Reformed tradition teaches that human beings are [totally depraved](https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/the-fall-of-man-and-total-depravity/) , and cannot even come to faith without God's assistance. Their *reason* rejects God's supremacy, their *will* refuses God's invitation, and their *emotion* recoils against God's goodness. This is because human beings are born "in Adam", who "died" spiritually because of the Fall and we live under the power of sin. But once God "breathes" spiritual life into the elect, and the elect then comes to faith and becomes conscious of his/her new status in Christ, the elect is now in the *sanctification* stage working with the grace of the Holy Spirit to become more and more reformed in character. Then after death, in the elect's *glorification* stage I assume he/she will live eternally like the perfect human Jesus with *full functioning reason, will, and emotion as originally created in the image of God*, similar to how Jesus lived on earth without original sin (see [Nathaniel's answer to another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/61910/10672)) . My question is: **since we are in the "*already, but not yet*" stage, how do we understand the causes and the nature of progressive recovery / healing in our reason, will, and emotion, considering that the *telos* of our redemption is to go back to the original design as exhibited in the perfect humanity of Jesus?** In other words, since the goal of God's redemptive work is to "Un-Fall" us, since we are *already* justified, and since the clarion call is to "imitate Jesus", wouldn't it make sense to expect *palpable* and *measurable* progress in our earthly experience of our reason, will, and emotion? If so, then naturally we seek to understand the *theological causes* and the *practices* that engender those effects. I would like a documented answer quoting a **21st century scholarly (published) work** of a Reformed theologian who **explicitly links** sanctification to *progressive restoration* in reason, will, and emotion, by describing how sanctification works toward the healing, in the Reformed tradition.

I'm seeking to understand the theological distinctions between two significant concepts in Christianity: **Eastern Orthodox *theosis* (deification/divinization)** and **Protestant *sanctification***. While both terms describe a process of spiritual transformation and growth in the believer, my preliminary understanding suggests there are fundamental differences in their nature, scope, and the means by which they are understood to occur. Specifically, I'm interested in answers that address: 1. **Definitions:** A concise theological definition of both *theosis* and *sanctification* from within their respective traditions. 2. **Nature of the Process:** Is the transformation described by each tradition primarily ontological (a real change in being), forensic (a change in legal status before God), relational (a change in relationship with God), or some combination of these? 3. **Role of Grace and Human Effort:** How do grace and human effort (or synergy) factor into each process? 4. **Goal/Telos:** What is the ultimate aim or culmination of each process? What does a "theosified" or "sanctified" person look like from each perspective? 5. **Key Theological Differences:** What are the most crucial points of divergence between the two concepts? Are there areas of unexpected overlap? References to key theological sources or official teachings would be especially helpful.

It should be common sense knowledge that many Christians condemn homosexuality as a sin. The following already asked questions should be more than enough to prove the point: - [Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/381/why-do-some-christians-believe-it-is-moral-to-be-a-homosexual) - [What is the Biblical argument that homosexual attraction is sinful by itself?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35233/what-is-the-biblical-argument-that-homosexual-attraction-is-sinful-by-itself) - [What is a Christian's justification for a legal prohibition of homosexual marriage?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7598/what-is-a-christians-justification-for-a-legal-prohibition-of-homosexual-marria) That said, I'm not sure if I've ever heard Christians who claim that homosexuality is a sin also claim that homosexuals can be freed from their (claimed) sinful condition. Logic tells me that they should expect this to be the case, in light of passages such as: Romans 8:12-17 (ESV): > 12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, **but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live**. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. Galatians 5:16-24 (ESV): > 16 But I say, **walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh**. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 **Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality**, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 **But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness**, 23 **gentleness, self-control**; against such things there is no law. 24 **And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires**. If homosexuality is a sinful desire of the flesh, as many Christians believe, does this mean that homosexuality, as any other sin, can be reversed by the power of God, through the Holy Spirit, as the passages above seem to indicate? Is this the standard view among Christians who condemn homosexuality as a sin? An alternative way of phrasing the question: Can God heal homosexuality (according to those who view homosexuality as a sin)?

I am trying to understand the Reformed ‘*ordo salutis*’ or order of salvation events and the rationale for the placement of **adoption** in that order. I take this (from Wikipedia) as the Reformed (Calvinist) sequence, which serves as background to my question: - Predestination - Election - Calling (outward and inward) - Regeneration - Faith - Repentance - Justification - **Adoption** - **Sanctification** - Perseverance - Glorification **First**, excepting election in times long past and possibly the extent in time of the inward and outward calls, are most remaining parts of the order simultaneous and so merely ordered logically? Or are they conceived of as both logically and temporally arranged? If some hold to each view, which is the most common? **Second**, Sanctification is a process, so I can accept that it begins before adoption and continues to completion after adoption. My confusion springs from this passage in Ephesians 1:3-10 (ESV): >**3** Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, **4** even as he **chose** us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should **be holy and blameless** before him. In love **5** he **predestined** us for **adoption** as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, **6** to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. **7** In him we have **redemption** through his blood, the **forgiveness** of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, **8** which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight **9** making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ **10** as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. It is possible to infer some pairwise ordering of salvation events from the preceding, but by no means sort them all in a coherent way. If “holy and blameless” means sanctification then it is listed here before adoption. That does not require that adoption comes after sanctification, but certainly cannot be used to prove that adoption comes before sanctification. So what is the argument used by prominent Reformed Theologians for putting adoption before sanctification? Galatians 4:1-7 looks promising, but it is tied up in a complex argument, so I am not sure what it proves. Romans 8:18-25 equates adoption with the redemption of our bodies. That seems to speak of us receiving our resurrected bodies, which I would put after sanctification, so more confusion there.

This question concerns in part the following quote heard regularly by Presbyterian Pastors: > “Catholics deny the sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross and by doing so, forfeit their salvation.” The Idea is explained in the following terms: > Christ's sacrifice was perfect, and nothing we can do, not works, not anything, can save us. (Which a Catholic believes) but Catholics have to “DO” things, (as explained by many Pastors): doing Christ in the Eucharist, doing other Sacraments, doing works of Mercy, doing intercessory prayer, doing the Mass each and every week, fasting, alms giving and Prayer. The idea that Catholics “DO” these graces instituted by Christ rather than “Receiving” them, seems to dominate the thinking of many Presbyterian brethren. According to Presbyterians, what would be more perfect, and on what Biblical basis do they justify their choice? 1. (Presbyterian Position)That Christ's Good works cover the sins of men with his sacrifice to the father, So that he no longer sees the the sinful nature of the Person, but rather sees the righteousness of the Son, and we are sanctified by that covering (No Actual Change to the Believer Is necessary after acceptance through faith), or, 2. That Christ actually does more than cover up our sins by the meritorious actions of the Son, but provides for us a Church with Sacraments, Graces for us to help work out our salvation in fear and trembling, to actually increase our sanctity in a fallen world, to avoid the temptations of the flesh and not just to cover up our sinful nature, but to actually change and become sanctified by his Grace (Actual Change to the Believer is necessary after baptism).

I understand that sanctification is used as a post-reformational theological term to refer to the ongoing process of Christian growth. But, biblically speaking, is this always what is meant? I know that the word literally means "to make holy," which does not necessitate an ongoing process (and neither a one-time event). I am a bit nervous about limiting the semantic range when something broader may be intended in scripture. So what is the semantic range of the word as used in scripture?

I understand that there are verses that say becoming sinless is impossible: > For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. (Ecclesiastes 7:20) > As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (Romans 3:10) > If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8) > Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law (Romans 5:12-19, NKJV) But how can it be impossible if we can do all things with God? > But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. (Matthew 19:29) > I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (Philippians 4:13) How can the highest courts of heaven be filled with “an innumerable number” of those who stopped sinning in life? > 22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
> 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect (Hebrews 12) How was Noah “a just man and perfect in his generations, and [he] walked with God”(Genesis 6:9)?
How was the Israelite king Asa's heart “perfect with the Lord all his days.” (1 Kings 15:14)?
How was Job “perfect and upright, and one that feared God” (Job 1:1) God makes people's hearts all the same, so therefore we all have the same capacity to stop sinning: > He fashioneth [all mens’] hearts alike; he considereth all their works. (Psalm 33:15) So how can it be impossible to be sinless?

I am 24 years old. I have been a Christian for 5 years, but was raised in church. For the last two years I have been trying my best to walk out this faith to the best of my ability. I am not trying to brag (honestly), but I spend about 45min-1hour reading my Bible a day. I pray for a long time each morning and periodically throughout the day. I am trying my hardest to live a life that honors God, but I am finding that there is a dichotomy within me. My entire being wants to honor God but it also want to enjoy the pleasures of sin. I have begged God to free me from the sin that has bound me. I just want to know if there will ever be a point in my life that I will not be bound by a particular sin and will be able to walk in freedom.

When I first became a Christian my Baptist minister spoke about sanctification, holiness and aspiring toward Christian perfection in our lives. Personally, I doubt any of us will see perfection this side of heaven, although those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus are called to be holy (1 Corinthians 1:2). My understanding of sanctification is that it is both a done deal and a daily work. It’s on-going. In the past, through saving faith in Christ Jesus, God grants us justification. Through the process of sanctification, God guides us to maturity, a practical, progressive holiness. In the future, God will give us glorification, a permanent, ultimate holiness. These three phases of sanctification separate the believer from the penalty of sin (justification), the power of sin (maturity), and the presence of sin (glorification). With regard to the Methodist view of sanctification, I found a 1988 book ‘What Methodists Believe’ by Rupert E. Davies, which said this on page 58: >One of John Wesley’s favourite teachings was that it was actually possible for a Christian in his life on earth to reach perfection in the love of God and of his neighbour; that is, by the power of the Spirit, really and truly to love God and his neighbour in the way described by Jesus without any imperfections whatever. Is this view of sanctification and attaining perfection in love unique to Methodists? Or is it common amongst Protestant Christians? I am interested in exploring the similarities and differences between Methodists, Baptists and other Protestants on the process of sanctification. Rather than expect people to compare the views of different denominations, I would be content to read views representing individual Protestant denominations. Otherwise, I fear people may be put off from answering!

My question is for protestant Christians. If salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then what does 2 Thessalonians 2:13 mean by saying that people are saved by the sanctification of the Spirit and believing the truth?

The concept of "being filled" with the Holy Spirit is mentioned multiple times in the New Testament, and according to the book of Acts it appears to have been a crucial aspect of the early Christian life. According to **Catholicism**: - What does it mean to be "filled" with the Holy Spirit? - What are concrete and practical ways by which Christians can be filled (and stay filled) with the Holy Spirit? _______ For those interested in the Protestant perspective: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86595/50422

### The background I grew up in a Reformed church since I was a kid. In my adulthood as I become more concerned with my spiritual health, I increasingly expect theology to provide *at least* a rich enough vocabulary of the spiritual life of a believer that I can latch into and correlate them with aspects of experience in my spiritual life (which is given to me by Christ through faith). After a decade or so studying and reading, I found that compared to Catholicism (which has a rich store of concepts in its spiritual and mystical theologies) when pushed for clarity, Reformed pastors and teachers keep going back to concepts such as "godliness", "Christlike-ness", "ongoing sanctification" which (despite having REAL referents because Jesus and God are real) is linguistically CIRCULAR since those concepts go back to the theology of God and to Christology, thus **creating a wall that separate theology from philosophy/psychology** in the area of spirituality. In contrast, Catholicism since time immemorial (especially since St. Augustine) has been self-consciously **breaking the wall** by integrating theological discussion with philosophy & psychology so that referents of spiritual life concepts such as "godliness", "Christlikeness", and "ongoing sanctification" don't remain *ontologically* in the realm of the intellect, i.e. remain concepts (albeit having REAL referents to God). If theology is to have any relevance beyond remaining in the ivory tower, there needs to be a **spiritual theology** that provides clarity to abstract concepts so it can be "incarnate" (practically real) in a believer's daily life. Thus, if "maturity" can stand in for "godliness" then it is a better term (from spiritual theology perspective) since it's more concrete descriptively, something that humans can have a handle of, in philosophy & psychology. But I found out from experience discussing with Calvinists that most seem to have an aversion to breaking this WALL that separates theology of God/Christ from *something* that can be experienced and described by the servants of theology, namely philosophy and psychology. They would typically say that Christians are *not* supposed to pollute theology with humanism. But how can spiritual theology *NOT* having a philosophical/psychological conceptual tool to describe progress in a believer's spiritual life? For an evangelical introduction to spiritual theology that specifically connects the theology of sanctification with psychology, please watch/read a 2014 video (transcript included) of a talk at Biola by John Coe, Professor of Philosophy and Spiritual Theology / Director of the Institute for Spiritual Formation at Biola University: [Spiritual Theology for the Church](https://cct.biola.edu/spiritual-theology-for-the-church/) . ### The puzzle I am sometimes puzzled with *some* Calvinists / Reformed believers who insist that no one is righteous but God, EVEN after conversion, sanctification, and resurrection of the believer! This is often characterized by the theological concept of [imputed righteousness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_righteousness) and [alien righteousness](https://www.ligonier.org/posts/alien-righteousness) which emphasize that righteousness remains solely God's possession forever (but never ours), and they would cite verses like [Rom 3:10-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3%3A10-12&version=CSB) and interpret them to hold true even when we are in heaven! My puzzle comes when I come across Bible verses that imply God working in us (during sanctification stage) to increase *something* within the believer. Example: [Phil 1:6,9-11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+1%3A3-11&version=CSB) (CSB): > 6 ... he who started a good work in you **will carry it on to completion** until the day of Christ Jesus. ... 9 And I pray this: that **your love will keep on growing** in knowledge and every kind of discernment, 10 so that you may approve the things that are superior and may be pure and blameless in the day of Christ, 11 **filled with the fruit of righteousness** that comes through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God. Later in the letter ([Phil 2:13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2%3A12-17&version=CSB) , CSB), Paul reiterates about God's work: > For it is God who is working in you both to will and to work according to his good purpose. This "growing" and "filling" language implies ***something* that is ontologically REAL within the psychological space** that increases within a believer, which is the result of God's work (with our passive cooperation since according to Calvinists all we can do is *not* rebel). This language also implies "progress" (see a [related question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/92209/50422)) . Sensitive / philosophically minded readers will ask: what is this ***something*** within us that God *produces within us progressively* to enable us "to will and to work according to his good purpose" more and more easily? ### The question So my question to Calvinists / Reformed is this: **what is the proper term in spiritual theology (a term that is MEANINGFUL, RELATABLE, and DESCRIBABLE to a human) for the aspect that God increases within us during our sanctification?** If not *righteousness*, can it be called *holiness* (*cf* [Rom 6:19](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+6%3A19&version=NIV) , NIV)? Or is there no unifying theological term but leaving it to individual fruits (love, joy, etc.) as in [Gal 5:22-23](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+5%3A22-23&version=NIV) ? Or do Reformed theologians use a term that is not in the Bible such as *virtues* for this something? Some comments have suggested "godliness", "Christlike-ness", and "ongoing sanctification" which are of course perfectly fine as a theological term, but those concepts leave the correlational hard work to poor believers who are untrained theologically to correlate those theological concepts to the realm of philosophy and psychology that they can latch on in daily spiritual life. So while I can accept those as correct answers, I have updated the question to "spiritual theology term" in order to induce answers that can provide synonymous terms which are more pertinent to human experience on the human side of the WALL (see "The background" section). Secondary questions (which is nice to be addressed in an answer, but not strictly asked for, to keep this Q from being too broad): 1. How do we discern the result of God's working in us, even if indirectly (through its effects)? 1. If this process does not finish when we die, what happens to God's promise in Phil 1:6? How does God bridge the gap between a faithful with lots of sinful habits to the finished version of that faithful that fits for heaven? Does God simply snap his finger like magic and finish the work without our involvement at all?

# Question According to Trinitarians, can a Christian who lacks a belief in the Trinity still live the Christian life to its full potential? In other words, can non-Trinitarians experience spiritual rebirth, regeneration, sanctification, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the fullness of the Holy Spirit, live a Spirit-filled and Spirit-led life, etc.? Another way to phrase the question: according to Trinitarians, if someone lacks a belief in the Trinity, will their rejection of the Trinity inevitably become a road block to their spiritual growth? _____________ ## Appendix 1: On the salvation of non-Trinitarians. My question (which is about spiritual growth) has arguably some overlap with the related question on the salvation of non-Trinitarians (which is about soteriology). Note that the latter deals with a stronger claim. Of course if non-Trinitarians cannot be saved, then they cannot be expected to achieve full spiritual maturity in Christ, because only saved people can reach that level. However, note also that the opposite direction is not necessarily true: it could be the case that someone doesn't achieve full spiritual maturity (e.g. because their spiritual growth is impaired by their rejection of the Trinity), yet God in His mercy might still grant them salvation. (This is, by the way, the reason why this question is not a dup of [this one](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/81070/50422).) That said, at the very least the subset of Trinitarians who subscribe to the *Athanasian Creed* must, by necessity, believe that belief in trinitarianism is essential for salvation, and, by logical implication, it follows that they must also believe that non-Trinitarians' spiritual growth is severely compromised from the get-go. However, this still doesn't answer the question in the case of Trinitarians who do not (fully) subscribe to the Athanasian Creed. For further reading on this, please see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/49022/50422 ___________ ## Appendix 2: On the spiritual growth of non-Trinitarians, from the non-Trinitarian perspective. If lack of belief in the Trinity impairs the spiritual growth of non-Trinitarians, we should be able to find evidence of this across the board in non-Trinitarian denominations. One possible way to check this would be to conduct interviews with a representative sample of non-Trinitarians of different denominations. Another way is to analyze a representative sample of testimonies from dedicated non-Trinitarians and former non-Trinitarians (for a balanced view) and compare them with those of Trinitarians to see if there are any notable differences in terms of spiritual growth. And another option is to see what each non-Trinitarian faith group claims to be possible in this regard, doctrinally speaking. The last alternative is the easiest to implement of the three, so that's what I did, and below are a few examples. As a summary, non-Trinitarians hold doctrines about spiritual growth which, at least in principle, give them no disadvantage with respect to Trinitarians. They believe to have as much access to salvation, sanctification, spiritual growth and the power of the Spirit as Trinitarians claim to have for themselves. #### Jehovah's Witnesses According to this article https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-august-2017/fruitage-of-the-spirit-love/ : > First, ask God for his spirit, which produces love. Jesus stated that Jehovah gives “holy spirit to those asking him.” (Luke 11:13) **If we pray for holy spirit and endeavor to “keep walking by spirit,” our actions will become more and more loving**. (Gal. 5:16) For instance, if you are an elder in the Christian congregation, you can ask for holy spirit to help you to give Scriptural counsel to others in a loving manner. Or if you are a parent, you can request that God’s spirit help you to discipline your children, not in anger, but in love. And according to this article: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1967360 > Why is this Word of God so alive, so powerful? Because it is the very essence of truth **and because its penmen were filled with the spirit or active force of the Creator, Jehovah God, the omnipotent One**. Its words are truly spirit and life, even as God’s Son, Jesus Christ, said. (John 6:63) **Those who drink in the words of truth found in the Bible with open minds and honest hearts are bound to receive some of God’s powerful active force or spirit**. **Further, that Word of God imparts faith to those who receive it in good and honest hearts; a faith that enables them to do many valiant and mighty works**. (Hebrews, chapter 11) More than that, the Word of God imparts strength to truth-hungry and open-minded readers by its very honesty and candor as well as by its emphasis on righteous principles. It also imparts strength for righteousness by its revelation of the all-wise, all-mighty and perfectly just Creator, the one who, above all others, is the proper object of fear. #### Biblical Unitarians The following comes from the article titled *The Gift of Holy Spirit: The Power to be Like Christ*: https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/holy-spirit/the-gift-of-holy-spirit-the-power-to-be-like-christ > The subject of the Holy Spirit is one of the most misunderstood subjects in Christendom. Yet the gift of holy spirit is one of the greatest gifts God has given to mankind. Moses had it, and when he needed help administering the millions of Israelites, God took of the spirit that was upon Moses and gave it to the elders of Israel so they could rule with him. God gave His gift of holy spirit to the Judges of Israel, such as Deborah and Samuel. He gave it to kings such as David and Hezekiah. He gave it to prophets such as Elijah, Isaiah, and Daniel. John the Baptist had holy spirit from birth. Even Jesus was anointed with holy spirit before he started his ministry. **Now we can walk in the power of holy spirit**. This book will answer such questions as: > > - What is the difference between Holy Spirit and holy spirit? > - Why is “holy spirit” sometimes referred to as “he” and other times referred to as an “it”? > - What are the manifestations (sometimes called “gifts”) of holy spirit? > - What is speaking in tongues, and why is it valuable for Christians? > - What is “slain in the spirit”? > > **This book shows that each Christian is sealed with God’s gift of holy spirit the very moment that he is saved. Furthermore, it shows that each Christian can manifest, outwardly show, that spirit in the nine ways spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12, including speaking in tongues. When we understand the gift of holy spirit and why God gave us such a wonderful gift, then we can take advantage of it in our lives. We can walk in the power of the holy spirit, and become more like Christ in attitude and action**. ### Latter-day Saints The following comes from https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/sanctification?lang=eng : > **Sanctification** > > The process of becoming free from sin, pure, clean, and holy through > the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Moses 6:59–60). > > God hath chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit, > 2 Thes. 2:13. > > We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus, Heb. > 10:10. > > Jesus suffered that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, > Heb. 13:12. > > High priests were sanctified and their garments were washed white > through the blood of the Lamb, Alma 13:10–12. > > Sanctification cometh to those who yield their hearts unto God, Hel. > 3:33–35. > > Repent that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, 3 > Ne. 27:20. > > Sanctification through the grace of Jesus Christ is just and true, D&C > 20:31. > > Jesus came to sanctify the world, D&C 76:41. > > Sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, D&C 88:68. >

Galatians 5:22-24 (ESV): > 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is **love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness**, 23 **gentleness, self-control**; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. To what extent can non-Christians develop and manifest the fruit of the Spirit? Is there a theoretical limit that prevents non-Christians from fully developing and manifesting these virtues, that only Christians with access to the power of the Spirit can surpass? What about other religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam, that value moral virtues and have their own saints and ethical systems? ______ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87067/50422

I'm evaluating the theology of a Christian and Missionary Alliance church which is affiliated with [The Alliance of Canada](https://www.cmacan.org/beliefs/) which in turn is affiliated with the worldwide [Alliance World Fellowship](https://awf.world/) ([*Wikipedia entry* here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_World_Fellowship)) . The [history of the Alliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_World_Fellowship#History) shows how the founder, A.B. Simpson, [was influenced](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Benjamin_Simpson#Teaching) by [Keswickian teaching](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keswickian) in the 1880s although departed from some traditional Keswickian beliefs. Then as Pentecostalism began at the turn of the 20th century, Simpson was influenced by it but in return *also* influenced the movement, such as his influence in the Assemblies of God. But after his death in 1919 the Alliance distanced itself from some aspects of Pentecostalism, especially rejecting that speaking in tongues is a necessary indicator of being filled with the Holy Spirit. [A.W. Tozer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._W._Tozer) is said to best exemplify C&MA theology, having had 44 years of ministry in that denomination. In my studies so far, C&MA theology is rather hard to pin down. Even the question of whether the soteriology is leaning Arminian or Calvinist is not clear, as professor M. J. Sawyer at A.W. Tozer Seminary said in his paper [Wesleyan and Keswick Models of Sanctification](https://bible.org/article/wesleyan-amp-keswick-models-sanctification) : > With Keswick one finds a different situation than with the Holiness Movement. Whereas Wesleyan holiness theology is traceable directly to Wesley and has clearly identifiable tenets, Keswick is much more amorphous and comes in many varieties from the strict Keswick of a Major Ian Thomas, John Hunter, Alan Redpath and the Torchbearers fellowship to the milder Keswick of Campus Crusade For Christ and Moody Bible Institute and other respected Evangelical educational institutions. Whereas Holiness theology has tended to dominate in Arminian circles, Keswick has tended to dominate American Evangelicalism of a more Calvinistic bent. Indeed Packer asserts that it has become standard in virtually all of Evangelicalism except confessional Reformed and Lutheran. (151)
[probably citing J.I. Packer's 1980 book *Keep in step with the Spirit*, [page 151](https://archive.org/details/keepinstepwithsp00pack/page/150/mode/2up)] **My question is**: How does the Alliance's sanctification and spirituality model compare with these models: - Typical Evangelical (whether Calvinist or Arminian) - Wesleyan Movement - Holiness Movement - Keswick Movement since CM&A stance does not fall neatly into any of the four types mentioned above? ### Helpful resources - An answer by proxy can probably be obtained from A.W. Tozer's writing. - M.J. Sawyer's paper [Wesleyan and Keswick Models of Sanctification](https://bible.org/article/wesleyan-amp-keswick-models-sanctification) (year??) - [Five Views on Sanctification](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0310212693) (1996)

I recall reading something by C. S. Lewis some time ago in which he recommends that a person who wants to develop a virtuous, right attitude in some area of life should begin acting virtuously in that realm, even though his attitude is wrong. After a time, Lewis says, the virtuous actions will lead to the development of a virtuous attitude. Recently this struck me as a particularly Aristotelian approach to moral development . One introductory textbook relates Aristotle's view this way: > We should perform acts that resemble virtuous acts, that resemble what we would do if we had the disposition. In this way we build up the right habits. If the disposition I wish to acquire is liberality, the way to acquire it is to ask how I would behave if I possessed the habit and continue to behave that way. (Ronald Nash , *Life's Ultimate Questions *, p. 152 ) I'd like to explore how this idea might fit in the framework of sanctification, but unfortunately I don't remember where I read it. Where in the works of C. S. Lewis does he teach that a virtuous attitude can be developed by acting virtuously?

The concept of "being filled" with the Holy Spirit is mentioned multiple times in the New Testament, and according to the book of Acts it appears to have been a crucial aspect of the early Christian life. According to **non-Pentecostal Protestants**: - What does it mean to be "filled" with the Holy Spirit? - What are concrete and practical ways by which Christians can be filled (and stay filled) with the Holy Spirit? _____ For those interested in the Catholic perspective: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86596/50422

Believers who have been born again (regenerated) should have the **desire** to be conformed to Christ completely and should **mourn** when we find out that there are sins STILL to repent during the walk in the Spirit, which indicates that God (Holy Spirit) has not yet finished His work in us. In the Reformed tradition, this is the stage of **sanctification** within the whole plan of salvation, i.e. [ordo salutis](https://www.gotquestions.org/ordo-salutis.html) , so roughly: > regeneration + justification (past) -> sanctification (present) -> glorification (future) (see a sample [rough description here](https://reasonsforhopejesus.com/sanctification-glorification/)) . Much ink has been spilled, words said, and even fights conducted over the imputed vs. imparted vs. infused righteousness in connection with the **justification** stage in the Catholic vs. Protestant debate, [described roughly here](https://reasonsforhopejesus.com/imputed-imparted-infused-righteousness/) , and after 500 years it's very clear where each side stands and at the end of the day, it's mainly over using different terminologies to talk about roughly the same thing. This question is **NOT** about justification, and **NOT** about righteousness at all, but about our progressive conformity with the image of Christ. In Catholicism, the **map of this sanctification journey** is very explicitly laid out, relatively stable, rich, and fine-grained through the teaching of venial vs. mortal sins, virtues, sacrament of reconciliation, merit, stages of holiness and examples from the saints, how God's grace interact with our will, [purgative vs. illuminative vs. unitive ways](http://newadvent.org/cathen/14254a.htm) , state of grace vs. state of mortal sin, what happens when we die before the sanctification work is finished (purgatory), etc. In other words, believers have a lot of concepts and tools at their disposal **to track their progress**, although the more saintly one becomes the **larger** the remaining distance one will feel to finish it, similar to how the more we know the more we feel we don't know. But in the Reformed tradition, it seems that believers do not have as many tools nor even a reliable standard to "track our progress" as we are being transformed into the image of Christ during the **sanctification** stage. What should we use as a measure? Is it our sorrow over sin or our likelihood to sin? Is it tangible growth in the fruit of the spirit? Is there such a thing as sanctity? Does sanctity become the "real" property of the believer (even though it's in cooperation with the work of the Holy Spirit producing fruits in us)? Is it synergistic or monergistic? Does it even make sense to talk about "progress" similar to how in the Catholic scheme believers **are** becoming progressively holy? What is holiness vs. righteousness, same or different within the human person? How is it related to measurable character / virtue improvement? I hesitate to use the term "infused", but yet considering how it is the Holy Spirit at work, **can we say that during sanctification we receive the infusion of grace that truly makes us more holy**? Another way to pose the question is in terms of the gap between unfinished sanctification and the beginning of glorification when we die. How would it feel, the **jump** between our 10%, 20%, 50%, or 90% sanctified state to 100%? Is it like everyone now has the same brand new car whether the old car has many accidents / 30 year old vs. cosmetic blemishes? In contrast, in the Catholic scheme, the feeling would be more of **continuity**. A third way of asking the question is this: can a Reformed believer uses the concepts / map and the tools / practices of the Catholics? There is only **one** image of Christ for both traditions, **one** Holy Spirit that gives us grace, and **one** believer who is being sanctified. So why not use the same concepts/tools such as the theory of virtues, spiritual exercises, discernment of sins, etc? I realize that it can horrify Catholics to see Reformed believers trying to make progress without Catholic sacraments, or conversely it can horrify a Calvinist in another way. I have tried to make the question acceptable to the site, so with the above background, here's the only question to answer: **In the Sanctification stage (Reformed perspective) are believers truly becoming more like Christ ("infusion" not imputed)?** An answer should include a reference to a scholarly article / book describing the believer's subjective perspective in the Reformed scheme of sanctification (not just doctrines from God's point of view). Comparison with the Catholic scheme of "tracking progress" is a plus. **Preliminary research**: 1. 2018 blog article by [Justin Dillehay](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/profile/justin-dillehay/) , Baptist pastor with MDiv from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to set the stage and highlight the pastoral importance of this question: [Two Pastoral Thoughts on Justification and Sanctification](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/thoughts-justification-sanctification/) , includes a list of new books on Sanctification, Transformation, and Union with Christ. 1. Very promising 2017 book [Sanctification](https://www.amazon.com/Sanctification-Studies-Dogmatics-Michael-Allen-ebook/dp/B06XFHN6H7/) by [Dr. Michael Allen](https://rts.edu/people/dr-michael-allen/) that can answer this question from Reformed tradition, from a new series [New Studies in Dogmatics](https://www.logos.com/product/149249/new-studies-in-dogmatics) following the tradition of the venerable [Studies in Dogmatics](https://www.logos.com/product/4238/studies-in-dogmatics) , reviewed in depth in [11(!) blog articles](http://exegeticalthoughts.blogspot.com/search/label/Michael%20Allen) , and by a professor of Systematic Theology [here](https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=718&issue_id=140) . Quote from the latter review: > ... the author roots the holiness of believers in the character of the God who saves them in Christ. In a time when many Christians associate the gospel more with benefits than with the Christ who brings benefits with him, this emphasis is needed desperately. The character of the holy triune God and the nature of union with Christ are some of the primary reasons why the gospel must ultimately include sanctification. It is only this line of thinking that removes the question as to why we should obey God if we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. A man-centered gospel might be content with forgiveness without likeness to God. However, a God-centered gospel begins with forgiveness without being satisfied with anything less than perfection in holiness before the Lord in glory. > ... > I have one minor quibble with this book in relation to the author’s appeal to John Owen on the habits of grace. While Allen rightly points to Owen’s insistence that the Spirit infuses habits of grace in believers through their union with Christ (250–51), he neglects Owen’s equal insistence that infused habits of grace are insufficient to produce actual holiness. Owen insisted that believers need continual acts of the Spirit in every act of obedience to God. This strengthens the relationship between sovereign grace and the human responsibility to pursue holiness. Later Allen adds that infused habits of grace do not detract from “ongoing acts” of grace (254), yet this still falls short of Owen’s robust emphasis on the continual and personal acts of the Spirit in the lives of believers. This minor adjustment would make a great book even better. 1. Brief, informal survey from different Reformed theologians (Calvin, Turretin, Brakel, Hodge, Bavinck, Berkhof): [Is Sanctification Monergistic or Synergistic? A Reformed Survey](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/is-sanctification-monergistic-or-synergistic-a-reformed-survey/) 2. [An essay](https://www.xenos.org/essays/five-views-sanctification) summarizing 5 Protestant tradition on Sanctification based on a 1987 book by 5 different authors [Five Views on Sanctification](https://www.christianbook.com/five-views-on-sanctification/melvin-dieter/9780310212690/pd/21269) , along with the author's reaction on each concluded by his own view. The 5 views are: - Wesleyan (Melvin Dieter) - Reformed (Anthony Hoekema) - Pentecostal (Stanley Horton) - Keswick (Robertson McQuilkin) - Augustinian-Dispensational (John Walvoord) 1. John Owen's [Pneumatologia](https://www.monergism.com/pneumatologia-parts-1-2-ebook) (1677–78) with relevant excerpts here: [The Work of the Spirit in Renewing the Spiritual Life of Believers](https://www.monergism.com/work-spirit-renewing-spiritual-life-believers) on holiness, supernatural habit, union with Christ, duties of the believer, etc.

Some personality disorders like psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder are considered by clinicians to be difficult if not impossible to treat. [Wikipedia summarises](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Clinical) the difficulties with treating psychopathy as follows: > Psychopathy has often been considered untreatable. Its unique characteristics makes it among the most refractory of personality disorders, a class of mental illnesses that are already traditionally considered difficult to treat. People afflicted with psychopathy are generally unmotivated to seek treatment for their condition, and can be uncooperative in therapy. Attempts to treat psychopathy with the current tools available to psychiatry have been disappointing. Harris and Rice's Handbook of Psychopathy says that there is currently little evidence for a cure or effective treatment for psychopathy; as yet, no pharmacological therapies are known to or have been trialed for alleviating the emotional, interpersonal and moral deficits of psychopathy, and patients with psychopathy who undergo psychotherapy might gain the skills to become more adept at the manipulation and deception of others and be more likely to commit crime. Some studies suggest that punishment and behavior modification techniques are ineffective at modifying the behavior of psychopathic individuals as they are insensitive to punishment or threat. These failures have led to a widely pessimistic view on its treatment prospects, a view that is exacerbated by the little research being done into this disorder compared to the efforts committed to other mental illnesses, which makes it more difficult to gain the understanding of this condition that is necessary to develop effective therapies. Christians believe however that there is no class of person that is beyond the hope of the Gospel, and that when a person is united to Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, God begins the process of their sanctification, which will be completed in the resurrection. Christians should therefore be increasingly empathetic people as God teaches us to love others with his overflowing love. Personality disorders like psychopathy are characterised by reduced or in severe cases seemingly non-existent empathy for others. While we may not have developed any psychotherapeutic strategies for teaching those with personality disorders to genuinely love others, God can accomplish what is impossible for us. So I was wondering if there are any Christians who have been clinically diagnosed with a personality disorder like psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder who have written or given spoken testimonies about their experiences of the power of God to sanctify and transform their lives, and whether that sanctification has included an increased sense of empathy?

In Reformed Theology what mechanisms and practices does God provide a believer to help fight temptation? Common answers are grace, prayer, Holy Spirit, and possibly others. **But how does God make grace work and what is our part in the fight?** Is there more than exerting our will mightily and when we fail we pick ourselves up, say sorry to God, and try again later at another fight? To help clarify the question, consider how a Reformed believer should respond when a Pentecostal friend confronts him/her of years of **showing no progress** over fighting a particular temptation (like anger, procrastination, laziness, etc.) The Pentecostal friend can say that **grace obviously doesn't work** and blame the Reformed believer for: 1. NOT doing tongue prayer for the Holy Spirit to intercede and fight forces in the unseen realm, or 2. NOT imitating Jesus's casting out the demon who tempts the believer in the first place, or 3. NOT fasting, which is key to break free from strongholds, 4. NOT converting to Pentecostalism so you receive 2nd baptism (filling in the Holy Spirit) so you receive power to fight temptation How should a Reformed believer respond to the above?