Church of God Evangel “Sanctification” Donald Bowdle July 26, 1976
Comments
0 comments
The notion that sanctification has positional and practical aspects is progressive and continuing works. It is Baptistic, Reformed and Calvinistic.
Sanctification has definite and immediate (complete) aspects. You are sanctified or you’re not. You can loose your sanctification and you can seek to be restored in sanctification. There is no progression in sanctification.
This means that a large majority of COG folks need to change their views and get in line with the Word.
The only thing this so called open forum is open too is the COG sanctification view. Don’t you think there has been enough discussion and debate about this? I tried to open up a discussion about atonement theory, but it had to be approved first. Oh well, I guess that got shot down! So much for openness in this open forum!
Our doctrine on sanctification is rooted in Wesley who answered your “either/or” question above with “both/and:” “When, after having been fully convinced of inbred sin, by a far deeper and clearer conviction than that he experienced before justification, and after having experienced a gradual mortification of it, he experiences a total death to sin, and an entire renewal in the love and image of God, so as to rejoice evermore, to pray without ceasing, and in everything to give thanks. Not that ‘to feel all love and no sin’ is a sufficient proof. Several have experienced this for a time, before their souls were fully renewed. None, therefore, ought to believe that the work is done till there is added the testimony of the Spirit, witnessing his entire sanctification as clearly as his justification.” While Wesley’s words certainly dispel Durham’s Finished Work (AG) doctrine, it does make sanctification “vitally important” to regeneration and justification. It also can be seen as both positional and progressive. While Wesley sees sanctification as precursor to Spirit Baptism, he also wrote: “The closer I get to God, the farther I realize I am from Him.” Closer would indicate a progression, but not necessarily in the connotation to which we are used. I think the issue is our theological grammar. We speak in transactional terms when, in fact, we should be speaking relationally. I think it’s a bit reckless to call anyone’s belief (in this case Dr. Bowdle’s) incorrect, especially with the claim that scripture is clear. It is not. That’s the point. It is in the messy work of interpretation where we encounter God in His Son through the Holy Spirit. At some point, we must make room for others’ readings or we run the risk of being a social club that meets on Sundays – no good to a dead and dying world. In other words, I love the theological discussion, but wish it came without the labels of who is wrong or right. It is not ours to say. To believe that after 2,000 years we suddenly have all the doctrinal issues worked out is disrespectful of the (much more adept) minds that went before us.
The notion that sanctification has positional and practical aspects is progressive and continuing works. It is Baptistic, Reformed and Calvinistic.
Sanctification has definite and immediate (complete) aspects. You are sanctified or you’re not. You can loose your sanctification and you can seek to be restored in sanctification. There is no progression in sanctification.
This means that a large majority of COG folks need to change their views and get in line with the Word.
The only thing this so called open forum is open too is the COG sanctification view. Don’t you think there has been enough discussion and debate about this? I tried to open up a discussion about atonement theory, but it had to be approved first. Oh well, I guess that got shot down! So much for openness in this open forum!
Our doctrine on sanctification is rooted in Wesley who answered your “either/or” question above with “both/and:” “When, after having been fully convinced of inbred sin, by a far deeper and clearer conviction than that he experienced before justification, and after having experienced a gradual mortification of it, he experiences a total death to sin, and an entire renewal in the love and image of God, so as to rejoice evermore, to pray without ceasing, and in everything to give thanks. Not that ‘to feel all love and no sin’ is a sufficient proof. Several have experienced this for a time, before their souls were fully renewed. None, therefore, ought to believe that the work is done till there is added the testimony of the Spirit, witnessing his entire sanctification as clearly as his justification.” While Wesley’s words certainly dispel Durham’s Finished Work (AG) doctrine, it does make sanctification “vitally important” to regeneration and justification. It also can be seen as both positional and progressive. While Wesley sees sanctification as precursor to Spirit Baptism, he also wrote: “The closer I get to God, the farther I realize I am from Him.” Closer would indicate a progression, but not necessarily in the connotation to which we are used. I think the issue is our theological grammar. We speak in transactional terms when, in fact, we should be speaking relationally. I think it’s a bit reckless to call anyone’s belief (in this case Dr. Bowdle’s) incorrect, especially with the claim that scripture is clear. It is not. That’s the point. It is in the messy work of interpretation where we encounter God in His Son through the Holy Spirit. At some point, we must make room for others’ readings or we run the risk of being a social club that meets on Sundays – no good to a dead and dying world. In other words, I love the theological discussion, but wish it came without the labels of who is wrong or right. It is not ours to say. To believe that after 2,000 years we suddenly have all the doctrinal issues worked out is disrespectful of the (much more adept) minds that went before us.