Five Views on Sanctification | 
 enlarge | Creators: Melvin E. Dieter, Anthony A. Hoekema, Stanley M. Horton, J. Robertson Mcquilkin, John F. Walvoord, Stanley N. Gundry
Publisher: Zondervan
Category: Book
List Price: $17.99
Buy New: $13.13
You Save: $4.86 (27%)
New (26) Used (15) from $5.99
Rating:  12 reviews
Sales Rank: 119965
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 256
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.6
Dimensions (in): 7.8 x 5.3 x 0.7
ISBN: 0310212693
Dewey Decimal Number: 234.8
UPC: 025986212698
EAN: 9780310212690
ASIN: 0310212693
Publication Date: October 10, 1996
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Representatives of five major Protestant perspectives join in this book to present their views on sanctification.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 7 more reviews...
 Clear, able, but not lifechanging December 28, 2008
One of those books with the helpful approach to some controversial issue of commissioning a few leading teachers from contrasting viewpoints to summarise theirs and respond specifically to the others'. In this case: Dieter represents the Wesleyan view; Hoekema the Reformed; Horton the Pentecostal; McQuilkin the Keswick; and Walvoord the pithily titled `Augustinian-Dispensational'.
Unfortunately for anyone reading this review I'm not going to give it the searing analysis it probably deserves (some good ones on amazon though). Although in that I'm perhaps highlighting a weakness that a good editor could have taken the trouble to address. Were I particularly tortured by this issue or, more likely, having to complete a comparison for an assessment, part of working through this book would be creating a grid where I placed key issues (e.g. `Once saved, always saved') in rows and the various authors/viewpoints in corresponding columns, then indicated the contrasting/complementary stances. As it is, however, I stumbled across the text when I was looking for something to read while I went to sleep (the things my wife leaves around the house!): good for the sleeping bit, not so good for the careful note taking and analysis.
So, apologies, I'm only giving this broad impressions, unless I bother to go back and read the responses. That is one particularly interesting part of the book. While each of the academics probably chafed hugely at having to constrict their declaration to a mere thirty or so pages, nobody clocks in at less than ten thousand words. It's not that the writing is (generally) wayward, but there is room to wander a fair way from what is key for comparison - surely the central concept of this tome. However the responses are wisely capped at not much more than a thousand words, and there at least the writers are forced to be particularly spare and focussed (Hoekema virtually does the table work for me in his responses, clearly listing the points he agrees with, then challenging the ones he doesn't). Some readers might feel the responses suffer from this restriction, but not this one. It's also amusing that they - whether diplomatically to be seen as being nice fellows, or because of genuine mutual respect and affection (I suspect there's a mix) - pretty consistently start with complements, "x gave a very helpful summary of blah...' before getting down to specific similarities and differences.
Before I have a glance back through the responses, let's see what the book has left in my dull brain (i.e. what still might be there a year after I've given the book back).
If someone was coming to this book without any Christian context - say a Muslim academic doing a bit of research - they may be more struck by the similarities than the differences. That is, for example, the Arminian leaning writers are careful to stress the saving grace offered through Christ, and the Calvinist ones to encourage righteous living. This sort of crossover can happen in practise: I've seen hard line reformers driven to perform good works daily, and doctrinaire Arminians complacent in their assurance. That being said, I'm not convinced that the careful moderating disclaimers throughout all the writers' essays would necessarily give an accurate reflection of what characterised their teaching: the writers knew they were writing to be criticised by those with opposing views, so were probably more careful than typical in this context. For example, I grew up under the teaching of a reformed preacher who, in personal discussion, would acknowledge the legitimacy of many crucial `personal responsibility' passages, pointing to reformist poster-boy J.I. Packer's antimony concept, saying that we have to accept this along with God's sovereignty, without being able to intellectually reconcile them. Yet in practise he and many in the reformed school almost exclusively preach the latter. Indeed, I was horrified to hear the pastor that followed him years later preach on `The Good Samaritan', ditching entirely Jesus intention in telling the story (quite tellingly a response to the question, `What must I do to inherit eternal life?'), entirely misinterpreting the passage by paralleling `us' to the helpless, half-dead victim, and Jesus to the Samaritan who, in good reformed style, stepped in and saved the bleeding man despite himself. Imagine if he had've completed the passage (surely a warning to any preacher if they have to cut a passage to avoid a contradiction in their message), the application, "Go now and do likewise," would be urging the congregation to travel into a dangerous area to invite being half-killed by a violent gang! And now - to absurdly try to squeeze a hint of coherency out of this hypocritically wayward paragraph, I'll mention that this clearly hard-line reformed teacher was downright Arminian in his work ethic.
So, where was I? Oh, yes, summarising... :-)
But that's a key issue, isn't it: Wesleyans typically accuse Reformers of encouraging complacency: God's done it all, we can't do it, so why bother? Wesleyans, however, stress that the `normal' Christian life should be one of victory - of not erring into known sin. Keswick has built a whole approach around this idea - saying, "C'mon, let's acknowledge it - there are basically two types of Christians - some who live in victory, and others who are nice enough but essentially nominal". Hoekema for the reformers doesn't acknowledge this at all, and suggests that this either/or approach ignores the continuum Christians are on and encourages spiritual pride. The Pentecostal guy, Horton, lines himself up happily with the Arminian Wesley, sounding very reasonable and inclusive until he slips in a bit of a clanger about how vital tongues are towards the end (although he did have some disclaimers about how some mature Christians - from other denominations - somehow manage to not be baptised in the Spirit in this otherwise essential way). Walvoord seemed to me the least distinctive and, as such, relevant. I think he was sort of saying he agreed with the Calvinists, but, hey, no, Augustine said it first, so, yeah, really they were agreeing with him. So. But, don't get me wrong, the middle way ... we still have some personal responsibility too (and interesting that Hoekema confessed to having changed his interpretation of Paul's `the things I do I don't want to do' passage to better fit with a reformed perspective, uncomfortable with such internal turmoil in a `saved' soul).
There were some neat responses, incisively picking up on some assumptions - such as how can you talk about perfection as a relative term (although Hoekema's repeated response that we are `genuinely new but not totally new' felt like a politician's spin to avoid facing a difficult tension with an empty sound bite to me). McQuilkin was the most excited about his barrow, often slipping more into an inspirational rather than an academic style. And while they were all professional, I'm not sure than any will produce in this reader greater love and good works - surely a pretty acid test.
Although I'm sure it's been articulately done somewhere else, no-one picked up particularly on my spin on an aspect of this issue: that heaven is sanctification, and the kingdom of heaven is within you. Anyone thinking salvation is mainly about not going to hell has missed a crucial point: if your idea of heaven is all tied up with indulgence, selfishness and stuff you're actually aiming more for the sort of thing Jesus came to save us from. That's my deal on it - what are we saved from, and what are we saved for. Salvation and sanctification are two sides of the same coin (which I don't fully understand, but is probably more Wesleyan than Reformed anyway). If Jesus' rescue doesn't change us, it's no rescue at all.
The Two Views of Sanctification, Really September 29, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I worked for Columbia Bible College & Seminary for nine years as general educational staff, and taught the undergraduate night course on "Theology of Christian ethics and Sanctification" in Charlotte.
This is a well-written book, but you might find that it delves too deeply into fine shadings of difference between several of the views. The general consensus I heard over the years from nearly all my students to this textbook was that it really should be titled the Two Views of sanctification. This was because of the strong similarities of McQuilkin (Keswick), Walvoord (Dispensational), Dieter (Wesleyan), and Horton (Pentecostal). Only Hoekema's "Reformed" chapter stands out as distinct from the other four.
Not to say that there aren't differences between the other four. Dr. John Walvoord went to great lengths to defend the so-called two nature view of the Christian soul, to which Robertson McQuilkin particularly did not subscribe. But the foundations of Walvoord's view were the same as McQuilkin's.
Robertson McQuilkin takes great pains to distinguish his toned-down version of Keswick from Methodist perfectionism, which he does not accept; yet the only real difference between the two is a denial of eradication. And Horton's only real difference with the other three is his addition of speaking-in-tongues. My undergraduate students often got lost in the authors' small points of detail. But it seemed as if those four writers needed to focus on small, technical details of difference, because the big elements of their mutual views were so similar to each other.
All four of these views adhere to a two-stage pattern of Christian growth, with some sort of after-conversion turning-point experience with the Holy Spirit which instantly changes the Christian from a bogged down, defiant, defiled, and powerless failure, to vital, vibrant, and always able to repel all temptation. As a result, all my students' papers would struggle to find any real, substantive differences between the four.
Only Hoekema's Reformed chapter is actually different and distinctive enough to be called another "view". The other four are variations of a single two-stage model, though the variations are important variations.
Don't misunderstand -- this is a well-written and interesting book, though definitely a Bible college theological textbook and not "inspirational" reading. But reading the four views (Walvoord, McQuilkin, Dieter, and Horton) is a little like hearing Bolero played four different ways (zydeco, traditional orchestra, bluegrass, and techno-pop). The differences are interesting, and real, but they're all versions of Bolero.
 Great Introductory Work September 26, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
This treatment of the doctrine of sanctification is an excellent introduction to the different perspectives in evangelical theology. The authors chosen are highly respected in their traditions and each give solid essays to digest. Certainly, each position is not 'The' consensus position within that tradition on every point, but the major benchmarks of each tradition are highlighted well by the authors. Each author should be commended for clarity, though some more than others.
Melvin Dieter (Wesleyan) gives an excellent treatment of how Wesley viewed 'The Law of Love' as the thread which brought together his entire theology. He explains how the 'moral image' of man was fully repaired in regeneration (an Arminian perspective) and that the believer should seek the 'second work of grace' so that he may love God 'perfectly' through this 'Entire Sanctification'. However, the words 'perfect', 'sin', and 'entire' are essentially redefined in Wesley's view and careful discernment is needed to fully understand what they mean by each. Sin is defined only as 'willful' or 'voluntary' and 'perfect love' is the ability for every believer who has experienced 'Entire Sanctification' to live without willfully sinning. This is a great article, though the author at times is not clear enough when defining each of these uniquely Wesleyan terms. Essentially, Wesley's view in sanctification is seen in a `process-crisis-process' format. Others in later Holiness history (Phoebe Palmer, etc.) drifted from Wesley's emphasis on process in sanctification and only emphasized crisis, which Wesley would not agree with. Each author gives solid critiques of Dieter's essay.
Anthony Hoekema (Reformed) gives a classic overview of the traditional position. Against the authors within the Wesley-Holiness models, Hoekema more clearly emphasizes the progressiveness of present/experiential sanctification. This is not to say the other authors do not see progressiveness there, but they normally see decisive moments as the key more than Hoekema does. Hoekema gives us so much to benefit from in his treatment, though there are areas many will not agree with. Though Hoekema sees the regenerate person now as a single unified recreation, he never answers what happens to the sin nature/capacity. His muteness on the subject implies that the sin nature/flesh/old man is now simply a residue left in the 'new man'. Some will take issue with this, though this is a common Reformed view. He also views Romans 7 as describing Paul as unregenerate, though still common within Reformed circles.
John Walvoord (Augustinian-Dispensational) probably gives the weakest treatment in the book. It's not because of his lack of credibility or scholarship, but because he never defines the essential and foundational differences between the Dispensational thread and the Reformed thread. In even naming his view what he does, he seems to try to make his view sound credible because of his 'ties' to Augustine. He sees this as allowable because of Augustine's understanding of the new nature/old nature and how this fits with his view of the regenerate person's makeup. I wasn't convinced though by his treatment on this issue and felt that this doesn't essentially make him Augustinian. However, Walvoord does explain the key to victory in the Dispensational View well, seeing the secret in the 'filling of the Spirit'. The Filling work of the Spirit is explained a progressive and daily yielding of the person to the Spirit. This is a key distinctive that was well-explained. Yet, the entire background of the Dispensational approach to Law, to the semi-climactic moment in the system with the full, self-revealing of the nature of God in Christ and the giving of the Helper to live rightly in view of the superhuman commands given, was never even dealt with. What Lewis Chafer spends so much time systematizing and explaining in his works such as "He That Is Spiritual" (1918) and his "Systematic Theology" (1948), Dr. Walvoord rarely touches. He simply states Rom. 6:14 and that, supposedly, is his explanation of the entire background approach of the Dispensational view. The responses mainly deal with his new/old nature view.
The other essays by Robertson McQuilkin (Keswick) and Stanley Horton (Pentecostal, aligned with the AG) are solid and contribute well to the book. The Keswick view essentially sees the crisis moment of 'surrender' to God after conversion very necessary to live consistently for holiness, though it is very emphatic about the progressiveness of sanctification worked out in a daily manner. On most points, his views are very close to John Walvoord's, though some of this is probably due to the weakness of Walvoord's explanation of other Dispensational distinctives mentioned above.
Stanley Horton's article is excellent though the majority of it is spent explaining the history of the Pentecostal movement which began at Bethel Bible College in Topeka, KS with Charles Parham. The view's major difference with Wesley is that it sees the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a 'second work of grace' which gives the Christian 'power' to live a more consistent life of victory. Many (mainly from earlier teachings) view the gift of tongues as evidence that this 'second baptism' has happened. However, there are many nuances in this movement as some see the 2nd Baptism not as a 'second work of grace' but merely a crisis moment needed. Others hold to the necessity of a second work of grace, but view a third work of grace necessary as well, and so on.
Overall, this work is extremely beneficial and the essays are well-written. What is most helpful is how every author views sanctification as a past, present, and future work of God. Though the emphasis lies in different areas and the means to achieve present, experiential sanctification are drastically different, the authors are very irenic and gracious to one another, commending each other for their uniform desire for a holiness that continues to grow and glorify God. This is a really fine work that introduces different evangelical perspectives on the doctrine of sanctification.
 Ok, but there are better options out there... November 30, 2007
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I checked this book out of the library thinking it would provide a broad summary of the different perspectives on Sanctification, but what I found was a summary that excludes both the Lutheran perspective and the Catholic perspective (ie...Richard Foster).
For a more comprehensive book, I suggest: Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification
It convincingly summarizes the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, and Catholic views.
 Excellent Resource, though more acedemic than practical February 4, 2007
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
SUMMARY
Five Views on Sanctification brings together the collective knowledge of Melvin E. Dieter, Anthony A. Hoekema, Stanley M. Horton, J. Robertson McQuilkin, and John F. Walvoord to discuss the theological issue of the nature of sanctification in the Christian life. Each author argues in favor of his particular view; Dieter argues in favor of the Wesleyan perspective, Hoekema asserts the Reformed perspective, Horton puts forth the Pentecostal perspective, McQuilkin presents the Keswick perspective, and Walvoord explicates the Augustinian-Dispensational perspective.
Each of the authors presents sound arguments for their particular point of view. While all of the arguments are well thought out and clearly presented, each view is supported by scripture to varying degrees.
Each of the authors takes the opportunity to respond to the other views in a critical way, primarily showing the differences between their views and those of the other authors. The critical examinations are enlightening and for the most part they are done fairly.
PURPOSE
The main purpose of this book is to provide with the reader with the major views on the subject. This is well accomplished by gathering scholars from across the spectrum of mainstream Christianity to present their particular views. Each of the authors present clear arguments in favor of their particular view, as well as sound refutations of those of the other authors. The book accomplishes its purpose.
AREAS OF GREATEST AGREEMENT
In some sense, though often in differing terms, all views do in some way recognize the progressive nature of sanctification. Even while some elements of Pentecostal theology prefer a more radical immediate sanctification, the mainstream position held by the Assemblies of God, and others, recognizes this. At the core of all views is the recognition of the role of the Holy Spirit in sanctification, though the particular language and terminology here varies as well.
AREAS OF GREATEST DISAGREEMENT
The Pentecostal view is alone in its extreme emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and its relationship to sanctification. All views recognize the work of the Spirit. The Augustinian-Dispensational view even speaks of the distinction between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the filling of the Holy Spirit. Yet, the Pentecostal view is alone in its emphasis of the relationship between sanctification and baptism in the Holy Spirit.
As is likely to be expected, there is significant disagreement between the Wesleyan view and the reformed view. The Wesleyan view places a high premium on real holiness as the end of the process of sanctification. This view asserts that not only is the guilt of sin removed via justification but the propensity toward it can also be removed in this lifetime via sanctification. The reformed view recognizes the total depravity of man before salvation and the continuing sin nature after salvation. In this way, in fact, there is a close connection between this view and the Augustinian-Dispensational view.
CONCLUSION
In the opinion of the reviewer, this book is a valuable resource and useful read for any believer interested in knowing more about the doctrine sanctification. While the book is written largely for students of theology and doctrine, it has practical implications which are hard to miss. The choice of collaborative authors is superb. The arguments are well presented and even better thought out.
In the end I am compelled to adopt a view of sanctification which draws elements from each of the views presented. Clearly God has a significant role in the process but we must choose to participate. Certainly holiness is the goal of this process but my experience as a pastor and as a sinful man tells me that workable holiness will not be achieved in this life of struggle against sin and its effects. Sanctification is a process of growing in grace not an immediate transformation of action, but rather a revolution of intention. It is an upheaval of purpose working toward the goal of Christ-likeness!
|
|
|
|
