# Sanctification



## Leslie (May 19, 2015)

For those who were saved from a life of gross, obvious sin, there are great differences between individuals. Some are totally delivered from an attraction to their life of sin, from the time of conversion. Some struggle to leave their former lives with some success. Some have very poor success, repeatedly falling into sin, picking themselves up and going on for a while, and then falling again. 
Examples in my experience:
A. An alcoholic and drug addict who has had no desire for either since the moment of conversion.
B. A former prostitute who actually liked her lifestyle. She has lived clean, but feels continually drawn back, has resisted only because of her ministry to some children who do not know her past and who would be devastated if she went back.
C. An alcoholic who stays dry for the most part, but goes back on occasion. 

As I posted in another place, I'm curious as to the difference. In all cases, the individuals put forth a tremendous effort to stay clean; it seems to be only their success that varies. Are some less depraved than others? Does God give more deliverance, grace or whatever to some than others? Can we invoke the sovereignty of God in sanctification as well as election to repentance and faith?


----------



## MW (May 19, 2015)

Leslie said:


> For those who were saved from a life of gross, obvious sin, there are great differences between individuals. Some are totally delivered from an attraction to their life of sin, from the time of conversion. Some struggle to leave their former lives with some success. Some have very poor success, repeatedly falling into sin, picking themselves up and going on for a while, and then falling again.



The category of "gross, obvious sin" might need definition. Cultural and social expectations are often superimposed on the biblical view of godliness, and gross sins can become nothing more than socially unacceptable behaviour.

If sin is the transgression of the the law, then "gross, obvious sin" would be "gross, obvious transgressions of the ten commandments." E.g., idolatry, adultery, etc. Such things should not be once named among the saints, Eph. 5:3. Any view which allows these things in the Christian life is not a doctrine of "sanctification by grace" but "pollution by indulgence."

Part of the residue of modernism is the "psychological" interpretation of Christianity. Sanctification becomes associated with mental health and positive living. In the end the person is tied up in knots because his sanctification is nothing more than a self-help program. He has no objective identity in Christ.

If someone struggles with alcohol and narcotics they need medical help for their physical and mental abnormalities. Sanctification might give the person an increasing desire to be conformed to the image of Christ and to serve God, but it is not going to make the person physically and mentally "better."

Prostitution is another matter. That is explicitly contrary to the law of God and violates union with Christ. The expectation of grace is to leave this life of sin. Refusal to leave this life of sin would be indicative of a graceless life.


----------



## Mushroom (May 19, 2015)

I heard a sermon by Barnhouse once that explained this variation as a byproduct of where a person started in the new life on a scale determined by hereditary, environment, and proclivity to sin. 

1 Timothy 5:24-25 (24) Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. (25) Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.

His view was that some folks start out from a relatively advanced state of habit in conformity to God's law (such as covenant children), while others start far back (such as the children of unbelieving degenerates). He used numbers from 0-100, and the concept was that someone who started as a 10 and progressed to a 70 was actually progressing more dynamically than one who'd started as a 60 and moved forward to 80, although appearances may state otherwise. I'm not sure how valuable or theologically accurate that view is, but found it an interesting concept.


----------



## Leslie (May 20, 2015)

Mushroom said:


> I heard a sermon by Barnhouse once that explained this variation as a byproduct of where a person started in the new life on a scale determined by hereditary, environment, and proclivity to sin.
> 
> 1 Timothy 5:24-25 (24) Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. (25) Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
> 
> His view was that some folks start out from a relatively advanced state of habit in conformity to God's law (such as covenant children), while others start far back (such as the children of unbelieving degenerates). He used numbers from 0-100, and the concept was that someone who started as a 10 and progressed to a 70 was actually progressing more dynamically than one who'd started as a 60 and moved forward to 80, although appearances may state otherwise. I'm not sure how valuable or theologically accurate that view is, but found it an interesting concept.



This is an interesting theory but for those whom I know, it does not conform to reality. In the case of the alcoholic woman and man both, they came from far back. It's hard to tell which one was farther behind to begin with. The prostitute simply chose prostitution because she liked it. The alcoholic woman, on your scoring system, jumped from a 10 to an 80 at the moment of conversion and has stayed there solidly over years, and that in the face of enormous stress and hardship. The alcoholic man is struggling to get from a 10 to a 15. He additionally has 7th commandment issues. His life is far less stressful than hers, but still he turns to the bottle. (I don't fault moderate drinking, but habitual inebriation only.) The former prostitute started at a 50 progressed to an 80, and every day is a struggle not to go back. I think the bottom line is that God's grace in sanctification does not affect everyone equally.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 20, 2015)

Leslie,

I'm sorry if I derailed your question in the other thread. I don't think we can ever come up with some sort of Biblical formula that tells us how much "grace" someone has received. It's impossible for the creature to peer into things inscrutable and try to understand why it is that some people are the way they are. We don't even understand our own hearts.

I think that there are certain personality traits that make some people appear to be "less depraved". There are also habits instiled in upbringing. I think many people doubt the depravity of man because they know many responsible and honorable people that have no need for Christ. My grandfather lived to be 94. He was a man of great integrity and work ethic but had no use for the things of God.

I guess I'm struggling with how to quantify depravity because we really can't. Personally, I'm greatly annoyed by lazy and irresponsible people but it doesn't mean they're any more wicked than a successful businessman.

I also think that evangelical culture has a perfectionist bent to it where immediate deliverance from certain activities (i.e. alcohol and drugs) is seen as the primary evidence that God has really sanctified a person. I used to think this way. There's a certain "celebrity" to this kind of "sanctification" because it fits with the perfectionist model. Perhaps if others just had more faith or God would show them more grace then they too might be immediately delivered.

I just don't see any real NT pattern other than daily repentance and faith. I used to live with the illusion that I struggled with sin mightily because I was young in the faith but that there were older saints who had grown past that point. It's a modern evangelical myth. Those that have convinced themselves they've matured beyond battle with sin are blind to real spiritual battle.

I don't know of any Christian life, as the Scriptures present it, that don't call us to suffer for the Church's sake. There are certainly those who, in the Providence of God, struggle with some sins that we might consider basic self-control and fall back to them. I'm not saying it's an easy thing but we're called to urge them on and to give battle to that sin with the injunction that, if they are in Christ, He was freed them from bondage (given the same qualifications Matthew did about physical or medical issues). We need not tell them that *someday* they might be in Christ or that someone else is more "in Christ" because they don't struggle in the same way. All who look to the Son have Him as their Mediator and they need to cast their cares on Him. If a person is in Christ then He is no longer totally depraved. He is no longer a slave to sin. We need not worry about how much work Christ has to do in the person or whether one is getting more or less help, we simply point each to the Savior and urge them on with the strength He supplies.


----------

