Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

It seems the context of this verse indicates Paul is talking about the church, meaning, there were certain elements in the church causing trouble (the Judaizers, who were 'of the flesh') and because of this conflict between 'flesh and spirit' the church could not 'do the things' that they wanted to. Ie the church could not function properly because of the conflict.

If total submission is not possible prior to a second work of sanctification, then those who have been regenerated and baptised have not in fact repented. There can be no 'partial obedience' or 'partial submission'. The great commandment is to love God with all you have. If one does this, one is fully in the will of God, entirely consecrated to God, set apart entirely to God. 'With all thine heart, mind, soul, and strength' leaves no part out, thus 'entirely'. If the ENTIRE heart, soul, mind, and strength is loving God, then the person loves God FULLY, they are submitted FULLY.

Failure to submit FULLY, to love God FULLY, is a clear breaking of the Greatest Commandment, and is SIN. A person who is a 'believer' but is not thus FULLY submitted to God, is not repentant, for they have not repented of their sin of breaking the First and Greatest Commandment.

If what you say is correct, then one does not repent fully until one has got the 'second blessing'. But if one has not repented fully, one is not SAVED, one is not truly a Christian, one is only deluded with a false hope. Thus, if what you say is correct, one is not a Christian until they get this second experience.

I do not see how it can be otherwise. Either one may be saved and regenerated and justified while STILL in rebellion to God, without repentance, or one is fully submitted to God in repentance, loving God with all they have, which according to your definition is 'entire sanctification'.

Using your definition of entire sanctification, brother, it seems that the bible indicates such 'entire sanctification' (as you defined it) happens in initial conversion (or at least ought to happen then), and is not a necessarily 'second' work.

Sinners are 'in the flesh', and have the 'carnal mind'. Those who have the spirit are not in the flesh, and have the spiritual mind, and are 'spiritual men', according to the same chapter.

A person who is 'not subject to the law of God' is a sinner, in need of repentance. It is strange to call a genuinely regenerated child of God 'not subject to the law of God' and at 'enmity against God', don't you think?

The more I look at the Scripture, the more it seems that sanctification goes hand in hand with regeneration, justification, 'conversion', 'salvation', or whatever term one wishes to apply. It is all by faith, it is all by grace, and it is all made possible by the cross.

Therefore, there is no need for a 'second' work. It's all available NOW to 'whosoever will'.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Also, a major issue lying at the root of the difference of opinion here is the issue of original sin.

If the bible does not teach the classical doctrine of 'original sin';, 'inherited sin', 'natural depravity', or whatever it is commonly called, then the 'second work' theory falls apart completely.

I do not see where the bible teaches this 'original sin' theory, of sin being a substance in the very nature of humanity, inherited from Adam, which CAUSES people to sin, which itself as a part of human nature is condemned by God as 'sinful', and possession of which exposes people to the condemnation of hell.

That theory changes sin from 'transgression of the law' (the bible definition) to some sort of disease, or sickness - LITERALLY speaking. Sinners can't help being sinners under this theory.

Because of the doctrine that a person is justified, regenerated, etc simply by giving mental assent to the facts of the gospel (aka 'easy believism'), many such professing persons are in fact unrepentant, unregenerated, unjustified, and certainly unsanctified. To explain this phenomenon, rather than re-examine the doctrine of regeneration and salvation, some have cooked up a need for a 'higher life' for a 'second tier of believers', thus the doctrine of 'subsequence'.

Also, many people have mistakenly believed that mere temptation is itself 'sin', 'sinful', proof of a 'corrupt nature'. And they desire to be free from all temptation, so they look for a second experience where God will 'take it all away'.

But Jesus was 'tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin'. Therefore, mere temptation itself is not and cannot be sinful. And if it is a proof of a 'corrupt nature' then Jesus, the most sanctified being ever to grace Creation, had that same 'corrupt nature'.

The servant is not above his Master. It is our destiny to be like Jesus. He was entirely sanctified (who could deny it?) yet he also experienced temptation.

The difference? He always did the will of God. He kept the First and Greatest Commandment without fail. Not because he's 'superman', but because he is our Example. He did not sin. We are to be like him.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Great, great post Esaias!

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Please provide the IMMEDIATE context of which you speak.

If as you say a person is fully submitted at the point of conversion and there is no further need of submission then please explain why Paul wrote-


Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Why did James write-

James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.


If they had already done this why does he encourage them to do it again?

Also you are confusing repentance and submission. Repentance is required in order to be saved and is a prerequisite to be saved and this is obvious from scripture but where is total submission required at the point of salvation? Not saying that it is not in the Bible I don't think have ever read that part.


You or Paul one are mistaken because you say that a christian can't be carnal but Paul say the exact opposite:



1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Four times Paul specificly says that these Christians (brethren, babes in Christ) are still carnal!!!

Paul himself also clearly mentions a complete work of sanctification fore christians-

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 5:24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. 5:25 Brethren, pray for us.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

As to the first part of you comment that pertains to the carnal nature of man or the lack there of. I will agree that if there is no carnal nature to remove from man then there is no need for a second work or for sanctification for that matter . Therefore I am curious as to what exactly you believe is accomplished in sanctification?

As to your comment on temptation I agree that we will never be free from temptation while we are earth no matter if we are fully sanctified or not and any that would say otherwise do not understand or do not know the scripture. Adam and Eve did not have a fallen carnal nature yet they were tempted and fell, the angels did not have a fallen carnal nature yet they also were tempted and fell and lastly Jesus did not have a carnal fallen nature yet even He was faced with temptation but He alone did not fall. Since you and I have discussed this topic on another thread and I posted the exact response as I just did I do not understand why you would feel it needful to portray that as what is at the root of the current discussion thus basicly bringing up a straw man argument.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

I never said 'there is no further need of submission'. We are to maintain submission to God. Surely you believe this as well? What do you say when people tell you 'once you are sanctified, I guess there's no further need of submission to God'?



Repentance is a turning from sin. It means to stop sinning and start obeying God. If one has repented from ALL SIN, one is totally submitted to God. If one has NOT repented from ALL sin, one is not obeying God, one is still sinning, one is still in rebellion. Again, the Greatest Commandment requires ENTIRE OBEDIENCE, total love of God with the WHOLE being.

Shall a sinner be told 'to be saved, you must stop sinning SOMEWHAT, but you can keep SOME of your sin. You are not required to love God with your WHOLE being, only a part.'????

The Greatest Commandment is to love God with the whole being. Failure to obey that commandment is sin. Thus, not loving God with the whole being, loving God with 90%, 75%, or 10%, is all sin, because it is transgression of the commandment. It 'falls short' of the Commandment.

The call to repent is the call to turn from sin. Thus, one must turn from loving God with anything LESS than 100% of their being.

If someone loves God with 100% of their being, they are submitted to God. They are obedient. They obey God ENTIRELY. Entire submission.

For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Romans 6:7) The one who is a Christian, is one who has been baptised into Christ, and thus baptised into His death. Thus, baptism is a burial. It is the dead who are buried. Thus, the one being baptised is expected to be DEAD. And thus 'freed from sin'. Therefore the one being baptised is properly one who is (certainly ought to be) dead and freed from sin, by virtue of the fact they have REPENTED OF THEIR SIN.

Paul's statements are in reference to those who have been baptised into Jesus Christ, he says they are freed from sin. He says nothing of those who have been baptised into Jesus Christ PLUS have had a secondary experience.




Paul says this:

Rom 8:5
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Rom 8:6
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Rom 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Rom 8:8
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Rom 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Paul says nothing of secondary, post-conversion experiences, but speaks of those who have the Spirit of God are not in the flesh, are instead in the Spirit. Those in the flesh mind the things of the flesh, are carnally minded, and at enmity with God. the contrast is not with post-conversion sanctified people, but CHRISTIANS. Paul's concept of a Christian is of a person freed from sin by the grace of God, filled with the Spirit, spiritually minded, in whom the righteousness of the law is fulfilled.

Now, about the 'carnal Christian' you bring up.



Paul sets the stage, giving the context and purpose for his statements. He says 'as unto carnal'. He says he has to speak to them AS IF they were 'carnal', ie unspiritual, AS IF they were mere babies. He is not saying they are the 'carnal' people described in Romans 8, because those people in Romans 8 are not even Christians according to Paul!

Who is carnal? The CONGREGATION. 'Ye' is the second person plural, and the context of the discussion is the CHURCH is 'carnal' in that they were acting like the world by identifying with human teachers in opposition to one another. The problem is not SIN, but lack of KNOWLEDGE, lack of MATURITY.

BTW, if what you say is correct, then every sanctified Wesleyan holiness believer is 'carnal' and thus unsanctified for identifying with their own particular denomination, or with Wesley, or with 'the holiness people', or with the 'second blessing revival movement', etc.

But let's consider it even further. Suppose this passage teaches that there are, in fact, 'carnal Christians'. If it does, it is the ONLY passage in the entire bible that does. If it does, it is in direct contradiction to Paul's teaching in Romans 8 (and elsewhere) regarding 'carnality'. But if 1 Cor 3 does not in fact teach the idea that Christians, saved, regenerated, justified, can also be 'carnal' in the sense you describe, then such an idea is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

The fact is, Paul was writing to a CHURCH. Is every single person in a local congregation 'saved'? Not necessarily. Notice what he says:

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? The people he was rebuking were 'walking as men'. What men? Saved men? Or the unregenerate? They were walking as the unsaved. And Paul says 'ye are YET CARNAL'. Ie he says to these schismatics, 'You are STILL CARNAL', or in other words, STILL UNREGENERATE.

Obviously, Paul is not condemning everyone. Some in the church were guilty of schism and faction, some were guilty of taking the Lord's supper in an erroneous fashion, some were guilty of mishandling the gifts of the Spirit. Surely not ALL? It cannot be ALL, for he addressed them in his salutation as 'them that are sanctified'.

So then either the church was AS IF carnal, AS IF babes in Christ, ie lacking in KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING (not 'unsanctified'), or there were certain persons in the congregation who were STILL UNREGENERATE and thus 'yet carnal', or else there were some (or even many!) in the church who were immature and acting like the world through their ignorance and immaturity.

In either case, they are not saved people who need a second experience of 'entire sanctification'. Notice, Paul never tells them they need to get the second blessing to fix these problems!

In short, to sum it up, IF your interpretation is correct, there is a direct contradiction with Romans 8. On the other hand, the alternatives I have suggested allow for both 1 Cor 3 and Romans 8 to be without contradiction.



So then the Thessalonians were not sanctified when Paul wrote his words? Just because he offers a prayer for their continued and perpetual entire sanctification ('unto the coming of our Lord') does not mean they were not then wholly sanctified, any more than the fact he says in verse 19 'quench not the spirit' requires that they were, in fact, quenching the spirit, when he wrote those words.

Also, it is noteworthy he does not include any teaching or exhortation to seek a second, definite experience of 'entire sanctification'. Why not?

Why is that everytime you find some proof or evidence of a second blessing of santification, there is never any definite teaching on how to get it, or any definite exhortation from the apostles on the fact of a second blessing or the way to a second blessing, or encouragement to 'get sanctified'?

Paul was offering a prayer for their whole sanctification lasting until the end. In other words, their PERPETUAL sanctification.

One may be sanctified, and yet 'fall from grace', may they not? Is it not required that one not only be sanctified, but maintain it unto the end? That is to say, one must receive God's grace, and walk in that grace until the end? This is what Paul was praying for, as he said: 'preserved blameless until the coming of our Lord.'

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

I agree that we must remain submitted but that is different than becoming submitted.

Yes you did say that





I agree that a saved person should stop sinning and I agree that a saved person must both renounce all of their sin and turn from all of their sin but this is salvation not sanctification. Salvation deals with committed sin while sanctification deals with the roots of sin or the draw of sin.


So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Rom 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
[/QUOTE]

You should have went ahead and listed through vers 13 and then you would have seen that there is no contradiction but both romans 8 and 1 corinthians 3 say the same thing namely that there remains something in the Christians that needs to be done away with namely carnal flesh.

Romans 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Colossians 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: 3:7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

Ephesians 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

You will notice that in each of these places there is something to put off or something that needs to be mortified and each of these are talking to Christians individually not to the church collective.

Paul never once says that those who were still carnal were not saved rather he calls them babes in Christ. Notice he says they are in Christ. I have never said that I am better than anyone nor will you find any classical Wesleyan writer that said that either to do so would be to claim that my holiness is of my self rather than say it is from and of God. therefore how could I brag about it?
Paul here is telling of something that will happen in the future not telling of what has happened in the past . This can be seen by the wording in at least two places in the passage. First in the verb ending of the word sanctify instead of sanctified but mainly by the wording of the following verse. In that he says-

Faithful is He that calleth you WHO ALSO WILL DO IT.

Notice he said WILL not has or is doing but he speaks of a future occurrence not past or present.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Also I am still waiting on the context to be pointed out that shows the passage from:

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Is speaking about a church and not the individuals of the church?

I meant to put this in the last post also when I was responding to your comment pertaining to 1 Corinthians 3 and carnal Christians. It should be noted that in fact Paul does differentiate between those in Corinth that are sanctified and those which are saved but not sanctified:

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

You will notice this differentiation in most of his epistles.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Can we start all over? It is all a one package deal. As I see it.

You are not saved just because you repent.
You are not saved just because you got baptized in Jesus name.
You are not even saved when you receive the Holy Ghost, however, you are then after all three, born of the water and the Spirit. You are born again. Regenerated..

But you are not saved, until you hear Jesus say, “Well done,”

Why argue about when regeneration takes place, except for those that are trying to get by, “by the skin of their teeth.” Or to teach a more acceptable Doctrine, to the world. A do-nothing Gospel, or at least the bare minim.

Jesus opened up the Apostles understanding, just before He was taken up. And then spent 40 days with them after His resurrection, revealing to them what they should teach.
He left the setting up of the Church to the Apostles, and Peter understood perfectly when he revealed the gospel message of Acts 2:38. And no where in the Bible was it ever changed.

Those that change it are adding to or subtracting from the Word of God.

Typical response from those on your side of the fence when posters do not make concessions.