The doctrine of subsequence

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Luke

That makes no sense for a couple of reasons:

That's what his Wesleyan brethren said as well. lol

First inorder to say that it is a complete and instantaneous work it has to be a second work or at the very least a subsequent work to salvation.

No it does not. If entire sanctification is a definite, instantaneous work, then it does not follow that it must be subsequent to anything. Subsequence may be true, but not because sanctification is an instantaneous work.

The Bible calls Christians to holiness not sinners.

So God does not expect sinners to be saved from their uncleanness and filthiness and made clean, pure, and holy unto God?

I think you are splitting the work of God in salvation into component parts and separating them. I do not see the Bible doing this. There is no place where the apostles taught 'sanctification is a SECOND definite work of grace'. Why didn't they? Why did they not speak of sanctification the same way the 'second work' believers speak of it?

Durham's teaching did not say sinners can be sanctified before being saved. His teaching was that justification, sanctification, regeneration, the baptism with the Holy Ghost, healing, all of it, was provided for at the Cross. (Who can disagree with that?) And therefore, each of those benefits from God are made available to the believer - the BELIEVER, ie one who has faith in Christ. And they depend on the person's faith. Thus, a person who has faith to believe in God for the forgiveness of their sins can have it, but if they also have faith in God for their entire sanctification, they can have that too. Thus he taught there is no NEED for a 'two step process'. While he admitted that most who experienced sanctification experienced it some time AFTER first coming to Christ, he taught this was only due to their lack of faith and/or lack of teaching and understanding.

Read this to find out the truth about Durham and the finished Work controversy - http://www.finestofthewheat.org/Jim_...d_Blessing.php

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Esaias

That's what his Wesleyan brethren said as well. lol

Originally Posted by Esaias

No it does not. If entire sanctification is a definite, instantaneous work, then it does not follow that it must be subsequent to anything. Subsequence may be true, but not because sanctification is an instantaneous work.

One must be saved before they are made holy. To say otherwise makes no sense. Can one be a holy sinner?

Originally Posted by Esaias

So God does not expect sinners to be saved from their uncleanness and filthiness and made clean, pure, and holy unto God?

Yes God expects sinners to be saved then He expects christians to be holy.
How could expect a sinner to be what he cannot be? In other words how a sinful individual be a holy individual. Before he can be holy he must do something with all of his sin.

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think you are splitting the work of God in salvation into component parts and separating them. I do not see the Bible doing this. There is no place where the apostles taught 'sanctification is a SECOND definite work of grace'. Why didn't they? Why did they not speak of sanctification the same way the 'second work' believers speak of it?

Act 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.


Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.

Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

hebrews 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.


2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.



Revelation 22:11
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Durham's teaching did not say sinners can be sanctified before being saved. His teaching was that justification, sanctification, regeneration, the baptism with the Holy Ghost, healing, all of it, was provided for at the Cross. (Who can disagree with that?) And therefore, each of those benefits from God are made available to the believer - the BELIEVER, ie one who has faith in Christ. And they depend on the person's faith.(1) Thus, a person who has faith to believe in God for the forgiveness of their sins can have it, but (2) if they also have faith in God for their entire sanctification, they can have that too. Thus he taught there is no NEED for a 'two step process'. While he admitted that most who experienced sanctification experienced it some time AFTER first coming to Christ, he taught this was only due to their lack of faith and/or lack of teaching and understanding.

Even here there is the doctrine of a subsequence second work. The only way to say that it is not second work is to say they are the same work.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Luke

Even here there is the doctrine of a subsequence second work. The only way to say that it is not second work is to say they are the same work.

Then it's purely a quibbling over terms.

Did you read the article at the link I posted? It's a really good article.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Then it's purely a quibbling over terms.

Did you read the article at the link I posted? It's a really good article.

I did read a lot of it. It was interestring. I had just read pretty much the same article on the day before on the wesite enterhisrest.org .

No it is not a quibbling over terms the two works do two different things and the one must of necessity proceed the other. Did you check out the scriptures that i pointed out that show two distinct works?

As a side note a really good place to find alot of old wesleyan books for free download as a pdf or you can get a power point dvd with all of the books for free (they will accept a freewill offering for the dvd if you want to donate but it is not required) is wesley.nnu.edu then go to the holiness classic library link. After that you can scroll by author. Some of my favorites are by Carradine and Knapp but there are also some called how they entered in to rest that are just testimonies to entire sanctification.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Luke

I did read a lot of it. It was interestring. I had just read pretty much the same article on the day before on the wesite enterhisrest.org .

That's a really good website too. One of my favorites.

No it is not a quibbling over terms the two works do two different things and the one must of necessity proceed the other. Did you check out the scriptures that i pointed out that show two distinct works?

I meant it's a quibbling over terms as far as the issue of Durham vs Wesleyan traditions.

As a side note a really good place to find alot of old wesleyan books for free download as a pdf or you can get a power point dvd with all of the books for free (they will accept a freewill offering for the dvd if you want to donate but it is not required) is wesley.nnu.edu then go to the holiness classic library link. After that you can scroll by author. Some of my favorites are by Carradine and Knapp but there are also some called how they entered in to rest that are just testimonies to entire sanctification.

Yes, I have been there too, a really good website. Carradine is really good.

Now, about this -

Did you check out the scriptures that i pointed out that show two distinct works?

Give me a minute and I will get back to you on that.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Luke

Act 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

This was Paul's evangelistic mission, to preach the gospel to the nations. I see no doctrine of subsequence here, they were to (by believing the gospel) receive remission of sins and inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Christ. The word 'and' does not imply subsequence. This verse is speaking of people who have no inheritance in the Israel of God (that is, people who are unregenerate pagans) receiving the forgiveness of their sins and being made a part of the commonwealth of Israel (the church, those who have been 'set apart' and 'consecrated' unto God, by faith in Christ).

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

This cannot be subsequence. Otherwise, those who have had their sins remitted, who are 'in Christ', can be said to also be 'unrenewed in the spirit of their mind' and to have NOT 'put on the new man'.

I remember reading an article called something like 'What they call sanctification is only justification', and the author was saying that many who 'teach sanctification' as ending the former conversation and 'putting on the new man' are only describing initial salvation, not entire sanctification. The author was a Wesleyan holiness preacher, and was pointing out that a person who had not 'stopped sinning' had not even been justified yet, let alone sanctified.

Anyway, verse 21 is the connection, Paul is repeating the fundamental teaching of Christ.

21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Thus, Paul is reminding them of the basic gospel teaching - put off the old way, be renewed, walk in the new way. This is not a doctrine of subsequent, post conversion, post-salvation sanctification experience.

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.

The perfection spoken of here has to do with knowledge and doctrine, not experiences of a "second definite work of grace." The apostle wanted them to move on past the basic doctrines (which include the doctrines of 'baptisms' by the way...)

Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

This is not subsequence! This is saying we have boldness to enter into the true holy of Holies by the blood of Jesus in contrast to what was portrayed under the old covenant Day of Atonement rituals, where the high priest alone went in once a year.

Verse 4 of that chapter reads - For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

The context is remission of sins, not a second work after remission of sins.

hebrews 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

This is about leaving the old covenant and going 'outside the camp' of Judaism unto Christ, in the new way.

Notice though that the sanctification is provided by the same events and the same work as that which provides forgiveness - the Cross.

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

If this describes a subsequent work of sanctification, then those who are 'born again' but not yet 'sanctified' are those who have not partaken of the divine nature and have not escaped the corruption of the world. But that means they are no different than the heathen.

Also, it does not actually say or teach a SUBSEQUENT work. Where is the actual words of the apostles saying anything to the effect that 'you have been born again, justified, but you are not sanctified, and need another shot of the Cross?'


[quote]Revelation 22:11
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

No subsequence here, rather a declaration that at the judgement, you will forever be what you are - either lost, or saved, filthy, or clean, unholy, or holy.


Don't get me wrong, I believe in entire sanctification.

I just do not believe it MUST be a 'second definite work coming after salvation, regeneration, justification, etc.'

Justification, regeneration, sanctification, cleansing, adoption, conversion, etc are all different terms describing different aspects of SALVATION, accomplished by Christ on the cross and available to us by faith.

Look here:

Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

This was in reference to this:

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

The Gentiles heard the gospel. They believed, were 'granted repentance unto life', received the Holy Ghost, had their hearts purified by faith, got the Baptism with the Holy Ghost... ALL IN ONE SHOT. BECAUSE of that, they were baptised. How did Peter know all these things happened? Because, in chapter 10 verse 47 it says they 'heard them speak with tongues and magnify God'.

They received it all in that Pentecostal baptism with the Holy Ghost. The only 'subsequent' thing that happened was they were baptized in water, in Jesus' name.

Thus, no subsequence necessary for sanctification.

[Originalist]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1276785]This was Paul's evangelistic mission, to preach the gospel to the nations. I see no doctrine of subsequence here, they were to (by believing the gospel) receive remission of sins and inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Christ. The word 'and' does not imply subsequence. This verse is speaking of people who have no inheritance in the Israel of God (that is, people who are unregenerate pagans) receiving the forgiveness of their sins and being made a part of the commonwealth of Israel (the church, those who have been 'set apart' and 'consecrated' unto God, by faith in Christ).



This cannot be subsequence. Otherwise, those who have had their sins remitted, who are 'in Christ', can be said to also be 'unrenewed in the spirit of their mind' and to have NOT 'put on the new man'.

I remember reading an article called something like 'What they call sanctification is only justification', and the author was saying that many who 'teach sanctification' as ending the former conversation and 'putting on the new man' are only describing initial salvation, not entire sanctification. The author was a Wesleyan holiness preacher, and was pointing out that a person who had not 'stopped sinning' had not even been justified yet, let alone sanctified.

Anyway, verse 21 is the connection, Paul is repeating the fundamental teaching of Christ.

21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Thus, Paul is reminding them of the basic gospel teaching - put off the old way, be renewed, walk in the new way. This is not a doctrine of subsequent, post conversion, post-salvation sanctification experience.




The perfection spoken of here has to do with knowledge and doctrine, not experiences of a "second definite work of grace." The apostle wanted them to move on past the basic doctrines (which include the doctrines of 'baptisms' by the way...)



This is not subsequence! This is saying we have boldness to enter into the true holy of Holies by the blood of Jesus in contrast to what was portrayed under the old covenant Day of Atonement rituals, where the high priest alone went in once a year.

Verse 4 of that chapter reads - For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

The context is remission of sins, not a second work after remission of sins.



This is about leaving the old covenant and going 'outside the camp' of Judaism unto Christ, in the new way.

Notice though that the sanctification is provided by the same events and the same work as that which provides forgiveness - the Cross.




If this describes a subsequent work of sanctification, then those who are 'born again' but not yet 'sanctified' are those who have not partaken of the divine nature and have not escaped the corruption of the world. But that means they are no different than the heathen.

Also, it does not actually say or teach a SUBSEQUENT work. Where is the actual words of the apostles saying anything to the effect that 'you have been born again, justified, but you are not sanctified, and need another shot of the Cross?'

Revelation 22:11
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

No subsequence here, rather a declaration that at the judgement, you will forever be what you are - either lost, or saved, filthy, or clean, unholy, or holy.


Don't get me wrong, I believe in entire sanctification.

I just do not believe it MUST be a 'second definite work coming after salvation, regeneration, justification, etc.'

Justification, regeneration, sanctification, cleansing, adoption, conversion, etc are all different terms describing different aspects of SALVATION, accomplished by Christ on the cross and available to us by faith.

Look here:

Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

This was in reference to this:

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

The Gentiles heard the gospel. They believed, were 'granted repentance unto life', received the Holy Ghost, had their hearts purified by faith, got the Baptism with the Holy Ghost... ALL IN ONE SHOT. BECAUSE of that, they were baptised. How did Peter know all these things happened? Because, in chapter 10 verse 47 it says they 'heard them speak with tongues and magnify God'.

They received it all in that Pentecostal baptism with the Holy Ghost. The only 'subsequent' thing that happened was they were baptized in water, in Jesus' name.

Thus, no subsequence necessary for sanctification.

I'm glad to see that someone finally understands that it is at Spirit baptism that our hearts are literally made pure by faith. God's precense is a purifying precense. Our God is a consuming fire. It is at that point also that new heart is created within us by this purifying precense of God. Again, their hearts were purified BY FAITH. Faith in what? Jesus and his shed blood. The blood is "applied" by the agency of the Spirit. There is no literal "cleansing blood" touching anyone.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I'm glad to see that someone finally understands that it is at Spirit baptism that our hearts are literally made pure by faith. God's precense is a purifying precense. Our God is a consuming fire. It is at that point also that new heart is created within us by this purifying precense of God. Again, their hearts were purified BY FAITH. Faith in what? Jesus and his shed blood. The blood is "applied" by the agency of the Spirit. There is no literal "cleansing blood" touching anyone.

It's weird. When I got the Holy Ghost, at the time I didn't know that was what it was called (the Baptism with the Holy Ghost). But I spoke in tongues, praised God, and got funny looks from the Baptist preacher lol.

Looking back, I believe I was 'entirely sanctified' in that experience. I had all the 'symptoms' if you will of what those holiness preachers called 'sanctification'. Of course, at the time, I had ZERO idea what that was all about. But I cannot help but believe that 'whatever you need from God it's in the holy Ghost'.

Interestingly enough, Durham said when he got the holy Ghost, from that moment on he could never preach sanctification as a 'SECOND' work, but had to believe everything is available by faith as soon as you are able to believe.

It's been a long journey since then, and unfortunately I cannot claim to have 'held onto' everything I got the entire time since then. But I know He who began a good work in me will complete it unto the end.

Praise the name of the Lord.