The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Instantaneous Sainthood

Theology Biblical Theology
#1

Paul taught that all genuine believers in Christ are “saints” (NASB) or “holy people” (NIV). This means instantaneous sainthood for new believers. Upon converting belief, we (all believers) are a new creation in Christ; our sin nature in crucified and we have everything needed from God to live in the Spirit. (Romans 1:7, 7—8; 2 Corinthians 1:1, 5:17; Galatians 5:13–26)

I used to hold to view of progressive sanctification that implied that all living believers have an abiding sin nature that gradually reduced but never completely left until death. But now I see that we’re instantly sanctified from our sin nature. Believers might temporarily resume their dead sin nature (or worse), but the sin nature is not suppose to be abiding according to the New Testament. Sainthood is not for a minority of believers but all believers.

#2

I think they’re both true.

#3

Hey Aug, I’m unsure which “both” are “true” to you. I suppose there are about a half-dozen views of Christian sanctification. Do you believe that our sin nature is both dead and abiding? In my case, I believe it’s dead and subject to resurrection. I suppose if our sin nature is both dead and abiding, then we couldn’t live a single second without sinning. However, if we can live a single second without sinning, then we can live two seconds without sinning, and so on.

Also, I never completely understood your your view of rejecting imputed righteousness. Perhaps I don’t know the technical definition of imputed righteousness. Anyway, how do you believe that God instantaneously makes ne believers into saints? (I’m not looking to put time into a debate about this, but I’m interested in your view and Bob’s view.)

#4

Hi Jim,

Do I read you correctly that you think our sin nature is “crucified” in the sense that it can no longer “abide” in a believer, but has “completely left”? It seems apparent to me that mine is not even just available “temporarily,” but that I can have ready access to it at any time. That appears true of anyone I know well. What am I missing?

#5

I doubt I’ll have time to comment much on this, though I hope to follow the thread.

But I do want to register a vote along (probably) with Auggy on this one.

I find it to be another of the (scripturally quite common) both/and situations. Saint Paul, as James noted, is the main exponent of sanctification in the NT, and even in scripture as a whole (the prophets sort of talk about it sometimes, but not to the same degree.) And while I think the instant/immediate sanctification proponents have a good case, such as in the verses James noted, I think the progressing sanctification proponents have a good case, too–also primarily from Saint Paul!

Theologians (usually Calv, but also some Arms) who distinguish hard between “justification” and “sanctification”, recognize the both/and, and tend to put “sanctification” as the process and “justification” as the immediate result. But a year or two ago I did a (private) word-study on both terms in the NT, and I found that they just don’t split out that way so cleanly, whether in Paul’s usage or (on much rarer occasions) elsewhere. I finally decided Paul was just going back and forth between terms for compositional variety’s sake; maybe in the case of one epistle (I forget which, I’ve slept since then and I don’t recall where I put my notes) it was a sign of two epistles having been archived together for posterity, but Paul was using each term in both now-and-developing-later senses.

I’m not married to the both/and position though (not in this case :wink: ). If someone was able to convince me the usage could be resolved one way instead of the other, I wouldn’t mind either way. :slight_smile:

PS, and following up in some agreement with Bob: if it was only crucified, I could think of that in terms of my sin still being in the process of crucifixion, still hanging on the cross. Maybe that’s Paul’s grammar, too (present-tense continuing?), but I seem to recall (perhaps wrongly–I’m not where I can check at the moment) that it’s supposed to be crucified and buried. Which seems rather more final. (And maybe already risen again with Christ in the new creation!)

That could be some evidence that, as the joke goes, I’m doing it wrong. :wink: (Though in any case it isn’t supposed to be me doing it anyway but Christ in me, whether immediate, progressing, or both.)

#6

We discussed this some last year here.

I’m interested in revisiting the subject, as I’m sure I don’t fully grasp it. I’ll try to look at it more later today!

Sonia

#7

Hey Bob, thanks for jumping in. I see I need to clarify, and I unsure if you read my 2:47 pm reply to Aug before you posted at 3:00 pm. I said in regards to the sinful nature and believers, “It’s dead and subject to resurrection.” In this sense, all believers have ready access to their dead sin nature at all times. But I hold that the dead sin nature is not necessarily continuously at work in believers (exceptions might include carnal Christians).

Also, I suppose in “some sense” you agree that new believers instantaneously become saints. And I’m wondering how that works with your view of redemption and the death of Jesus. In my belief, it’s done by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit who implements the saving death of our Lord. (I currently cannot focus much time on this because of other projects, but this is part of my devotionals for now and want to spend a little time on it.)

Hey Jason, most of Paul’s references to sanctification refer to a completed work. However, he clearly uses the word “sanctify” in different ways in 1 Thessalonians: 1 Thess 4:3 talks about our sanctified behavior such as avoiding sexual immorality; 1 Thess 5:23 talks about an ongoing sanctifying work in the lives of believers. Likewise, the latter implies that in some way God continues the work of sanctification after the initial instantaneous sanctification.

#8

Jim: Believers might temporarily resume their dead sin nature (or worse), but the sin nature is not suppose to be abiding…

Tom: What is it about human NATURE after salvation that makes it possible for us to resume what is in fact dead (the sin nature, whatever that is)? I mean, if we in fact DO continue to sin after we’re instantaneously made saints, then what’s the real difference between this and saying we grow toward our perfection, or toward the perfection OF sainthood?

I guess I’m less concerned with nomenclature when we have to deal with what life is ACTUALLY like after faith, and that means growing and maturing. But I’m sure you agree, Jim. So what is the truth about sainthood is we’re instantaneously sainted upon initial belief but universally continue to sin as we struggle and grow and mature?

Tom

#9

Hey Tom,

All believers don’t continuously sin, but I suppose all have stumbled into sin after conversion. My biggest concern is that some views of progressive sanctification imply that believers necessarily contentiously sin until death. If that were true, then I suppose that we couldn’t go a single second without sinning. But if we can go a single second without sinning, then we can go two seconds, and so on. Also, some say that they’re primarily forgiven sinners. But that sounds unhealthy to me. We’re primarily saints who might stumble. This gives a healthier mindset, which I suppose would better cultivate spiritual growth compared to thinking that we’re primarily forgiven sinners. Additionally, there’s spiritual growth unrelated to overcome sin. Moreover, I suppose that there’s more than the semantics of nomenclature to what I’m saying.

#10

Agreed. I follow ya Jim. Thanks for the clarification!

T

#11

James,
I could write pages on this off the top of my head but will say - ditto to what everyone else has already said. I think I get a little confused with your OP because later you go on to say that those who are instantly sanctified can be carnal Christians??? I’m not sure where the differences lie.

#12

Hey Aug, In my OP, I included, “Believers might temporarily resume their dead sin nature (or worse), but the sin nature is not suppose to be abiding according to the New Testament.” In other words, Paul in both Romans and Galatians rebuked carnal Christians and told them that they needed to walk in the Spirit. Carnal Christianity is a disobedient option while the only obedient option is walking in the Spirit. Christians who walk in the flesh/sinful nature are completely enabled by God to walk in the Spirit but pass up on God’s provision for holy living. I hope that this is clearer, but I’m sure that I could develop this a lot more.

#13

James, I think I get that. But how is a perfectly and fully sanctified Christian carnal EVER? If he’s carnal then he’s a work in progress. If he’s not a work in progress then he needs no sanctification and needs not to turn from his carnal ways. Perhaps you can keep musing outloud and we’ll be able to hear your idea a bit more clearly.

#14

Aug, every believer is a work in progress. I never suggested that God stops working in believers lives after God instantly makes them saints. In the case of carnal Christians, they are carnal because they decide to disobey God. They deliberately reject cooperation with God working in their lives. They don’t need anymore work from God to walk by the Spirit, but they need to start obeying God.

Addition
Also, Paul understood that he could revert living in the flesh when he said, “No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.” (1 Corinthians 9:27 NIV)

#15

Then my first question will be: Do you believe that it’s the godly nature in the carnal Christian which manifests the disobedience or brings it about? I think most would argue that it’s a sin nature which is not fully destroyed (working in the members of his body ala Rom 7). If a person is a work in progress then why is instant sanctification not? I think there is alot to the semantics you mentioned and quite possibly I simply don’t understand the definition of “sactification”.

Help me out here.

Aug

#16

Aug, in my view, a godly nature in any creature has a free will and can decide to rebel against God. For example, the first humans and angels who rebelled didn’t need a fallen nature to rebel, but fallen nature resulted from their rebellions. (I suppose Tom Talbott might take issue on this, but that’s another related topic.:slight_smile:

Also, in Paul’s case in Romans 7, that was a temporary struggle for him. When you get to Romans 8, Paul found freedom from his conflict of being both a slave to God’s law and a slave to the law of sin. He didn’t live most of his Christian life doing evil that he didn’t want to do.

I agree that the sinful nature isn’t permanently destroyed or Paul wouldn’t have ever rebuked Christians who walk in the sinful nature. But Paul refers to the sinful nature as dead and crucified. Perhaps the meaning of this is my biggest concern.

Sanctification means “set apart.” And when God sanctifies a person, God is setting that person apart for divine purposes. I clarify this, but I don’t think this is at the heart of the issue.

Paul clearly uses the word sanctification as both a past work and a present work. And I’m big on inaugurated eschatology, which involves the paradox of the present and not yet aspects of God’s kingdom on earth. So here we agree. As I talk with everybody in this thread, I think my primary issue is with Paul’s teaching on the instant death/crucifixion of our sin nature and problems with succumbing to the dead sin nature, which is related to sanctification.

I cannot currently extensively contemplate and write about this because of another project, but I’ll state that my biggest concerns involve many Christians brushing off the sainthood of all believers and making excuses for carnal Christianity. Also, some mindsets of the dead sin nature feed into succumbing to the dead sin nature.

#17

Sanctification, justification, reconciliation are parts of a package known as salvation. When we acknowledge Christ Jesus as Lord, they are given to us without any struggle on our part. Just as the “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians are referred to as a singular the parts of salvation also come to us as part of the complete package that is ours instantly!