Christianity and the Law Pt 3

0:01 Okay, for the last few weeks, we've been really dealing with two separate issues, and this morning we're going to kind of bring them together and then try to finish one. And this all started but trying to talk about how Christianity at large handles the reality of sin. And I have argued forever that I don't think we handle it very well. I don't think we are even equipped handle it very well because are kind of our philological understanding of sin, I think is greatly flawed. And so therefore when sin occurs, we don't really know what to do because we so emphasize transformation versus the reality of sin, so it causes problem. So we talked about Christianity and sin and we looked at how different systems try to handle this reality, all right, and then we switched over to how Christianity understands our relationship to the law. Now, we started going through church history looking all the different ways that the Church has understood the law. And so we will finish that. But I want to go back this morning, and I want to bring the two concepts together of sin and law, because whenever we talk about sin, inevitably we're going to talk about the law. So I want to start with a definition of sin that brings in the concept of the law. And I've used this definition a thousand times. You've heard me say it over and over and over and over again, but I'll say it again this morning. Sin is a lack of conformity

1:32 to God's law, a failure to obey God's law, and a falling short of God's law. And I'm emphasizing law there so that we bring the two concepts together. Sin is a lack of conformity to God's law, a failure to obey God's law, and a falling short of God's law. But here's the key. This all has happens and our thoughts, our words, our actions, our desires, and what we do and fail to do. And this happens internally and externally.

2:19 So sin is a lack of conformity to God's law, a failure to obey God's law, and a falling short of God's law. This all happens in our thoughts, words, actions, desires, and what we do and fail to do. And this happens internally and externally. Now, I believe if all Christians, I think in theory, all Christians do kind of acknowledge that definition of sin. But if all Christians understood the implications of that definition, that would have a profound impact on the church ability to handle sin when it occurs, because I think this definition would then show us sin is always occurring, so then we would have to have a different theological approach to it. So I took that's the definition I've used forever. It's a combination of a lot of definitions I have heard over the years. It's some of my own ideas thrown in there. It's kind of just a mix of all kinds of different things from different sources. But sin is a lack of conformity to God's law, failure to obey God's law, a falling short of God's law. This happens in our thoughts, words, actions, desires, and what we do and fail to do. This happens internally and externally. I could look at the Catholic confession of sin at the beginning of Mass, I could look at the Lutherans confession of sin at the beginning of

3:52 their service. I could look at lots of different things, and all of that would be in agreement with almost all of them. So then I did a little bit of work on this, and I believe this definition describes sin and as we've already now said, a lack of conformity to God's law, failure to obey God's law, a falling short of God's law and thought word, action, desire, and both in what we do and fail to do internally and externally. I believe this definition is consistent with a biblical and philologically orthodox understanding of sin. That's my argument. I believe this is a consistent biblical and philological orthodox understanding of sin. At least I believe that. I don't think anyone could argue much with me. I think it's one hundred percent biblical and philologically orthodox. That is my belief, and I think I can stand pretty dogmatic on that. Now.

4:53 If we were to break it down, we will break it down to certain levels here, just so that we can really drive this home and look at the implications of it. We'll start with a lack of conformity to God's law. I believe this aligns with First John three four, which states everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness. Sin is understood as a violation of God's moral standards, which are summarized in his law. Now I don't I'm going to read that from a different translation, First John three four. First John three four.

5:35 Whosoever committeth sin transgressith. Also the law for sin is the transgression of the law. So whether we use the word transgression or whether we use the word lawlessness, we get the idea. It's a transgression. It's a violation of God's moral standards, and those standards are summarized in his law. So any lack of conformity to God's law is a transgression, it is lawlessness, it is sin. Now the application of that would be this affirms that sin is not merely outward but concerns failing to conform to God's revealed will and moral order. It includes both active transgression and passive neglect.

6:23 So I believe one John three four proves, I think biblically that it's a lack of conformity to God's law, and this can happen actively, passively, inwardly outwardly, any lack of conformity to God's law is sin. So again God's law becomes the key here. God's law, and we would define law as any scripture that tells us what to do or not to do so immediately we know we're in trouble, and this would I think I think I can argue this that one John three four, as it defines sin as a transgression or lawlessness, that I'm perpetually lawless.

7:08 I'm perpetually transgressing God's law because I'm perpetually in a lack of conformity to it, whether internally or externally. Now, if we truly believe that all of Christianity should go, well, wait a minute, then how do we handle sin? Because sin would be the norm, as I have said now a bunch of times as we went through this. So number one is a lack of conformity to God's law. Number two it's a failure to obey God's law. James chapter four, verse seventeen says, So whosoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it for him, it is sin. I'm gonna look at James four seventeen in a different translation, James four seventeen, James four seventeen.

8:02 If I can find James James four seventeen, here we go therefore, to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it? Not to him it is sin. This verse highlights that sin can be seen not only in what one does sin of commission, but also in failing to do what is right sins of omission. So whether we are so sin would then involve what we do a sin of commission, but also in what we fail to do, which would be a sin of omission. The thiological implication this understanding of sin includes the reality of neglecting or failing to act on God's commands, emphasizing that sin is both active and passive, so we can fail to obey God's law in an active way or in a passive way.

8:59 By what we do are what we fail to do right. So I don't have to necessarily do something. I could just be failing to do something, and I would be a sinner right. So it's a lack of conformity, it's a failure to obey God's law. It's a falling short of God's law. Number three Romans three twenty three says for all have sin and fallen short of the glory of God. This encompasses the idea that human beings and their fallen nature cannot fully meet the standard of God's righteousness. That is key human beings and their fallen nature, which I believe we still possess even after salvation, we cannot meet the standard of God's righteousness. Even the best human effort fails to achieve the perfection God's law requires. I cannot stress that enough. If sin is falling short of the glory of God, then our fallen nature is perpetually falling short of the glory of God. This means I can never meet the standard of God's righteousness. Even my best efforts to achieve perfection will never It will never get there. It can never be there. And if you think about it, if we still possess a sinful nature, my nature, even if I don't act, even if I don't do anything, even if I don't fail to do something,

10:30 I'm in a perpetual state of sin because I have a very nature that falls short of God's glory. So what's the implication. This broadens the scope of sin to include not only overt rebellion against God, but also the inerrent inability to measure up to His holiness. So the thiological implication would be that this broadens the scope of sin to include not only overt rebellion, but also the inerrant inability to measure up to his holiness inherent and all of us is an inability to measure up to his holiness. So number one, it's a lack of conformity.

11:16 Number two, it's a failure to obey. Number three, we fall short. Number four sin and thought, word, action, and desire. Jesus emphasized the internal aspect of the sin, especially in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew five twenty one through twenty two and twenty seven through twenty eight. He teaches as sinful thoughts such as hatred or lust are as culpable as sinful actions like murder or adultery. So you can be an adulterer, you can be a murderer philologically speaking, without ever doing anything. You don't even have to do anything. And you can be an adulter and a murder And you can obviously be a murder and adulter and doing something. From a philological perspective, the two are the same. From a practical perspective they're not. We know, we don't treat them the same. But philologically they are the same. So how a church handles that well becomes very can become very messy. A similarly, in a similar way, James one fourteen through fifteen speaks of desire giving birth to sin. So what is the philological implication? This reflects a holistic understanding of sin, where external behaviors are not the only problem. Internal desire and attitude are equally sinful

12:52 in the eyes of God. This underscoes the total depravity of humanity. Sin affects the whole person inside and out. All right, So I'm going through this, I know, really quick because the key here is just to this is bringing together a lot of thoughts. So sin there's a lack of conformity to God's law. It's a failure to obey God's law. It's a falling short of God's glory. And this sin happens in thought, word, action, and deed. And the philological implication here just demonstrates we're totally We're twenty four to seven and in sin, there's just no way to get around it. Number five, Sin and what we do and fail to do. Again, Biblical support would be James four seventeen supports the idea that sin includes both active disobedience, commission and failure to act sins of omission.

13:51 This number five James four seventeen again James four seventeen. Again, this reveals that sin isn't merely a list of wrong actions, but also includes missed opportunities for righteousness and obedience. It paints sin as a pervasive okay, listen, as pervasive and comprehensive in scope. So when we consider sin in what we do and feil to do, sin then is pervasive and it is comprehensive. Okay. So at number six, sin happens internally and externally. Jeremiah seventeen nine says the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick or desperately wicked.

14:39 Who can understand it? This shows that sin begins internally and the human heart. Outward actions are merely manifestations of the sinfulness already present inside of us. Mark seven, Mark seven. I'm gonna look at this one. The Gospel of Mark chapter seven. We read these words Mark chapter seven. We read this Jesus. This is the words of Jesus. All right. He said that which cometh out of the man that defileth the man. For from with and this is Mark chapter seven, verse twenty one. For from with n out of the heart of men precede evil thoughts adulteries, fornication, murders, thefts, coveteousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, and evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile the man. Jesus indicates that it all comes from where side of us my art.

16:03 So this to me disproves the Christian teaching that is prevalent in almost every church that we get a new heart and we get a new nature. Because if we had a new heart in a new nature, then where does the sin arise from? The sin arises from inside, because I don't believe we've been changed on the inside. If we've been changed on the inside, then what would not happen? There would be no sin because sin comes from the inside. Now we've looked already in this series. We've mentioned how some try to say that the inside is completely changed, but the physical body still contains some remnant of the plant and we and it just becomes so discombobulated. I don't even know how we process this.

16:49 But Jesus tells us where it comes from. It comes from within. So what is the theological implication? Sin's reach is total? It affects the enter thought, desire, outward word action. This supports a view of humanity is fundamentally sinful, unable to escape the reach of sin in either realm. We can't escape it. We can't escape it outwardly, we can't escape it in We can escape some of it outwardly. But even if we are escaping some of it outwardly, we're still guilty of it inwardly. So we're just perpetually in sin. So what is the implications of this entire definition?

17:32 All right? So those are That breaks the entire definition down into basically six parts. Now the implications. There are four major implications. Number one, human inability. This definition implies that humans are incapable of achieving righteousness. Since sin involves not just overt action but internal thought and desire, no one can escape its grip. We're we were unable, we're we're And this comes back to our discussion on the law. Can we do it? I say we maintain the inability even after conversion, which puts me at odds with everyone, But I can prove that we're unable to do it, because if we're able to do it, then perfection is possible.

18:21 If we say perfection is not possible, then you're telling me we still possess inability. Then people want to measure ability based on partial success. But how do you define partial success? If God demands perfection, is there partial success and in perfection when the standard is perfection? I would say no. I would say there's none. And we'll get into that more as we go through this. Number two the need for grace. This points to the necessity of grace and redemption. Since no one can perfectly conform to God's law, the need for a savior Jesus Christ becomes paramount. Only his atoning work can cover the full range of sin that is described. Number three comprehensive guilt. Every aspect of a person's life is tainted by sin, leading to a comprehensive sense of guilt and accountability before God. This reflects the reformed philological view of total depravity. All right, and I think that I'm being consistent there. Number five ongoing struggle with sin. Even believers, while justified in Christ, continue to struggle with sin, both internally and externally. Right, So, I think that those are the four major implications human inability.

19:50 The need for grace. Comprehensive guilt, and an ongoing reality. I'm gonna uh, I'm gonna go, I'm gonna change that to the ongoing struggle with sin, going to say the ongoing reality with sin for number four, the ongoing reality of sin. We can't escape it, and we pretend all day that no transformation, transformation, transformation. And I think that that's where I find myself in such conflict with Christianity. Is modern evangelicalism wants to just emphasize transformation, transformation, transformation, transformation, and I want to emphasize the ongoing reality of sin. And I'm not suggesting the ongoing reality of sin is an excuse for said sin, but we have to acknowledge the ongoing reality of sin and then say, okay, how do we process this? If everyone in a church is perpetually in sin, and it's perpetually a sinner, then how do you process that? Because we have a way of basically saying, well, everyone's a sinner, but these are the sins we will not accept, and we just choose the ones we won't accept. And it's very random, it's very subjective, and I believe it's major, majorly problematic. But that right there sets up everything because all of that deals with sin is a violation of law. So then how do we relate to the law. That's what we started talking about last week, right, So now we'll go back and just go through quickly. Last week we established all the

21:22 scriptures that tell us to be what holy as God is holy, be perfect, be perfect, be perfect, be perfect. All right, Immediately we know we're in trouble, right because when you read scriptures like you therefore must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect, be holy as He is holy. When you read those kinds of scriptures, you know, do all things without murmuring and complaining. I mean, we can go on and on and on. We know just reading those scriptures that we read last week, we all know that no nobody can do it, all right, So so then we started looking at how Christianity throughout history has done out with it. So we went to first we went to the early Church first to third century, and we saw basically the Jewish Christian context, where basically the argument was what Old Testament laws should gentiles keep?

22:14 That basically was the argument at that point, and it didn't you didn't really do a lot with us. Then we went to the Church fathers. We mentioned specifically Justin Martyr and Erinnaus. I always want to say irnais, but it's Erinnaus emphasized that the law was fulfilled in Christ and that Christians are no longer under the law and the sense of following the Jewish ceremonial law in civil aspects. However, they affirmed the moral law summed up in Ten Commandments as binding for Christians. Right, so at this point when you get to the so at first it was trying to figure out, hey, what do we have to do as gentiles. Then it kind of went into well, as Christians for jew or gentile, those ceremonial law, civil law we don't have to do with. The moral law is still binding. So they you can see, the early Church was just trying to figure out, Okay, how does this new thing, I will use the term new connects with everything in the old. And that's where they That's where they're and you can understand why that would be what they're trying to figure out for our first couple of centuries.

23:23 Erinaeus in his book Against Heresies he emphasized that Christ fulfilled the law and believers through the Holy Spirit are empowered to live according to God's will, though not perfectly, and that's where everything goes wacky. I think in the second century with Aerinaeus, because he acknowledges that Christ fulfilled the law for us, but then he says, we have power to live according to God's will, however we can't do it perfectly. That is the most confounding, and that became if you think about it, Aaronaeus basically sets up how Christianity's going to approach it. For two thousand years, we God had to do it for us because we can't.

24:10 But now we're powered so that we can, but we actually can't. I don't know how any logical if you wrote that down on paper, you think any logical person would be like, that's just contradictory. I can't. Christ did it for me. Now I can, but I really can't. Well, if I really can't, then you understand the implications of that are staggering. Right. If God is the one empowering me and I can't, that would either call into question God's power or you're trying to say that I'm i am somehow stopping God from getting me to perfection. But if I'm stopping God from getting me to perfection. Then the obvious question would be why would he just not use his power to change my want to? Like, the whole thing makes no sense, but it's the formula that was used from the second century on. But everything goes back to Urinaeus there. Justin Martyr, he distinguished between the ceremonial law and the moral law. So he just wanted to really draw that distinction between the ceremonial and the moral.

25:19 He really drove that point home justin Martyr. Okay, yeah, you're getting probably in that period of time, Yeah and so, and we know what happens because that power, especially once the sacramental system has really developed, the power to be able to supposedly find it comes from where the sacraments. Therefore, you need what the church. So and so, now the church is now forever set. Right. Hey, you gotta fight sin. You can't fight sin without power. One of the ways the Holy Spirit gives you power is by giving you grace through the sacraments. You need the church in order to get the power to fight However, you perpetually can never do it, So you perpetually need what. That's a pretty good system. That's a pretty good system. Hey, you need us, but you're never going to get there, so you always need a I mean, that's kind of if you look at it from a conspiratorial standpoint, it's kind of messed up. But all right, so that kind of gets us from the first to second century or first to third century. Then we looked at the fourth to fifth century. Now we get to Augustine and the Pelagian controversy.

26:32 All right, this was a debate about human ability to keep the law. It becomes pronounced. In the context of the Pelagian controversy, the two main people are Pelagius and Augustine. The Pelagius view, he was a British monk, the humans are capable of keeping God's law through their natural ability, without the necessity of divine grace. So and said, you can say why Pelagius would be People would push back quickly, right, because, according to Pelagius, you don't need what. You don't need the church, Like if we really get conspiratorial here, yeah, this is not good. Right. He argued that if God, if God commands something, humans must have the natural capacity to fulfill it. Therefore, it was possible to live a sinless life and keep the law perfectly even without the aid of grace. He denied original sin and emphasize free will.

27:23 The one thing I do admire about Pelagius is he didn't play some weird game, right. He didn't say, well you can, but you can't. He said you can, and you can, right. So I do admire Pelagius for that. Of course, Augustine comes along. He opposed Pelagius. He argued that due to original sin, human beings are incapable of keeping God's law. But noe, remember what Augustine did Where I disagree apart from the grace of God, and sacraments are means of grace. You see where this goes. He believed that because the fall, human nature is thoroughly corrupted, and while grace enables believers to follow God's will, there we go. If grace enables me to follow God's will, they will never but they will never perfectly keep the law in this life. That is such a contradiction. God grace enables me to keep to follow God's will, but I can't do it perfectly. Just yeah, just we can't let it go. We just yeah, oh absolutely yeah. But that's not enough. That's not enough. That's not enough. But what's so weird is while they try to acknowledge some difference, they have to acknowledge it can't be perfect. So then the difference has become subjective. Right. If I'm one hundred percent never meeting God's standard, then I'm one hundred percent

28:56 always in sin. How does one measure I don't know how you measure anything at that point. So Augustine held that, now this is okay. Last week I did not emphasize this here. I'm going to emphasize it here. Augustine held that sanctification is an ongoing process. Right, So Augustine sets up what we know as progressive sanctification, and I want you to just write that phrase down because that's going to be a major emphasis today, this idea of progressive sanctification, which is what almost every church teaches. And I'm going to say, progressive sanctification is a fraudulent concept. I think it's a concept that means literally nothing if we really break this down, and we'll talk about it a little bit more. But so Augustine, really everything comes down to him.

29:53 But please note, as we've stated, and I know maybe we're being a little conspiratorial, but it just is very convenient that you believe in progressive sanctification, and what you need for progressive sanctification to work is grace, and the Church has the means of grace in the sacraments. That is just very convenient, right, Hey, you need to progressively be sanctified, and the way you do it is through grace, and we have that grace through the sacraments. Therefore you need us. You'll never get there. So you that mean that, I mean, it's hard not to see that as somewhat man, it's hard not to see that in a very negative way.

30:39 It really is. I hate to say that, but it really really is. All right, then we go to the Medievil period. This is the sixth to fifteenth century. Sixth to fifteenth century. During the medieval period, views about the law were influenced by Augustus theology. And then Thomas Aquinas shows up to you to affirm that Christians were called to obey the moral law but required divine grace to do so. Now, of course Thomas Aquinas is really gonna emphasize that, hey, we have to keep the law, you need divine grace to do so. And of course you know where Aquinas is gonna point you to get that grace. The church, the church, the church, the church, the church, the church, the church. All right, Aquanus distinguished between the ceremonial, civil and moral law. Please note almost everyone drew that distinction.

31:27 That's the one thing everyone almost agrees on. Everyone. Hey, there is a difference between the civil, moral, and ceremonial. Almost everyone drew that distinction because you have to right or you're gonna be offering up animals. You're gonna be trying to follow everything in the in the Old Testament. So everyone drew that distinction. Of course, Thomas Aquinas emphasizes what he knows as natural law, and he says it's binding on all people. Now that becomes why does that become important? Because if natural law, if we say all of God's law basically is natural law, it's binding on all people. This becomes a great move for the church to impose the law upon all people in a political way.

32:11 So this becomes the merging of the church and state, which was very common in that period of time. I mean, I mean that period of time was very common sixth to the fifteenth century. I mean that was common. And of course we know what happens when they do that, people start dying, all right. So then we come to the Reformation. With this the sixteenth century we have Luther. Luther mainly focused on the fact that we are justified and sinful at the exact same time. He believed that the law served two primary purposes, to reveal sin a mirror and to guide believers in their sanctification. All right. However, Luther was clear that believers could never fully keep the law in this life due to their sinful nature. He believed that Christ alone perfectly kept the law on behalf of believers, and Christians will called to strive for holiness would always fall short. All right. So Luther really emphasized what he emphasized our inability to ever keep it, but Christ kept it for us. Luther was all about, we can't, but he did. That was Luther's like major emphasis, right.

33:28 He wasn't so much tark. I mean, he did not deny our fight against sin. But his emphasis, look, look you can't, you never can. You're incapable. You do not possess the ability, you never will. That was his real strong focus. Calvin agreed with much of Luther, but he placed a stronger emphasis on guiding believers in godliness. He believed that the moral law still serves as a guide for Christian living, not as a means of salvation, but as a response to God's grace. Believe that by the power of the Holy Spirit, Christians could make real progress and keeping the law. But then you can never attain perfection, all right, So the one thing that we see was what there was a couple of things everyone could agree on.

34:18 If we go through all this entire period up to the sixteenth century, almost everyone agreed that there need to be a distinction between moral, ceremonial and civil. Almost everyone agreed on that, and everyone agreed that inevitably we could not actually ever keep it, which is just which is awesome because that shows you after sixteen centuries of Christianity, everyone was basically like, we can't do it now. At the same time, most argued somehow we had power, which they never bothered to try to figure that out. If I have power, but I can't. If I can't, that implies powerlessness. That doesn't imply power. So they never explain the power other than Calvin saying real progress and quotes what is real progress? I don't know how, I don't know how we measure that and we'll get into that more today as we go through this. So there was Calvin's view then, and we could read more about Calvin.

35:23 Then we got to the Anabaptist, and the Anabaptist really took a radical approach, right because they said, Hey, if we have this power, we can be sinless. Now, on one hand, you got to kind of you got to admire the Anabaptist, right. The Anabaptist kind of look like, well, if I have the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit's third person of the Trinity that means God, that means God is omnipotent, and if God is omnipotent, and then you have to be able to do it right. So I admire their trying to be consist. But like you said, they had to be absolutely deluded out of their minds to not realize that. Right. They emphasize holiness and obedience to the teachings of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount.

36:15 So in some I can't prove this, but the Anabaptists really become very instrumental I think in how modern Christianity handles the Sermon on the Mount, because modern Christians handle the Sermon on the Mount from a very Anabaptist way, like do this, do this, do this? Do all sermons are like do it, do it, where Luther would be like, you can't, you can't, you can't. Christ did so the Anabaptist really really probably changed the way the Sermon on the Mount in many ways were handled. They believed that it was possible for believers to keep law, at least in the moral sense, through the in dwelling of the Holy Spirit. Right, so there was the Anabaptist or right, now we get to the seventeenth century post Reformation to the modern day period. This is from the seventeenth century to twenty twenty four, right post Reformation to twenty twenty four, seventeenth century to twenty twenty four, if you want to put it that way, all right, we'll start with Arminianism in contrast to Calvinism. Armenian Armenian theology is developed by Jacob Arminius and John Wesley, held that Christians could, through the aid of grace, grow in holiness and make significant strides towards keeping the law. Wesley in particular developed the doctrine of Christian perfection, teaching that it was possible for

37:48 Christians to reach the state of entire sanctification in this life where they would not willfully sin. Now, what I find interesting about kind of the arm minion Wesleyan view as it comes after whom the Anabaptist. The Anabaptist really introduced the idea that we can, and our mini in Wesleyan view basically took the same ideas said, hey, we can if we can reach this level of entire synctification, all right now, but please note the Wesleyan view does add a little like, you know, read the fine print.

38:32 Are you ready? The Wesleyan view, in this life, through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, believe that we do not that this does not mean absolute sinlessness, but freedom from intentional sin. So Wesley had to try to draw a distinction. We can be in a sense sinless, but it's sinless with intentional sin. Okay, okay, yeah. The Wesleyan view is that in this life, through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, Wesley believed this did not mean absolute sinlessness, but freedom from intentional sin. So we could be free from all intentional sin. So any sin that we committed would be unintentional. So in a sense, we're sinless from intentional sins, but not sinless from unintentional Does that make you feel better? I guess I don't know.

39:39 If I'm still committing unintentional sin, then I'm not sinless, right. So it's like, that's such a game. That's such a weird game to play. I guess this is where it leads people to the who hold to this view, not even knowing they holded this view. Would be basically, my unintentional sin are now wide mistakes, and I don't commit any intentional sin. I guess that's the way they would play that game. But yeah, that's a myth. Yeah, Christians could, through the aid of grace, grow in holiness and make significant strides towards keeping the law. It's basically it's another concept of progressive sanctification. It's the same kind of we can, we can, but we really can't. Wesley tried took the idea and try to add a little more umph to our can, but still he had to be careful because he knew we still do certain.

40:38 Things all right now. Basically, when you get to kind of the seventeenth century to present, you now we have kind of the Armenian view, which yeah, oh, I know, pretty much the same. Yeah, yeah, I mean at this point, basically, once you get past the Anabaptist basically every view becomes you can almost summarize every view with the term progressive sanctification, almost every view.

41:19 Just that's where by the time you get to the Anabaptist everyone just kind of falls into this progressive sanctification. Any distinction here becomes very We're gonna look at all of them, but they're not really there's not really a distinction, right, because in the seventeenth century, after you get through Arminianism, we have wesley which tries to add a little bit more umph to it, right, Yeah, he would be in the Armenian camp. Yes, uh, so that you have the army Arminianism and we can call Wesleyanism, but it's there, they're linked together, right, So they would both fall under that Armenian camp. Then we go to the Reformed and Lutheran orthodoxy coming out into the seventeenth century, and they continued to they continue to affirm both Reformed and Lutheran groups.

42:09 They continue to affirm the imperfect, imperfect nature of Christian obedience. So the Reform and the Lutheran world did it emphasized, Hey, it's it's not perfect. It's not perfect. They did emphasize it was never perfect, which is a good thing, right, But guess what they were going to say. Christians could grow in holiness and obey God's law, but perfection remained unattainable. So you can, but you can't. This becomes the inevitable reality of what Christianity goes to. So at this point the reform people really want to say, we can't do it perfectly, but we can, but we can't. This just becomes very circular reasoning and to me maddening. I don't know how Christians it doesn't drive all Christians insane. It should, but okay, all right, now we come to the modern evangelical world. All right. In contemporary evangelicalism, there is a variety of views. Many follow the Reformed emphasis on progressive sanctification, where believers grow in holiness but do not reach perfection. Others, influenced by Wesleyan holiness movements and Pentecostalism, affirm that Christians

43:42 can experience a deeper experience of sanctification through the Holy Spirit, and some may claim a higher degree of victory here. A deeper or see Christians can experience deeper experiences of sanctification through the Holy Spirit, and some may claim a higher degree of victory. If you think about it the Wesleyan kind of idea. Then you have the Pentecostal charismatic idea, and you see it and probably actually you know, if you think about it, and much of the non Catholic world, and now we'll kind of go back to our conspiratorial way of thinking. In the Catholic world, they would talk about we're able to do this through grace. Right, they would use the word grace. Did we notice that as we went through that? Okay, now this is important. Why would they use the word grace because sacraments are a means of grace, meaning you need the church. After you get out of the Catholic influence, the Protestant world stops using that we can do it through the means of grace.

45:11 We can do it through the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I don't need the church because the Church doesn't control the Holy Spirit. So you note that's that's a fundamental change, right, Like I don't think most church history books will acknowledge that. We have to stress that, hey, you don't need the Church. You've got the power inside of you. Now you can do it this way. Now they may come up with it, and you know, within the Pentecostal movement, right, so within the Wesleyan movement, you need to reach that entire sanctification. You need to experience entire sanctification to really get there. And the Pentecostal movement you need what the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is subsequent to salvation, so that you can get that extra power. So what happened is everyone began to acknowledge, Huh, most people aren't there. You need something extra to get there. So everyone realized nobody was there, but they kept coming up with ways to get there. So in the Catholic world you need the church.

46:17 In the Protestant world, you need the baptism of the Holy Spirit, you need a deeper experience, you need something else. So, which is kind of interesting the way we see that play play itself out. All right, now, let's just kind of do an analysis of all of this. There's a lot more there that we could talk about. We could talk about Catholicism, but we already kind of I'm not gonna get into the Catholic view because we already know the Catholic view. So we're gonna kind of do a final analysis and I'm just gonna go through these quickly and try to wrap this part up. Okay, So the early Church was a focus on moral law. In the Early Church, there was a consensus that Christians were not bound to the ceremonial law or the mosaic or a certain or the civil aspects of the Mosaic law, but they were still obliged to live according to the moral law, which was fulfilled in christ. Early Christians viewed the law as a guide to holy living, but the concept of perfection was less emphasized. So the early Church didn't really think about what you can do. It was just more of a call to do it all right. Augustine and Pelagius, this turned the argument about the nature of human ability. Obviously, we know Pelagia says you could, and Augustine basically says you can't, but you kind of can, and well, yeah, there we go. In fact, Augustine made he talked about the dependence on grace, which became the dominant framework in

47:48 Western Christianity, which we know why because the church it focuses on the church. The Medievil Church was a growth in holiness throughout the Medievil period. Theologians like Aquinas maintain Augustine's basic position, but emphasize that humans could grow in their ability to follow God's law through Now listen, this was Aquinas through the work of infused grace. All right. Uh, the idea of perfection was reserved for saints. Well, most Christians were seen as striving towards holiness through a lifetime of growth. But so Aquinas really emphasized again, you need you need grace, and you get it through the church. You get it through the church. You get it through the church. You can get very Yeah, but yeah, nobody can.

48:34 Nobody can, I guess other than saints. The Reformation emphasized human inability and grace. Okay, but I think they kind of begin to state it a little bit differently. But they still may have been using some of that language because even some in the Reformation, especially Lutherans, still held to a sacramental system. Right, So you still have a little bit of the sacramental system there, And well we've talked a little bit about that. After the Reformation, we begin to get diverging views of sanctification, but really, if you want to kind of see what happens, it basically becomes this idea of progressive sanctification. But it's progressive sanctification through the work of the Spirit, not through the work of grace. That begin to change the language. And why well, because now it's not emphasizing the church right. In fact, listen to this quote emphasizing experiences of the Holy Spirit that lead to greater victory over sin. It's the Holy it's they're not using the word grace anymore because we've abandoned the sacramental system. Right throughout Church history, beliefs about Christian's ability to keep the law of God have evolved significantly, all right. Ultimately, the central tension in these beliefs lie and how one balances the reality of human sinfulness and the power of divine grace and the nature of sanctification.

50:03 Traditions that emphasize human dependence on grace tend to reject the idea that perfection is possible in this life, of course, because you're going to continue to need the Church, while traditions that emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit hold out the possibility that believers can approach or even attain through perfection, through God's empowering presence. So I think what we've discovered is and I hate to be so cynical, I'm just gonna be honest. For at least sixteen centuries, the idea was, hey, you need the church in order to advance, and the church is the one that controls the sacraments. There was almost they were motivated to hold that system because it made the church imperative. You couldn't You had to have the church, right, You had to have the church. That's why it was very popular. If you go back and sum of this period of time to hear there was no salvation outside of the church.

51:05 It was very why because everything dealing with salvation you needed the church for So you can say where then when we broke away from the Catholic Church, even though people would say, well, we still wanted to maintain a high view of the church, we may, but we made it very clear that we didn't need the church and order to be saved. We didn't need the church and order to advance in our spirituality because we had the power of the Holy Spirit and we had the Word and that's all we needed. So then it becomes about the power of the Holy Spirit is supposedly get us there. All right, So but for most of if you want to go from say this after the Ana Baptist, everyone after, even though there's all kinds of weird little distinctions, and we didn't get into all of it because we ran out of time, but we did a pretty good job.

51:56 This is the main thing to remember. Remember the phrase progressive sanctify, progressive sanctification, because that's what we'll deal with in the second hour. Here, we're gonna deal all we're gonna deal. We're gonna look at progressive sanctification from a logical perspective, and I know that's gonna be go against Christianity, but we're going to have to because I think progressive sanctification is problematic. So that's what we'll do in the second hour. But that gets us all the way from the first century, all the way to basically twenty twenty four. All right, is that a good place? So we'll stop right there. All right, Lord, God, we come before you this morning. Thank you, Lord for giving us the ability to deal with these very important theological issues. And Lord, I pray that in the next hour will continue this study and continue to try to understand this very important concept to the best of our ability, and we assist in Jesus name and GOS. People said