Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Does your view allow for spiritual growth are we fully mature when filled with the Spirit?

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

How do we crucify the flesh?

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Charles Finney explained it rather well, I think:

"To sanctify is to set apart, to consecrate to a particular use. To sanctify anything to God is to set it apart to his service, to consecrate it to him. To sanctify one's self is voluntarily to set one's self apart, to consecrate one's self to God. To be sanctified is to be set apart, to be consecrated to God. Sanctification is an act or state of being sanctified, or set apart to the service of God. It is a state of consecration to him. This is present obedience to the moral law. It is the whole of present duty, and is implied in repentance, faith, regeneration, as we have abundantly seen.

Sanctification is sometimes used to express a permanent state of obedience to God, or of consecration. In this sense it is not a condition of present justification, or of pardon and acceptance. But it is a condition of continued and permanent acceptance with God. It certainly cannot be true, that God accepts and justifies the sinner in his sins. I may safely challenge the world for either reason or scripture to support the doctrine of justification in sin, in any degree of present rebellion against God. (See argument, Lecture XV. II.) The Bible everywhere represents justified persons as sanctified, and always expressly, or impliedly, conditionates justification upon sanctification, in the sense of present obedience to God. 1 Cor. vi. 11; "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." This is but a specimen of the manner in which justified persons are spoken of in the Bible. Also, Rom. viii. 1; "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." They only are justified who walk after the Spirit. Should it be objected, as it may be, that the scriptures often speak of saints, or truly regenerate persons, as needing sanctification, and of sanctification as something that comes after regeneration, and as that which the saints are to aim at attaining, I answer, that when sanctification is thus spoken of, it is doubtless used in the higher sense already noticed; to wit, to denote a state of being settled, established in faith, rooted and grounded in love, being so confirmed in the faith and obedience of the gospel, as to hold on in the way steadfastly, unmovably, always abounding in the work of the Lord. This is doubtless a condition of permanent justification, as has been said, but not a condition of present justification.

By sanctification being a condition of justification, the following things are intended.

(1.) That present, full, and entire consecration of heart and life to God and his service, is an unalterable condition of present pardon of past sin, and of present acceptance with God.

(2.) That the penitent soul remains justified no longer than this full-hearted consecration continues. If he falls from his first love into the spirit of self-pleasing, he falls again into bondage to sin and to the law, is condemned, and must repent and do his "first work," must return to Christ, and renew his faith and love, as a condition of his salvation. This is the most express teaching of the Bible, as we shall fully see.

5. Perseverance in faith and obedience, or in consecration to God, is also an unalterable condition of justification, or of pardon and acceptance with God. By this language in this connexion, you will of course understand me to mean, that perseverance in faith and obedience is a condition, not of present, but of final or ultimate acceptance and salvation."

http://www.stopsinning.net/justification_f.htm

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Paul said 'they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with it's passions'.

So it seems that 'crucifying the flesh' is part of initial conversion, ie repentance.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Finney concludes:

"The relations of the old school view of justification to their view of depravity is obvious. They hold, as we have seen, that the constitution in every faculty and part is sinful. Of course, a return to personal, present holiness, in the sense of entire conformity to the law, cannot with them be a condition of justification. They must have a justification while yet at least in some degree of sin. This must be brought about by imputed righteousness. The intellect revolts at a justification in sin. So a scheme is devised to divert the eye of the law and of the lawgiver from the sinner to his Substitute, who has perfectly obeyed the law. But in order to make out the possibility of his obedience being imputed to them, it must be assumed, that he owed no obedience for himself; than which a greater absurdity cannot be conceived. Constitutional depravity or sinfulness being once assumed, physical regeneration, physical sanctification, physical divine influence, imputed righteousness, and justification, while personally in the commission of sin, follow of course." (ibid.)

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

I am confused by your statement. The Corinthian saints had many fleshly faults but Paul didn't hesitate to declare them sanctified. Your version of what it means to be sanctified is at odds with this verse. From what I gather we are sanctified by faith and the Holy Spirit. Acts 26:18, Romans 15:16

1 Corinthians 6:11
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Notice too the order - washed, sanctified, justified...

Further, he says 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God', which seems to be a reference to water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit baptism.

Thus, it seems Paul understood cleansing, sanctification, and justification as being accomplished in the new birth, or in other words, those terms - washed, sanctified, justified - are essentially synonyms for 'gettin' saved' as we call it today.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Yes, I've read the book, In His Steps. I liked it except that it wasn't a real life story.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

I don't think the fleshly sinful nature is ever completely destroyed otherwise the command for us to deny ourselves and take up our crosses would only have to be done once and not on a daily basis. Luke 9:23

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Why doesn't Paul come right out and tell the Galatians to totally submit to the Spirit? He tells them to be led of the Spirit, to walk in the Spirit, to love our neighbors as ourselves...there is no talk of submission in order to be sanctified.

Romans 8 talks about the those whose minds are set on the flesh as not being submitted to God's law but nothing about sanctification.