Instantaneous sanctification-being made holy

[JCISGD]

Thats very interesting KC that you should mention Azusa st revival as i was just reading a website this morning decrying it, and its harmful antic`s.

I dont know much about Azusa myself, but to me a genuine revival affects whole communities and is not denominational, as this grieves the Holy Spirit and He soon leaves.

I came to Christ in a pentecostal enviroment and believed in the power of God to heal and raise the dead from the start. It was not something they taught as such, i just read the bible and believed what it said. Although i mostly move in pentecostal circles it was only when i came across Finney about 7 yrs later that i saw that the church was lacking power as it was lacking purity.

So now i find myself at odds with both mainstream and pentecostals as the ones i know do not like the word holiness anymore. They prefer church programmes and youth concerts. You would think they were pricked with a pin at very mention of the word holiness.

I am not holy, i only believe that it is possible and even desireable of God that He make us holy.

Funny enough those that think holiness seekers are works based forget that instantaneous holiness (circumcision of the heart) cannot be a work as it can only be something God could do, and that progressive holiness suggests works over a long painful life of struggling with sin and denies the power of God.

The same mighty power that raised Jesus is available to all who believe.

I say give the Pentecostals a hard time if theyre not living up to their beliefs, God is not a respecter of persons and does not call sin holiness or vice versa.

[JCISGD]

A couple of points, you don't "experience" being sinless you LIVE it. I am relatively shocked that people would believe that they are without sin. Now if you are saying that we are totally forgiven and perfect in the grace of Christ, yes! I think we are closer to Christ during different times in our lives no doubt about that, but sanctification is not an emotion. We must look analytically at our lives and compare this to what we are living. The idea that anyone could look at their life and really find no sin at all none whatsoever is not biblical.

But just from the posts I have seen on this board, I have seen sin in some of these posts including mine (anger sometimes), so we have evidence right here that no one posting on this topic is utterly sinless.

Now maybe I am not understanding what is meant by sanctification?

Hi Smalcald, To be entirely sanctified is to be entirely without sin, that is not say unable to sin as sin is always and only ever a choice of the heart.

Satan chose to think in pride instead of humility and Adam and Eve chose to disobey an express prohibition.

Please explain "relatively shocked" as above.

In answer to your points, i think it is accepted and can be rightly said that experiencing and living something are one and the same thing in this context?

Saying that having no sin is unbiblical is not correct as Jesus was and if it was not his purpose to save us from ALL sin, then i suggest his death on the cross was abit pointless as to save someone is total and not by half.

Also it would have been wrong of Him to tell the woman caught in adultery and others He healed to go and sin no more.

What was the point of Jesus being born and being human yet sinless if it was not to hold Himself as something we also could be. The whole reason God sent His Son to be human was so we would NOT say " its alright for Him he`s God".

Now concerning proof of being sinless in this life?. The Apostles either claimed it indirectly by their speach, i.e that they had a clear conscience before God AND

man, or it is implied by their urging others to " be holy as your father is holy".

I have previously posted verses which were not disproved, only the supply of other verses taken out of context i.e Pauls statement that he was cheif of sinners, so i will not be posting them here.

The gospel is only an offense to our wilfulness to sin, not our faculty of reasoning or else who could be accountable for anything. Does not God Himself say "come let us reason"?

Dont demand scripture where reason alone depicts obligation, that is to test God and demand a sign.

Edited April 10, 2009 by JCISGD

[Smalcald]

JC,

I just don't see any scriptural evidence of any of this that is all I mean.

I don't think emotional experience or gifts of the Holy Spirit or revivals have anything to do with the reality of sin in our life. I look at the many people who have great gifts of the spirit and experience wonderful movements of the Spirit, and then they go home and fornicate, divorce, rage in anger, seek money etc. The experience is real as it is the Holy Spirit, but it does not mean sanctification and sinlessness. If you really don't want to re-invent the wheel you should read people like Augustan and Luther not modern authors such as Finny, we have a 2000 year history not a 200 year history.

Now I am on the same page with you as far as seeking holiness and not hiding that fact. We should all desire holiness AND be moving toward holiness. However my point is simply that according to scripture this will not totally happen on this earth in this body as the sinful flesh will always be with us as long as we are alive, BUT the battle rages and we will obtain victory.

But let

[JCISGD]

Hi S, i admit the verses are not thus saith, but they are implied and just as in Genesis God does not reveal all the details of creation, there is enough that we are accountable for trying to dodge the obvious.

Im not questioning your motives or suggesting you are trying to dodge this or any particular doctrine, and i have always thought your post to be that of a honest and genuine nature. I only found the truth of this doctrine from reading Finney`s Systematic Theology. But it is there once you get past the errors the church has been teaching.

I honestly believe the reasons we will see revival are linked to Christians aiming for and obtaining holiness. 2 Chr 7:14

While it is commendable that we seek holiness and you are, does it make sense to aim for that which is impossible and why would both O/T and N/T have a command to "be holy as God is holy" ? if it is not obtainable.

Yes there are imposters who preach holiness and then deny the faith by their very lifestyle, but i have not pointed to them, but to men like Wesley, Finney, Wigglesworth etc, all who lived lives above moral reproach once they claimed this seconded work of God.

My point of not reinventing the wheel was to use the theology of the most contempories who had the results we want, in this case revival and holiness. Billy Graham does not fit this for ME as i dont see true holiness in him, and he was not used in revivals as such. Did not luther lead the crusades and slaughter people in the name of God? corect me if i wrong but i think my memory serves me correct here.

You can find all the scriptures you need if you search "bible proofs of a second work of grace" by D.S Warner. Theres also a fantastic book called "Twenty Five Great Soulwinners for God" who each claim they were powerless over sin and in soul winning untill they like the the disciples recieved "Power from on high".

Yes " by their fruits" and fruits alone not gifts, this why many will say "LORD LORD" but they will be found to be workers of iniquity and void of eternal life.

S i think you put examples in that i have not used, so we are comparing apples with oranges. The examples i use are based on their theology and their righteous living.

I will post a list of verses soon, but scripture alone is not enough while error of interpretation is present. That is why i point back to those who are the teachers of it and a Systematic Theology that knocks down the strawmen first. I am not a theologian or teacher, just a beggar wanting to share his bread.

God Bless.

Edited April 10, 2009 by JCISGD

[Smalcald]

Hi jc;

I don't know why we are told to "be Holy" when we are also told that that "if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves"?

I really don't have a good answer for you on that, I am sure there are many who could do a better job than me.

But just maybe the point IS the struggle, the lifelong battle. This is faith is it not? To seek something your whole life working and struggling, knowing that it is something that we will not see, yet knowing we must move toward because of our love for Christ we strive on, not giving up.

It is hard because we do not want to discourage people. But think of our life. This life on this earth is only a tiny percentage of our life, so we WILL obtain holiness.

[JCISGD]

Hi jc;

I don't know why we are told to "be Holy" when we are also told that that "if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves"?

I really don't have a good answer for you on that, I am sure there are many who could do a better job than me.

But just maybe the point IS the struggle, the lifelong battle. This is faith is it not? To seek something your whole life working and struggling, knowing that it is something that we will not see, yet knowing we must move toward because of our love for Christ we strive on, not giving up.

It is hard because we do not want to discourage people. But think of our life. This life on this earth is only a tiny percentage of our life, so we WILL obtain holiness.

You have it exactly S there is a contadiction, and this is the stumbling point for many. I venture that the command to be holy is very clear but the statement of Johns has to seen for what it is saying, which is that if we claim we have NO sin (never sinned) we decieve ourselves. Many athiest today will say the same thing, that they dont believe in sin and there is a worldwide cult called Landmark that teaches this.

Now we know that there are only apparent contradictions and that it is we that must adjust our theology and not the supposed contradition.

What is easier to say "get up and walk" or " your sins are forgiven", It is the same in entire sanctification, which is easier for us "to struggle with sin all our lives" or for God to say " be healed".

Can you see it? The arm of the LORD is able to do all things, and what is impossible for us is but a command for God.

The only condition is for the Church to not only aim for it but to believe it.

Every sin destroys something and weakens our moral fibre, likewise every sin eliminated makes it easier to remain in holiness. Therefore rather than it being harder and harder to be holy, it actually becomes easier and easier. But even better than this is when God steps in and says " Your FAITH has made you whole"

or " Be healed".

""whatever is not faith is sin", therefore is also by faith that we are made holy, and not by works " lest any man boast".

[Smalcald]

Okay.

But can we as an individual believer; can we ever know that we are totally without sin? I realize that we know and rest in the fact that Christ has forgiven our sins and will continue to do so, but that is a different knowing.

If we cannot know, should we try to know? Would not the very attempt to be "an guard" as Paul warns, keep us from really resting in a knowledge that we may hold that we are without sin? What if we did that and like the roaring lion Paul warns us about satan gains a foothold because of our own letting down the guard?

I think onelight posted a while back something which rings true. The battle against sin makes us MORE aware of our own sin. I am more aware now of my sin than I was before I was a believer, I was not bothered by sin then. I know that I do not live as I did then, but I also know that I still sin.

I just think that it will be a constant battle until the very end, BUT I also think as you say it will be a battle in which we are over time gaining the upper hand.

[JCISGD]

Hi S i see you have come as far as you can and Im really not trying to insist anyone recieve what im saying, so i will just reply to one more thing here unless you specifically ask clarification of me.

You rightly ask how can we know if we have no sin, as this appears to be tightrope of self analyisation, but it is instead the peace of God that there is nothing at that moment of time that disturbs our conscience before God and man.

I admit freely that i am not in this place, and only assert that a good many reliable sources have testified of it as a specific thing God did and that it had the effect of circumcising their heart and rendering them unwilling to veer to the left or the right. Not to be confused with being unable to as a mechanical thing.

I do see a problem for you as you then appear to go on to assume that "if we cannot know" then...., but we are helped if we look to reliable sources who say how they knew.

I guess it comes down to which example of holiness preachers we are examining, i myself only know of the ones i have already stated but i am aware there are many deluded examples out there, who do much harm to the cause of Christ and as well the faith to believe in true holiness in this life.

Peace to you S.

[KC02]

Thats very interesting KC that you should mention Azusa st revival as i was just reading a website this morning decrying it, and its harmful antic`s.

I dont know much about Azusa myself, but to me a genuine revival affects whole communities and is not denominational, as this grieves the Holy Spirit and He soon leaves.

I came to Christ in a pentecostal enviroment and believed in the power of God to heal and raise the dead from the start. It was not something they taught as such, i just read the bible and believed what it said. Although i mostly move in pentecostal circles it was only when i came across Finney about 7 yrs later that i saw that the church was lacking power as it was lacking purity.

Haha well -- if their antics are harmful, I want to be harmed some more

No the Azusa St revival wasn't a denomination, but the movement birthed some. It was just a few people, like you, who believed the church lacked purity. The few grew more and more, and not only affected the local community but the whole world as far as I can see.

All revivals are not identical. You mentioned Billy Graham. As handsome as he is and as good of a speaker he is, I can't see his success without God. Do you think he is simply that talented? Could be.

Well we can find negativity on anyone. Do a google search for Finney and see what I mean!

[JCISGD]

Thats very interesting KC that you should mention Azusa st revival as i was just reading a website this morning decrying it, and its harmful antic`s.

I dont know much about Azusa myself, but to me a genuine revival affects whole communities and is not denominational, as this grieves the Holy Spirit and He soon leaves.

I came to Christ in a pentecostal enviroment and believed in the power of God to heal and raise the dead from the start. It was not something they taught as such, i just read the bible and believed what it said. Although i mostly move in pentecostal circles it was only when i came across Finney about 7 yrs later that i saw that the church was lacking power as it was lacking purity.

Haha well -- if their antics are harmful, I want to be harmed some more

No the Azusa St revival wasn't a denomination, but the movement birthed some. It was just a few people, like you, who believed the church lacked purity. The few grew more and more, and not only affected the local community but the whole world as far as I can see.

All revivals are not identical. You mentioned Billy Graham. As handsome as he is and as good of a speaker he is, I can't see his success without God. Do you think he is simply that talented? Could be.

Well we can find negativity on anyone. Do a google search for Finney and see what I mean!

Glad the Azusa antic`s produced such a fine Christian and fellow brother.

Ah yes i have seen websites denouncing Finney, but i have read almost everything written by Finney and historic acounts of his life, and i can honestly say that the denouncers either use a diiferent understanding of his words or attribute to him things he never said or did.

A google search will show there are a number of folks out there saying that Billy Grahams sucess was deliberatley " padded out" by the Catholic church and that jesuit priests had the faithful catholics flock his meetings to swell the numbers. It is interesting that in the begining BG was opposed to popery and the RCC but in the end he was seen to stand side by side in agreement.

Please let no one say that i am saying there are no Christians in the Catholic Church, but i will never say that popery and Mary worship is ok with God.

I know that many got saved through BG but i consider that evangelism as opposed to revival, which to me is an ongoing move of God that affects communities, and usually birthed by a few faithful praying saints.

I have not to date seen anything to decry the antics of Azusa st, but i am wary of much of pentecostalism that i am involved in, i.e barking, jerking, writhing around on the floor etc. When two women in a church meeting held by the Wesley bros, started disorderly laughter they were censorsed and eventually sought deliverance and repented.

Edited April 11, 2009 by JCISGD