# Pink on Sanctification



## MW (Feb 12, 2007)

I'm just starting Pink on the Doctrine of Sanctification, and I came across this curious statement:



> On some aspects of this subject he has found the Plymouth Brethren much more helpful than the Reformers and the Puritans.



Is anyone aware of any particulars in the book where this might be evident?


----------



## MW (Feb 12, 2007)

Upon reading the first half of the book, I have discovered that the particular Brethren writers to whom Arthur Pink was beholden was James Inglis and B. W. Newton. The point on which he thought the Brethren to be more astute than the Reformed was that of definitive sanctification, especially as procured by Christ. He writes on p. 126 (CFP edition),



> We believe that all the Reformation "standards" (creeds, confessions, and catechisms) will be searched in vain for any clear statement upon the perfect holiness which the Church has in Christ or of God’s making Him to be, imputatively, sanctification unto His people.



I believe Arthur Pink's treatment of definitive sanctification confounds two things which ought always be kept distinct, and which the Reformed tradition has wisely distinguished -- the work of Christ for us and the work of the Spirit in us. It is one thing to speak of the work of Christ as the procuring cause of sanctification, which must always be regarded as a completed action; it is also quite appropriate to speak of the initial work of the Spirit of God in separating a person from the world and consecrating him to God as a definitive act, never to be repeated again; but it is an altogether different matter to refer to the application of Christ's completed work as making the believer actually spotless before God so that God sees no sin in the believer. On this last point Mr. Pink has committed a serious error.

In so far as the perfect work of Christ is imputed, the believer and his service is accepted as righteous in the sight of God; but the believer is not considered as possessing the perfect holiness of Christ. If Mr. Pink's doctrine were correct, there would be no need of any progressive sanctification. If, as he claims (p. 128), "the Christian is regarded not only as guiltless and unreprovable, but also as spotless and holy" -- or (p. 132) that "a converted person is absolutely holy" -- or (p. 138) "that the Christian was as completely sanctified in God's view the first moment he laid hold of Christ by faith, as he will be when every vestige of sin has disappeared from his person, and he stands before him glorified in spirit and soul and body" -- then there would be no progress to be made in the Christian life: no need for self-examination, confession, mortification, or the like.

I am afraid that Mr Pink's indebtedness to the Plymouth Brethren has led him away from the Reformed faith on this point. I sincerely hope my reformed brethren will be on their guard against this unwholesome leaven.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 12, 2007)

Mr. Winzer, I hope this doesn't sound like an impertinence, as I don't mean it to be in any way. Why do you read A.W. Pink? What reason is there to invest time and money in his books, out of all the wide selection available to us?


----------



## MW (Feb 13, 2007)

Ruben, I would regard Arthur Pink as a person who was somewhat instrumental in keeping Calvinism alive at a time in the twentieth century when it seemed all but dead. He was a popular writer, and in general a sound expositor of the reformed faith. His love for the Puritans meant that he maintained a lively experimentalism in his thinking, which is evident in the various series of articles he wrote for the magazine he maintained for many years. But we cannot allow helpers of our joy to become oppressors of our faith, and so where a respected author makes a departure from the faith once delivered to the saints it becomes all the more necessary to expose his errors lest others be caught unawares by his reputation.

On a personal level, perhaps I have a fondness for his writings because his book on the sovereignty of God was the first Banner of Truth book I had the privilege to read, having picked it up for 10 cents at a second hand book store. By means of that work the Lord graciously revolutionised the way I thought about Christian faith and life.

As a follow up to what I have written concerning the book on sanctification, I should add that, other than the particular error I have exposed, the work makes many valuable points. On pp. 87, 88, there is an excellent quotation provided from the pen of Thomas Manton, which, if Mr. Pink had have followed, he would have been delivered from the error he espoused. Dr. Manton is very clear on the difference between meritorious, applicatory (definitive, initial, or habitual), and practical (progressive, continual, or actual) sanctification.

The Plymouth Brethren view of sanctification goes much further into error than Arthur Pink has followed them, going so far as to espouse a two nature view of the regenerate man. One may profitably consult R. L. Dabney's Discussions, volume 1, for a biblical refutation of their vain babblings. Blessings!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 13, 2007)

Ruben,
Whats wrong with AW Pink?


----------



## turmeric (Feb 13, 2007)

Rev. Winzer,
Does Pink understand the righteousness imputed to us as coming from the active righteousness of Christ?

The Brethern (from what I've read) seem to tend to perfectionism. I grew up with Dispensationalism, maybe I don't understand this issue yet.

I've been told that when God looks at us he sees the righteousness of Christ. What does He actually see? This has bothered me for years. How could the all-knowing God not see our sin?


----------



## MW (Feb 18, 2007)

turmeric said:


> Does Pink understand the righteousness imputed to us as coming from the active righteousness of Christ?



Yes, Pink's work on justification teaches that the righteousness of Christ (active and passive obedience) is imputed to believers.



turmeric said:


> How could the all-knowing God not see our sin?



This is a good observation. It may also be pointed out that God chastens whom He loves. A righteous father does not chasten where there is no fault.

The problem with the "God sees no sin" theory is that it fails to understand the sphere in which justification functions. Justification is a judicial act, effectively declaring that the sinner has no sin for which to answer at the bar of judgment. It deals with the "penalty" of sin. Sanctification deals with the "power" of sin. Glorification deals with the "presence" of sin. Blessings!


----------



## etexas (Feb 18, 2007)

I kinda like Pink. I mean really, there are some flaws in his writing at times, but a flaw does not a heretic make. Sometimes reading books that contain elements that you disagree with helps you hone and sharpen your position. At least that is how has panned out for me in the past. By the bye a cool thing about Pink's commentary on Hebrews is its size. My wife saw it in a bookcase not long after we were married and said "That is the BIGGEST book I have ever seen!" I pulled it down (gravity helped) and compared it to some of my other books........folks it may be the biggest book out there!


----------



## bookslover (Feb 18, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> On a personal level, perhaps I have a fondness for his writings because his book on the sovereignty of God was the first Banner of Truth book I had the privilege to read, having picked it up for 10 cents at a second hand book store. By means of that work the Lord graciously revolutionised the way I thought about Christian faith and life.



Have you read Pink's original version, the "real" version, of _The Sovereignty of God_, which is still published occasionally by Baker Books? The Banner of Truth edition, the "fake" edition, was heavily edited and re-written by Iain H. Murray, who took it upon himself to write the book he thinks Pink "should" have written.


----------



## MW (Feb 18, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Have you read Pink's original version, the "real" version, of _The Sovereignty of God_, which is still published occasionally by Baker Books? The Banner of Truth edition, the "fake" edition, was heavily edited and re-written by Iain H. Murray, who took it upon himself to write the book he thinks Pink "should" have written.



Yes, I eventually read the Baker edition a few years later. Reprobation is a doctrine I already accepted, so it didn't worry me personally that it was omitted from the Banner edition. For what it's worth, Iain Murray believed there was good reason to make the changes which are to be found in the Banner edition, and apparently Mrs. Pink concurred.


----------



## bookslover (Feb 18, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Yes, I eventually read the Baker edition a few years later. Reprobation is a doctrine I already accepted, so it didn't worry me personally that it was omitted from the Banner edition. For what it's worth, Iain Murray believed there was good reason to make the changes which are to be found in the Banner edition, and apparently Mrs. Pink concurred.



Mrs. Pink's concurrence notwithstanding, it was, in my opinion, unethical of Murray to re-write Pink's book. If one disagrees with someone's articulation of a theological position, one's options are: (1) write a lengthy book review stating your objections; or (2) write your own book as an answer. But to re-write someone else's book is just not ethically acceptable.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 26, 2007)

Thank you for your reply, Mr. Winzer. Mr. Pink's book on Elisha was a big help to me some years ago.


----------



## KMK (Feb 27, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> On a personal level, perhaps I have a fondness for his writings because his book on the sovereignty of God was the first Banner of Truth book I had the privilege to read, having picked it up for 10 cents at a second hand book store. By means of that work the Lord graciously revolutionised the way I thought about Christian faith and life.
> 
> As a follow up to what I have written concerning the book on sanctification, I should add that, other than the particular error I have exposed, the work makes many valuable points. On pp. 87, 88, there is an excellent quotation provided from the pen of Thomas Manton, which, if Mr. Pink had have followed, he would have been delivered from the error he espoused. Dr. Manton is very clear on the difference between meritorious, applicatory (definitive, initial, or habitual), and practical (progressive, continual, or actual) sanctification.



 The Sovereignty of God changed my life. However, I will admit although interesting and often helpful, the rest of his books that I have read have disappointed me to a certain degree. I can't help, perhaps sentimentally, to recemmend the Sovereignty of God as a must read.


----------



## etexas (Feb 27, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Thank you for your reply, Mr. Winzer. Mr. Pink's book on Elisha was a big help to me some years ago.


That is also a good book.


----------



## KMK (Feb 28, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I believe Arthur Pink's treatment of definitive sanctification confounds two things which ought always be kept distinct, and which the Reformed tradition has wisely distinguished -- the work of Christ for us and the work of the Spirit in us. It is one thing to speak of the work of Christ as the procuring cause of sanctification, which must always be regarded as a completed action; it is also quite appropriate to speak of the initial work of the Spirit of God in separating a person from the world and consecrating him to God as a definitive act, never to be repeated again; but it is an altogether different matter to refer to the application of Christ's completed work as making the believer actually spotless before God so that God sees no sin in the believer. On this last point Mr. Pink has committed a serious error.
> 
> In so far as the perfect work of Christ is imputed, the believer and his service is accepted as righteous in the sight of God; but the believer is not considered as possessing the perfect holiness of Christ. If Mr. Pink's doctrine were correct, there would be no need of any progressive sanctification. If, as he claims (p. 128), "the Christian is regarded not only as guiltless and unreprovable, but also as spotless and holy" -- or (p. 132) that "a converted person is absolutely holy" -- or (p. 138) "that the Christian was as completely sanctified in God's view the first moment he laid hold of Christ by faith, as he will be when every vestige of sin has disappeared from his person, and he stands before him glorified in spirit and soul and body" -- then there would be no progress to be made in the Christian life: no need for self-examination, confession, mortification, or the like.
> 
> I am afraid that Mr Pink's indebtedness to the Plymouth Brethren has led him away from the Reformed faith on this point. I sincerely hope my reformed brethren will be on their guard against this unwholesome leaven.



 I appreciate these words because it reminded me of that important distinction, which, I'm afraid, had become a little fuzzy in my own mind. Your comments drove me to review the WCF chapter on Sanctification and to begin preparations for a sermon on Rom 6 and 7.

How do you feel about the terms 'positional' and 'experiential' sanctification?


----------



## MW (Feb 28, 2007)

KMK said:


> I appreciate these words because it reminded me of that important distinction, which, I'm afraid, had become a little fuzzy in my own mind. Your comments drove me to review the WCF chapter on Sanctification and to begin preparations for a sermon on Rom 6 and 7.
> 
> How do you feel about the terms 'positional' and 'experiential' sanctification?



I suppose it depends on the meaning that is poured into the terms. I don't think "positional" and "experiential" is problematic, and perhaps is quite fitting to describe what is taking place in Rom. 6. As with all terminology, it is a matter of defining it carefully so as to exclude misapplication. I have heard of people mistaking the Puritan distinction of "habitual" and "actual," as if initial santification is not actual.

For what it's worth, I found Thomas Manton's sermons exceedingly helpful on Rom. 6.


----------



## KMK (Feb 28, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I suppose it depends on the meaning that is poured into the terms. I don't think "positional" and "experiential" is problematic, and perhaps is quite fitting to describe what is taking place in Rom. 6. As with all terminology, it is a matter of defining it carefully so as to exclude misapplication. I have heard of people mistaking the Puritan distinction of "habitual" and "actual," as if initial santification is not actual.



It would be nice if the English Speaking Chuch had a common vocabulary. I think the proliferation of English Bible versions has given licence to many to use language however they wish. You can make yourself sound very smart if you make up a term for something, even if there already was one!



> For what it's worth, I found Thomas Manton's sermons exceedingly helpful on Rom. 6.



Do you know where I might find these online? (Maybe if *VirginiaHeugenot* is listening in he would know where to find it.)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 28, 2007)

KMK said:


> It would be nice if the English Speaking Chuch had a common vocabulary. I think the proliferation of English Bible versions has given licence to many to use language however they wish. You can make yourself sound very smart if you make up a term for something, even if there already was one!
> 
> For what it's worth, I found Thomas Manton's sermons exceedingly helpful on Rom. 6.





> Do you know where I might find these online? (Maybe if *VirginiaHeugenot* is listening in he would know where to find it.)



They are in Volume 11 of his Works. I am not able to find them online. Eventually, all of his sermons are intended to be made available here. The sooner the better!


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Feb 28, 2007)

*Arthur Pink - Sanctification*

Notwithstanding Pink's contribution to the subject (excellent in many respects), his personal life (at least in the latter years) appears to contradict all he said. He was a Protestant monk – in some respects! He found no church in the entire world he could join; he was bookish rather than 'people-ish', and he died on the Isle of Lewis! 
I found http://www.brethrenonline.org/books/PINK.HTM but know nothing about the author! 
Ian Murray's Book (The Life of Arthur W. Pink Pink) wrote a good biography – it is worth your perusal! 
One of the best standard introductions to holiness must be by JC Ryle - if you buy it give your last shirt for it. And live it - ah, here is the challenge! 
Or check http://www.gracegems.org/Ryle/books.htm
Wishing you well - and if you need to be stirred up then Al Martin's preaching will be helpful! See http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...n=sermonsspeaker&AudioOnly=false&SortBy=added
Sorry – I don't know (as yet) how to insert hyperlinks!


----------



## KMK (Feb 28, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Do you know where I might find these online? (Maybe if *VirginiaHeugenot* is listening in he would know where to find it.)





> They are in Volume 11 of his Works. I am not able to find them online. Eventually, all of his sermons are intended to be made available here. The sooner the better!



Sorry for misspelling 'huguenot'.


----------



## MW (Feb 28, 2007)

KMK said:


> Do you know where I might find these online? (Maybe if *VirginiaHeugenot* is listening in he would know where to find it.)



I can't remember seeing them online, but I will see what I can do to remedy that some time this year. Blessings!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 28, 2007)

KMK said:


> Sorry for misspelling 'huguenot'.



Pas de problème !  



armourbearer said:


> I can't remember seeing them online, but I will see what I can do to remedy that some time this year. Blessings!


----------



## polemic_turtle (Feb 28, 2007)

To return to something you said before, Rev. Winzer, what exactly is this "two natures" view? Is it the belief that after regeneration, a believer now has a conflict or civil war within himself? That which he would do, he does not, and that which he wouldn't, he does? Honestly, upon thought, I doubt it's that, but I'd like for you to please explain this little bit. Thank you!


----------



## MW (Feb 28, 2007)

polemic_turtle said:


> To return to something you said before, Rev. Winzer, what exactly is this "two natures" view? Is it the belief that after regeneration, a believer now has a conflict or civil war within himself? That which he would do, he does not, and that which he wouldn't, he does? Honestly, upon thought, I doubt it's that, but I'd like for you to please explain this little bit. Thank you!



Its the view that in regeneration the Holy Spirit does nothing to the old nature, but leaves it intact with its own mind and will; alongside of it is created a new nature, with its distintive mind and will. Progressive sancitification is essentially a matter of following the new nature and ignoring the old. The reformed view is that the old nature is renewed so that sin no longer has dominion but grace now reigns in the heart. Sin indwells, but is not the reigning principle. Progressive sanctification involves dying to indwelling sin, not to another nature. Romans 7 is understood to be a conflict of laws or principles, not a conflict of natures. This is an outline; Dabney's Discussions treats it more substantially.

I should reiterate that Pink did not go to this length of Brethren teaching. In my humble opinion, though, it is where Pink's teaching would naturally lead if followed through consistently to its logical conclusion.


----------



## KMK (Feb 28, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Its the view that in regeneration the Holy Spirit does nothing to the old nature, but leaves it intact with its own mind and will; alongside of it is created a new nature, with its distintive mind and will. Progressive sancitification is essentially a matter of following the new nature and ignoring the old. The reformed view is that the old nature is renewed so that sin no longer has dominion but grace now reigns in the heart. Sin indwells, but is not the reigning principle. Progressive sanctification involves dying to indwelling sin, not to another nature. Romans 7 is understood to be a conflict of laws or principles, not a conflict of natures. This is an outline; Dabney's Discussions treats it more substantially.
> 
> I should reiterate that Pink did not go to this length of Brethren teaching. In my humble opinion, though, it is where Pink's teaching would naturally lead if followed through consistently to its logical conclusion.



Am I on the right track????

Rom 7:22-25 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. *So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin*.

This passage in isolation might lead one to progressive sanctification. But if we remember what Paul just taught in chapter 6...

Rom 6:6-14 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin *shall not* have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

... we are lead to a more reformed view. (Using your terms, Mr. Winzer)


----------



## MW (Feb 28, 2007)

Yes, I think the apostle is speaking of definitive sanctification in the first part of chapter 6, while towards the end he stresses the need for progress in the statement about yielding our members, etc. His condition in Rom. 7:15ff, presuposses the dominion of sin is broken in the inward man, and looks upon the influence of sin as a governing principle that is divorced from his own personality, but "indwelling" him nonetheless. I like what John Owen says here about the apostle's use of "flesh" and "body" as the seat of this indwelling sin. While it is not to be conceived in a platonic "material evil" sense, it is nevertheless through the physical passions that sin works upon the regenerate.

And relative to my previous post, note how the NIV encapsulates the two-nature view in its rendering of sarx as "sinful nature."


----------



## KMK (Mar 1, 2007)

Rom 7:25 (NIV) Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the *sinful nature* a slave to the law of sin.

I see what you mean. The NIV translation supports the unreformed view that we have two distinct natures. One which is 'new' and another which is still 'sinful'. Whereas the reformed view is that the regenerate man is an altogether 'new' man; an entirely 'new' creation albeit burdened with sin that indwells his flesh. This indwelling sin which does indeed war with the new 'spiritual' mind, can never again entirely subjugate the new man. 

With the one view a regenerate man could sin and then argue that it wasn't his fault. It was his sinful nature that overwhelmed him.

With the reformed view a regenerate man has no excuse for his sin.

Am I still on the right track?

Also, your terms 'definitive' and 'progressive', where do they come from?

Also, which work of Owen are you recommending?


----------



## MW (Mar 1, 2007)

You are right in the middle of the track. Excellent analysis of the NIV. "Definitive" and "progressive" are John Murray's terms. There are two articles which deal with each of them in his Collected Writings. Owen's Work is "Indwelling Sin," and that is online somewhere. (I leave it to the expert hyperlinkers to work their magic here).


----------



## MW (Mar 1, 2007)

Having looked at the John Owen homepage, I may have been mistaken about Indwelling Sin being in text online. I could only find Temptation and Mortification in text. However, I tracked Indwelling Sin to an online edition, and is available here:

http://www.gnpcb.org/product/1581346492/browse?pg=227


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Having looked at the John Owen homepage, I may have been mistaken about Indwelling Sin being in text online. I could only find Temptation and Mortification in text. However, I tracked Indwelling Sin to an online edition, and is available here:
> 
> http://www.gnpcb.org/product/1581346492/browse?pg=227



Abra-Cadabra:

Indwelling Sin, Temptation, and Mortification all in one pdf

http://www.johnowen.org/media/OvercomingSinAndTemptation.pdf

CT


----------



## MW (Mar 1, 2007)

My surfing skills leave alot to be desired. Thanks Hermonta.


----------



## KMK (Mar 1, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> Abra-Cadabra:
> 
> Indwelling Sin, Temptation, and Mortification all in one pdf
> 
> ...



Aaahhh! The magic of PB!  That is why I joined. 

Thank you Mr. Winzer for a very fruitful (on my part) discussion.  I intend to read Mr. Owen ASAP. I am also going to look for that John Murray work on ebay.


----------



## MW (Mar 1, 2007)

KMK said:


> I am also going to look for that John Murray work on ebay.



Another alternative is to listen to Murray's theological lectures on Thirdmill, where he covers the doctrine of sanctification in great detail. I'm sure your study will be richly rewarding. Blessings!


----------



## KMK (Mar 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Another alternative is to listen to Murray's theological lectures on Thirdmill, where he covers the doctrine of sanctification in great detail. I'm sure your study will be richly rewarding. Blessings!



I will look that up ASAP!

Just one more, Mr. Winzer! Are there other denoms that adopt the two natures view besides the Brethren? (I don't mean to  you to this thread)


----------



## MW (Mar 1, 2007)

KMK said:


> I will look that up ASAP!
> 
> Just one more, Mr. Winzer! Are there other denoms that adopt the two natures view besides the Brethren? (I don't mean to  you to this thread)



It wouldn't surprise me if second generation "holiness" groups end up there as a kind of default or naive understanding. I remember coming across some Pentecostals who held the view, but I couldn't say for certain if it was standard amongst them. The illustration of the two dogs fighting over a piece of meat would be a popular expression of the teaching.


----------



## KMK (Mar 1, 2007)

"The first wave of "Azusa pilgrims" journeyed throughout the United States spreading the Pentecostal fire, primarily in holiness churches, missions, and camp meetings. For some time, it was thought that it was necessary to journey to California to receive the "blessing." Soon, however, people received the tongues experience wherever they lived.

American Pentecostal pioneers who received tongues at Azusa Street went back to their homes to spread the movement among their own people, at times against great opposition. One of the first was Gaston Barnabas Cashwell of North Carolina, who spoke in tongues in 1906. His six-month preaching tour of the South in 1907 resulted in major inroads among southern holiness folk. Under his ministry, Cashwell saw several holiness denominations swept into the new movement, including the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), the Pentecostal Holiness Church, the Fire-Baptized Holiness Church, and the Pentecostal Free-Will Baptist Church.

Also in 1906, Charles Harrison Mason journeyed to Azusa Street and returned to Memphis, Tennessee to spread the Pentecostal fire in the Church of God in Christ. Mason and the church he founded were made up of African-Americans only one generation removed from slavery. (The parents of both Seymour and Mason had been born as southern slaves). Although tongues caused a split in the church in 1907, the Church of God in Christ experienced such explosive growth that by 1993, it was by far the largest Pentecostal denomination in North America, claiming some 5,500,000 members in 15,300 local churches. *Another Azusa pilgrim was William H. Durham of Chicago. After receiving his tongues experience at Azusa Street in 1907, he returned to Chicago, where he led thousands of mid-western Americans and Canadians into the Pentecostal movement. His "finished work" theology of gradual progressive sanctification, which he announced in 1910, led to the formation of the Assemblies of God in 1914. *Since many white pastors had formerly been part of Mason's church, the beginnings of the Assemblies of God was also partially a racial separation. In time the Assemblies of God church was destined to become the largest Pentecostal denominational church in the world, claiming by 1993 over 2,000,000 members in the U.S. and some 25,000,000 adherents in 150 nations of the world."

This is from Oral Roberts U.


----------



## turmeric (Mar 1, 2007)

Yes, but do they do the "two natures" thing? J. Robertson McQuilken (who represented Keswick in _5 Views of Sanctification_ says that Keswick does not teach this view. I _do_ know that Dispensationalism _does_ teach it.

The Wesleyans, like the Reformed, teach eradication, they just think it's instantaneous in this life. Keswickians teach counteraction by the Holy Spirit (if you let Him)


----------



## KMK (Mar 1, 2007)

turmeric said:


> Yes, but do they do the "two natures" thing? J. Robertson McQuilken (who represented Keswick in _5 Views of Sanctification_ says that Keswick does not teach this view. I _do_ know that Dispensationalism _does_ teach it.
> 
> The Wesleyans, like the Reformed, teach eradication, they just think it's instantaneous in this life. Keswickians teach counteraction by the Holy Spirit (if you let Him)



Interesting! Just before I read this post I remembered that I had read that book years ago. (And didn't understand it very well  ) So I went and found it and have started skimming it again. It makes a great deal more sense (the reformed view) than it did before. Thanks for clarifying my previous post.

I think it might be one of those things that Dispensationalists believe but they don't know why they believe it. (Of course there are many Baptists that do the same thing)


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 1, 2007)

Just a word on "Indwelling Sin" by Owen. It is tremendous, well worth the effort of pressing through it. His analysis of human psychology is superior to anything I've ever read. He blows Freud and company completely out of the water. It should be required reading for anybody who wants to understand human nature.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 5, 2007)

KMK said:


> It would be nice if the English Speaking Chuch had a common vocabulary. I think the proliferation of English Bible versions has given licence to many to use language however they wish. You can make yourself sound very smart if you make up a term for something, even if there already was one!
> 
> For what it's worth, I found Thomas Manton's sermons exceedingly helpful on Rom. 6.



Do you know where I might find these online? (Maybe if *VirginiaHeugenot* is listening in he would know where to find it.) [/QUOTE]

I found Volume 11 of Thomas Manton's Works with his sermons on Romans 6 online here.


----------



## KMK (Mar 5, 2007)

*VirginiaHeugenot Rocks!*



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Do you know where I might find these online? (Maybe if *VirginiaHeugenot* is listening in he would know where to find it.)





> I found Volume 11 of Thomas Manton's Works with his sermons on Romans 6 online here.



I am downloading the file as I write this! Thanks. Now get off that computer and give some face time to your lovely wife!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 5, 2007)

KMK said:


> I am downloading the file as I write this! Thanks. Now get off that computer and give some face time to your lovely wife!



 Ok, ok, will do!


----------

