But Melvin Harter, if ya can find your position in the Bible, by all means, do tell.
Melvin Harter	Brian, your theology is A/G and not CoG.
Charles Page	Agnostic Gang!!!
Rick Wadholm Jr	ðŸ˜œ
Charles Page	wasn’t the first recorded sanctification 1783?
Melvin Harter	A/G = Assemblies of God
Melvin Harter	Brian, read article 6 of the CoG Declaration of Faith.
Charles Page	My wife tells me I am less perfect as I get older…she says I am not the same man she married. I agree, no one knows better than me!! The doctrine of sinless perfection requires lying about your heart and it is a life of covering of sin. You become progressively silent as you grow older. Then you die and face God!
Timothy Carter	My personal conviction is that I must obey the Word as I understand it. Just as James tells us in his epistle do not hear the word only but obey the word also.Therefore I must obey the entire word within balance of my personal life as I understand how to do so.I am the only person I am responsible for ultimately.( yes I am supposed to teach others but I am NOT responsible for their salvation)Sanctification is the way to live out salvation.Sanctification means call out from among.When we have been saved we have been saved from sin. The sanctification process is the setting us apart from that sin. Yes the blood of Jesus has set us apart. That is one aspect of the sanctification. The sanctification is 2 part the second half of the St defecation process is my response to Holy Spirit and the word teaching me to come out from the old sin nature that His Blood has cleanse me from. This is teaching me to walk in righteousness.The more I do this- the more I learn of God’s Word- the closer I draw to God The Closer God draws to me as we see in the Epistle of James- the more I decrease the more He increases is my earnest desire.However I do not see myself as one who is arriving at that mark of hi sanctification. Rather it is the more I understand of God’s Word the more clearly I can see I am unworthy. The more I see of him the more I see I need of him the more I see I need His grace.
Charles Page	good article on p. 8 about “A Through Cleansing” – in support of a work of salvation followed by a subsequent work of sanctification. http://pentecostalarchives.org/…/1944/Dixon/1944_02_19.pdf
Jon Sellers	Charles Page, I read that article. It was interesting to notice the style of preaching from the 1940’s. Towards that end that story about Sambo, the negro tenant, being a good illustration of the devil is certainly one that would create quite a reaction today!Otherwise, the thorough cleansing is always a good thing. 😉
Charles Page	I have picked up on several racial undertones in the older Evangels. The evangel referred to an African American as a “darkie”
Jon Sellers	It was culturally acceptable among many whites in those days. Not so much today.
Charles Page	it was never culturally acceptable by the “colored” people in the CoG, it was white racism and they had to be silent.
Timothy Carter	Charles file/directory not found
Charles Page	I edited it
Charles Page	Can you go in the rapture without entire sanctification?
Charles Page	in 1944 there was a statement in the Evangel that you had to have entire sanctification to go in the rapture. That would mean only Ray Hughes and Wade Horton will go in the rapture.
Charles Page	well, that would also be Albert Batts since he wrote the qualifications for the rapture. He wouldn’t exclude himself!!!
Timothy Carter	Brother Charles Page that is a good question because this idea just came up in church tonight. A lady just gave in a prayer request asking FOR EACH of us to pray for her friends who fell unworthy because the end of time is here. This project is dangerous gospel. Please let me explain: Jesus said the Kingdom is Now! Therefore we should not be telling persons that we should earn the right to go home with Him.ALSO When we are forgiven Christ has forgiven. We don’t need approval from anything or anyone other than Christ.
Charles Page	You are in a good city to tell them that good news!!!
Charles Page	Timothy, you are entrapped ina pre-mil rapture belief in which you have to meet the qualification to go in the rapture. There are going to be some ‘left behind’ people who will have to endure the tribulation. The taken people are special elite successful Christians. They are not just saved but must be sanctified, entirely.
Timothy Carter	Brother Charles Page I know that some persons have had a difficult time explaining the “catching a way of the Saints” over the years. This is not my primary focus of ministry. I’m not even that interested in whether it actually happens. I believe what I believe however I am NOT dogmatic about what I believe.I am NOT into the propaganda of eschatology.I don’t make any money off of scaring people with in times movies or books.I have never gotten into telling people any type of scarcity propaganda eater.Nor do I claim to be foolish enough to attempt to count the freckles on the face of an angel multiply that by 5 divide that by 10 and because d angel Gabriel shows up so many times in the gospel we now have definitive proof that date.All of this stuff seems foolishness to me.What I am interested in is studying His word and loving His people.Eschatology is never been that interesting for example I have never seen the left behind movies. Even though I am a fan of Kirk Cameron and I appreciate his ministry.I am very proud that he stands up for Christ in Hollywood.These movies seem to be a waste of time in my thinking I would rather watch a film about old men arguing about grass growing.
Charles Page	I too am opposed to rapture teaching!!
Timothy Carter	I have watched Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon Grumpy Old Men several times
Timothy Carter	I’m not opposed to the Rapture teaching.I just get tired of hearing people talk about it so much.Because I’m not that interested in it if it and when it happens it happens. Christ knows what he’s doing. Is going to happen with or without me fretting about it.All of this horror movies about the tribulation and the apocalypse is nothing but all of this her movies about the tribulation and the apocalypse is speculation propaganda.I don’t care what happens after the rapture.I have a difficult enough time planning for tomorrow much less trying to plan for something I don’t even know the day or the time did Christ Himself don’t even know the day or the time
Charles Page	I hold to the final bodily resurrection!!! The glorious consummation of time!!
Wahyu	I agree. Sanctification of spirit at salvation. Sanctification of soul (mind will emotions) subsequent to salvation as we surrender, renewing our minds through prayer fasting and reading of his word, and lastly sanctification of body at resurrection.
Melvin Harter	I would differ with you. Sanctification has nothing to do with the body at resurrection. A Christian needs to get sanctified after they get saved in this life.
Wahyu	Paul said in my flesh is no good thing
Dennis Lear	Sanctification is a duel work. The instant work of authority that puts me in proper balance. We are born with a sin nature and we respond accordingly. (For ex.) No one has ever needed to train their children in selfishness. The toy the child hasn’t touched for weeks is taken from a sibling or guest child b/c of selfishness in varying degrees. In the work of sanctification we are put in a position where we have the power to “not let sin reign in our mortal bodies.” It no longer has DOMINION. Nor does it swing us to a position of absolute perfection and void of being tempted. It is now my choice. Secondly it is a work of continuation. (1) as we learn more, we are responsible for more. ( and we are responsible to learn more) (2) we are to maintain what we have learned. Upkeep through the Word and prayer are always necessary. If you don’t think so, stop for a while and stand in the sun on August pulling the cord on a mower that is demon possessed. Lol If you are not careful some language you have buried could experience a resurrection. As for perfection, that will be “glorification,” not sanctification.
Melvin Harter	The early A/G preachers preached the Baptist view of sanctification because they were of the Baptist persuasion and not from the Holiness Movement.
Wahyu	Anyone ever read like a mighty army
Melvin Harter	I have studied from it. An Ordained Baptist preacher changed his views from Baptist theology to holiness theology and as a result was kicked out of the Baptist church. From this humble beginning came the CoG (Cleveland, TN)
Melvin Harter	Not so. The A/G were the Baptist who had gone to Azusa St and then returned. But they maintained the Baptist theology on sanctification and therefore could not aline themselves with the Azusa St Pentecostals. Wm Durham who pastored a Baptist Church in Chicago started his “Finished Work” doctrine. The new Pentecostals who were of the Baptist persuasion adopted Durham’s doctrine. This group did not join in with the CoG nor the Pentecostal Holiness churches because of their Baptist views. They did, however, took ministerial license with the CoGinChrist under Mason only to break away and then rejoin and to break away a second time. Finally, they agreed to meet at Hot Springs, Arkansas in 1914 and formed what they called the Assemblies of God. Two years later, a division occurred among them and the UPC (Apostolics) was formed. So the Apostolic churches have the same view as the A/G or Baptist on sanctification. The Apostolic churches did not come from nor had any relationship whatsoever with Charles Parham or W J Seymour and the early Apostolic Faith Movement. They came from the A/G and were established in 1916.
Wahyu	It was always my understanding that no denomination was birthed from the azusa st.
Melvin Harter	The Apostolic Faith Mission was already a part of Azusa St. The Holiness church after their HG experience became know as Pentecostal Holiness church. There are many others. Nearly all the Pentecostal churches have roots to Azusa St
Ed Dowdell George	The Church of God and Church of God of Prophecy, both HQed in Cleveland, TN trace their roots to the Holiness movement that occurred in western North Carolina. Sanctification as a second definite work was part of the theology in the late 1880s. Holiness and sanctification as a second work has roots in United Kingdom. Fletcher, one of Wesley’s proteges, parted from Wesley on the issue.
Ricky Grimsley	When did i mention sanford.
Charles Page	Hands were laid on the elder Richard Spurling ordaining him to preach the gospel and set forth elders by this Baptist Church they descended from this mountain side and began independent fellowshiping bodies. The elder Spurling then laid hands on his son RG to be pastor. At this point in history they were baptist though independent and later came in touch with “deeper life” movements and eventually a Holiness sect.
Charles Page	Ð‘Ð¸Ð±Ð»Ð¸ÑÑ‚Ð° Ð¢Ð², should it be suspended? It seems to be a consensus among ‘all’ Churches of God denominations.
Charles Page	I attended this church and was shocked at the similarities to our old fashion CoG services in format.
Ed Dowdell George	I believe Sanford had a significant influence on what happened on the holiness movement in western NC. I believe Wade Phillips is on track with the history. Also see Harold Hunter’s entry on the COGOP in the New Pentecostal and Charismatic Dictionary. So yes, what happened in the southeast predates Azusa Street. A point I would offer is that historically the COGOP has done a much better job of integration than any other historic Pentecostal group.
Charles Page	Sanford had a great influence on A J Tomlinson and later Tomlinson had an influence on the independent baptist fellowships started by Spurling and his son.
Ed Dowdell George	No, I have not. I have some difficulty with that assertion. Pardon me for repeating prior discussions. I’ve been gone from Pentecostals circles for a long time and just returned home in the past six months.
Wahyu	I never mentioned Sanford, Charles Conn wrote like a mighty army
Wahyu	From the revival there the Christian union was formed. From that many current denominations came. Foursquare cog,ag
Wahyu	That’s how I learned it add a good little cog exhorter anyway. But i was never a party of the AOG so I don’t speak with authority on that. You ever read the book?
Melvin Harter	A good historical assessment but a terrible theological conclusion. Sorry, but I must stand for the Holiness doctrine. The divide is always between the Baptist theology and that of the Holiness. When you state, “Where is it in the Bible?” You are refuting the holiness doctrine. Let me ask you a simple question since it seems you understand the beginnings of the modern history of the Pentecostal movement. Where did it originate or have its beginning? You already know the answer. It was from the Holiness movement. All of the great moves of God came from the Holiness people. Tell me, what great move of God was ever started by the Baptist’s Calvin theology? I can tell you, NONE WHATSOEVER. So if the Holiness theology of Entire Sanctification is not biblical (according to your statement), then why is it historically that great revivals that literally changed the society of America were always from the Holiness movement? Any historian knows that the modern Pentecostal movement came directly out of the Holiness movement. Now if “it’s hard to arrive at it as a doctrine from reading scripture” as you have stated, then historically speaking, why is it God uses these people to bring about such revivals that has global ramifications even today? Yet you can’t even name one great revival that evolved from Calvinism since the 1700s? Your statement “but are worded in such a way as to satisfy those who believe … Without alienating …” is totally ridiculous and without merit.
Bibliata Net	Melvin Harter Who is refuting the holiness doctrine?
Melvin Harter	Link removed his post.
Bibliata Net	Link removed it? Many of our comments were removed as well…
Link Hudson	Melvin Harter, I don’t recall removing any posts in this thread.
Bibliata Net	just wondering this Christmas season: do we have to be sanctified to enter this Holy night or does entering the Holy night sanctifies us holy? Peter Melvin Timothy Ricky Rick John John Ruffle Jon
John E. Ruffle	Let’s make every night holy! ðŸ˜Š
Bibliata Net	well said – very Pope-wise 🙂
James L Alldredge	The basic problem is that while we treat Sanctification as a negative doctrine, (what we don’t do), the bible treats it primarily as a positive doctrine, (the imputation of righteousness, fitness for service), may theoretically reach a point where may not consciously sin, we can never reach the point where we are doing all that we should. “To him who knows to do good…” Every time you fail to do what is good, (give to him who asks…etc.) you have fallen short of the standard. Hence the need for grace, if we ever reached the point of total perfection we would then pass beyond grace, a condition the bible does not allow for in this body.
Bibliata Net	Peter A Vandever is partially right that sanctification could end up in legalism. The opposite would be the church ending up as a harlot rather than a pure, holy and a sanctified Bride of the Lamp Melvin Harter
Marc Jackson	Cant see GOD without holiness [period]