What do you think?
Rate this book
Counterpoints
Five Views on Sanctification
Christians generally recognize the need to live a holy, or sanctified, life. But they differ on what sanctification is and how it is achieved. Five Views on Sanctification brings together in one easy-to-understand volume five major Protestant views on sanctification. Writing from a solid evangelical stance, each author describes and defends his own understanding of the doctrine, and responds as well to the views of the other authors. This book addresses such practical questions as: How does one achieve sanctification in this life? How much success in sanctification is possible? Is a crisis experience following one’s conversion normal—or necessary? If so, what kind of experience, and how is it verified? The Counterpoints series provides a forum for comparison and critique of different views on issues important to Christians. Counterpoints books address two categories: Church Life and Bible and Theology. Complete your library with other books in the Counterpoints series.
258 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 19, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
August 22, 2026
The five views of sanctification were as follows: the Wesleyan, the Reformed, the Pentecostal, the Keswick, and the Augustinian-Dispensational. I will run through each, and explain where I agreed and disagreed.
The Wesleyan Perspective
The Wesleyan Perspective’s main strength is in getting believers to press toward the mark for the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. They really emphasize the biblical data, which can often be ignored in Independent Baptist circles, of seeking for what he called entire sanctification. (p.17) So often, we allow ourselves to skim over passages in 2 Peter 3:14 on being spotless, in James 1:27 on keeping unspotted from the world, in 1 Timothy 6:14 on keeping our hearts free from idolatrous loves, unspotted from the world. The concept that we should be striving for perfection (Matt. 5:48), and that the Christ’s goal for the church here in this age is to present her without spot or wrinkle are all very biblical concepts, that the Wesleyan perspective correctly tries to place before our minds.
However, the first significant disagreement arose from Wesley’s view of prevenient grace. If belief in Christ came of our own choice and ability, then why couldn’t someone sanctify himself as well in his own ability. If, as Luther says, “Without me you can do nothing” becomes a little something which in turn becomes everything. We cannot in our own strength perform sanctification. The idea that every command that God gives can always be fully lived out by those he gives it to is simply false. For example, there are many commands to be healed in the NT, which cannot be performed by the hearers. The commands to be born again (John 3:7) cannot be performed by the hearers. Many, many of the OT commands in the Torah could not be ultimately fulfilled by the original audience. Thus, Wesleyan perfectionism fails on the assumption that every command must be fulfilled.
It also fails, because as Hoekema points out in his response, they must adapt and limit their view of perfect. Perfect means merely the absence of willful sin, even if unconscious sinful elements remain. However, if that is perfect, it doesn’t seem to mean the same as blameless, which is continually held up as the standard. Also, if there is unconscious sin, insofar as one willfully chooses to continue living a lifestyle he knows may have sin of which he is unaware, then he are not perfect, or blameless. The believer has not attained, as Paul mentioned in Phil. 3:13. Wesleyan sanctification seems to be sanctification by perfection.
The Reformed Perspective
I was disappointed with Hoekema several times in this section. First of all, I would not have mentioned sanctification by faith as a defining characteristic of Reformed sanctification. It seems more fitting with the Keswick perspective than with any other view. While his points on how we can be sanctified by faith seem valid, that talk lends itself to antinomianism. The mentality that the line on page 70 promotes, which says: “Sanctification is not a human activity, but a divine gift” seems particularly dangerous. What about James 4, which reads as very active? What about Romans 12, Colossians 3, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 4? These are very active chapters, and Paul and the Spirit are in no hurry to tell the NT readers that actually their sanctification is a gift. The biblical data lends itself much more to the idea presented in John Bunyan of lining up the Diabolonians (sins) and putting them to death.
Hoekema’s view of Romans 7 was disappointing and would greatly reduce its meaningfulness or utility. Paul is obviously dealing with salvation sequentially in Romans, starting with the unsaved Gentile, then the unsaved, yet enlightened Jew, then the Justified sinner, then the sanctification that occurs at salvation. If Romans 7 is speaking of Paul’s pre-conversion self primarily, then Paul is jumping back out of order. The passage also loses all the earnest groaning that is present in the believer’s struggle against sin. Romans 8 shows us the external trials we face currently and how they make heaven more glorious and appealing, and Romans 7 shows us the internal struggle with sin, and how that will make the victory one day in Christ all the better (Rom. 7:25). Also, none of Paul’s spiritual characteristics make any sense if Paul is unconverted. Paul expresses at least seven times (v.15-16, 18-22) the desire to do the right things and to follow the law of God, which is not characteristic of an unsaved man. Even John Murray, whom he quotes, disagrees with him. This is neither the biblical view, nor has it been the historical reformed perspective.
Having said this, except for possibly Walvoord’s section, Hoekema’s section had by far the most, and the most diverse, biblical support. He was clearly trying to weigh all the verses, and provide the most biblical view. His section on definitive and progressive sanctification was helpful. There are clearly both usages in scripture. The section on biblical transformation was not explained as comprehensively or as clearly as Walvoord did. His section on how the Christian relates to the law was mostly true, except that the NT believer clearly is not under the Sabbath, and so we are clearly not under the old Mosaic laws, but rather under the new law, the royal law, the law of liberty, which Christ brought in when he established his own laws as authoritative above the OT laws.
How Hoekema dealt with perfectionism and the goal of sanctification was spot on. His section on the old and new selves seemed slightly off, and Walvoord put it correctly on page 101 when he said, “the old and new man are not references to the old and new nature…but rather to the old manner of life…and to the new manner of life.” I would have defined Reformed sanctification as sanctification by fruit before this book. Now, I am unsure how I would define it.
The Pentecostal Perspective
So much could be said on this view, that constraining the analysis to less than a page is difficult. The Pentecostal view of sanctification does have an instantaneous element in sanctification, which can map surprisingly well onto the Reformed view of definitive sanctification.
Where the Pentecostal view very quickly starts to deviate is in their view of entire sanctification, which for all practical purposes seems to be very similar to Wesleyan completion in sanctification, or perfectionism. Their view of Rom. 7 is also unhistorical, and is not supported by the text, as argued above.
They also seem to have a very monergistic view of sanctification. “The Holy Spirit must do the whole work, or none of it.” (p.128). Most other views of sanctification, however much they should emphasize yieldedness and surrender, seem to have a category (and usually a significant one) for the believer “working out his own salvation with fear and trembling.” The scriptures simply do not support the idea that Spirit mortifies your flesh, draws you nearer to God, puts the armor on for you, or does the means of grace on your behalf. Sanctification is inherently a partnership. Just like prayer and evangelism, in which man must act, but God ultimately performed the work and receives the glory, so is sanctification. We must act, but God will ultimately receive all the glory, for it is He that is working in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13; 2 Cor. 4:17).
Their view of baptism in the Spirit is pure experiential eisegesis. Baptism by the Spirit is clearly for every believer, and is clearly not identified with any one member of the body of Christ. To illustrate the inconsistencies in their notion of baptism in the Spirit, imagine if any other spiritual gift, like evangelism, said that it truly had the baptism of the spirit, and no one else. They could argue from Acts that every time a believer was baptized in the Spirit he evangelized. But a few descriptive correlations are very poor ground indeed on which to base a whole system of sanctification, and as McQuilkin helpfully points out how little NT evidence there is for a second sanctification experience post salvation. If the Pentecostal view could be wrapped up, it might be sanctification by gifting.
The Keswick Perspective
The concept of a believer being “able not to sin” seems scriptural. For example, we have clear texts where we are told to resist sin, told that we are servants to God, and we are servants to the one whom we obey. We are Christ’s friends if we do His commands. Thomas Boston in his book Human Nature in Its Fourfold State makes a good argument for this in the second chapter of his third section. The concept of being able not to sin does not in any way mean perfect; it simply means that while we formerly could not do anything that wasn’t sinful (since it was all in unbelief, and whatsoever is not of faith is sin), we now can at times, temporarily, perform an action that is actually well-pleasing to God, that is not an abominable sacrifice, but one that He will accept.
The three categories of sanctification were helpful, and all seemed scriptural as well. The root cause of an unsanctified life, according to McQuilkin, was unbelief and its cure (and the means of perseverance) was faith (which is why sanctification by faith seems to be a Keswick theme).
McQuilkin’s section on differing types of faith was helpful. His definition of saving faith did not seem as fully accurate as it could have been. Thomas Goodwin says in Christ Set Forth “although it be true, that there is that radical disposition in the faith of every believer, which if it were drawn forth to view Christ in his mere personal excellencies, abstractly considered, would close with Christ for them alone, as seeing such a beauty and suitableness in them; yet the first view which a humble soul always does, and is to take of him, is of his being a Saviour, made sin, and a curse, and obeying to the death for sinners.” Faith is not just committing oneself unconditionally to God, but it is take a view of Christ as a substitute, both actively and passively for our sins. While this should have sanctifying properties, it is improper to define our sanctification solely by this justifying kind of faith. Sanctification has integral to it a willingness to die, to follow, or to do whatever it takes to serve the Lord you saw with justifying faith. While faith is the root, it is not the only component in sanctification.
His sections on a new person, which highlighted the Spirit-given ability to overthrow sin; the new relationship, which highlighted the ability to be filled with Spirit and to have union with Christ; and the new potential, which was a victorious and growing Christian life seemed to be most scriptural. While the new potential section could be nuanced more scripturally, it does have much validity given the scriptural injunctions (like the overcomers promises) to defeat sin.
In short, Keswick Sanctification seems to be sanctification by surrender.
Augustinian-Dispensational
His interpretation of Romans 7 was spot on. His attempt utilize the two natures of Christ as an analogy for the two natures in the believer seemed irrelevant. Even if it could be proven than Christ’s two natures function the same way the believer’s do (which it doesn’t, but Christ is obviously fully God and man, and his two natures are inseparable; the two natures of the believer are not the whole of the believer, and they will one day—most gloriously!—be separated), it does not prove that that is actually the way it is.
Regardless, the way he defined the new nature and the old nature (the predisposition to follow the law of God vs. the inclination to sin) is indisputably scriptural. Unless one believes all sinful desires are removed at the new birth (which it does not seem anyone does), then one has to believe that at least to a certain extent, insomuch as we desire something, we are inclined to do that thing, and the believer has both the inclination, or predisposition to sin and not to sin.
He represented the meaning of the two natures very aptly: since you have a new nature, it should show. However, the dispositions to continue in your former tendencies will remain strong. His sections on the baptism of the Spirit and the filling of the Spirit seemed scriptural.
His closing section on the mystery of how sanctification relates to our action and God’s action was very helpful. Just like prayer and evangelism, it is very hard to say whether sanctification is the result of our actions (our faith, perseverance, and obedience) or God’s action of conforming and transforming us to be like his Son. We know that sanctification will not happen if we do not obey the scriptural commands. We know, on the other hand, that God will sanctify his people no matter what.
Conclusion
I had thought when I started reading that I would agree the most with the Reformed perspective, since I am wary of the concept of a continually carnal Christian, which has been popular in some Dispensational circles. However, Hoekema’s view of Romans 7 and his overemphasis on the work of God in sanctification without an equal emphasis on man’s duty to mortify the flesh made me less inclined to the Reformed view as Hoekema represented it. (Although from my reading in the Puritans, it does not seem that Hoekema represented the mainline Reformed view in these two points either). Walvoord’s section seemed orthodox, scriptural, and would be the section of this book I would recommend if I had a new believer who didn’t understand sanctification.
The Wesleyan Perspective
The Wesleyan Perspective’s main strength is in getting believers to press toward the mark for the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. They really emphasize the biblical data, which can often be ignored in Independent Baptist circles, of seeking for what he called entire sanctification. (p.17) So often, we allow ourselves to skim over passages in 2 Peter 3:14 on being spotless, in James 1:27 on keeping unspotted from the world, in 1 Timothy 6:14 on keeping our hearts free from idolatrous loves, unspotted from the world. The concept that we should be striving for perfection (Matt. 5:48), and that the Christ’s goal for the church here in this age is to present her without spot or wrinkle are all very biblical concepts, that the Wesleyan perspective correctly tries to place before our minds.
However, the first significant disagreement arose from Wesley’s view of prevenient grace. If belief in Christ came of our own choice and ability, then why couldn’t someone sanctify himself as well in his own ability. If, as Luther says, “Without me you can do nothing” becomes a little something which in turn becomes everything. We cannot in our own strength perform sanctification. The idea that every command that God gives can always be fully lived out by those he gives it to is simply false. For example, there are many commands to be healed in the NT, which cannot be performed by the hearers. The commands to be born again (John 3:7) cannot be performed by the hearers. Many, many of the OT commands in the Torah could not be ultimately fulfilled by the original audience. Thus, Wesleyan perfectionism fails on the assumption that every command must be fulfilled.
It also fails, because as Hoekema points out in his response, they must adapt and limit their view of perfect. Perfect means merely the absence of willful sin, even if unconscious sinful elements remain. However, if that is perfect, it doesn’t seem to mean the same as blameless, which is continually held up as the standard. Also, if there is unconscious sin, insofar as one willfully chooses to continue living a lifestyle he knows may have sin of which he is unaware, then he are not perfect, or blameless. The believer has not attained, as Paul mentioned in Phil. 3:13. Wesleyan sanctification seems to be sanctification by perfection.
The Reformed Perspective
I was disappointed with Hoekema several times in this section. First of all, I would not have mentioned sanctification by faith as a defining characteristic of Reformed sanctification. It seems more fitting with the Keswick perspective than with any other view. While his points on how we can be sanctified by faith seem valid, that talk lends itself to antinomianism. The mentality that the line on page 70 promotes, which says: “Sanctification is not a human activity, but a divine gift” seems particularly dangerous. What about James 4, which reads as very active? What about Romans 12, Colossians 3, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 4? These are very active chapters, and Paul and the Spirit are in no hurry to tell the NT readers that actually their sanctification is a gift. The biblical data lends itself much more to the idea presented in John Bunyan of lining up the Diabolonians (sins) and putting them to death.
Hoekema’s view of Romans 7 was disappointing and would greatly reduce its meaningfulness or utility. Paul is obviously dealing with salvation sequentially in Romans, starting with the unsaved Gentile, then the unsaved, yet enlightened Jew, then the Justified sinner, then the sanctification that occurs at salvation. If Romans 7 is speaking of Paul’s pre-conversion self primarily, then Paul is jumping back out of order. The passage also loses all the earnest groaning that is present in the believer’s struggle against sin. Romans 8 shows us the external trials we face currently and how they make heaven more glorious and appealing, and Romans 7 shows us the internal struggle with sin, and how that will make the victory one day in Christ all the better (Rom. 7:25). Also, none of Paul’s spiritual characteristics make any sense if Paul is unconverted. Paul expresses at least seven times (v.15-16, 18-22) the desire to do the right things and to follow the law of God, which is not characteristic of an unsaved man. Even John Murray, whom he quotes, disagrees with him. This is neither the biblical view, nor has it been the historical reformed perspective.
Having said this, except for possibly Walvoord’s section, Hoekema’s section had by far the most, and the most diverse, biblical support. He was clearly trying to weigh all the verses, and provide the most biblical view. His section on definitive and progressive sanctification was helpful. There are clearly both usages in scripture. The section on biblical transformation was not explained as comprehensively or as clearly as Walvoord did. His section on how the Christian relates to the law was mostly true, except that the NT believer clearly is not under the Sabbath, and so we are clearly not under the old Mosaic laws, but rather under the new law, the royal law, the law of liberty, which Christ brought in when he established his own laws as authoritative above the OT laws.
How Hoekema dealt with perfectionism and the goal of sanctification was spot on. His section on the old and new selves seemed slightly off, and Walvoord put it correctly on page 101 when he said, “the old and new man are not references to the old and new nature…but rather to the old manner of life…and to the new manner of life.” I would have defined Reformed sanctification as sanctification by fruit before this book. Now, I am unsure how I would define it.
The Pentecostal Perspective
So much could be said on this view, that constraining the analysis to less than a page is difficult. The Pentecostal view of sanctification does have an instantaneous element in sanctification, which can map surprisingly well onto the Reformed view of definitive sanctification.
Where the Pentecostal view very quickly starts to deviate is in their view of entire sanctification, which for all practical purposes seems to be very similar to Wesleyan completion in sanctification, or perfectionism. Their view of Rom. 7 is also unhistorical, and is not supported by the text, as argued above.
They also seem to have a very monergistic view of sanctification. “The Holy Spirit must do the whole work, or none of it.” (p.128). Most other views of sanctification, however much they should emphasize yieldedness and surrender, seem to have a category (and usually a significant one) for the believer “working out his own salvation with fear and trembling.” The scriptures simply do not support the idea that Spirit mortifies your flesh, draws you nearer to God, puts the armor on for you, or does the means of grace on your behalf. Sanctification is inherently a partnership. Just like prayer and evangelism, in which man must act, but God ultimately performed the work and receives the glory, so is sanctification. We must act, but God will ultimately receive all the glory, for it is He that is working in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13; 2 Cor. 4:17).
Their view of baptism in the Spirit is pure experiential eisegesis. Baptism by the Spirit is clearly for every believer, and is clearly not identified with any one member of the body of Christ. To illustrate the inconsistencies in their notion of baptism in the Spirit, imagine if any other spiritual gift, like evangelism, said that it truly had the baptism of the spirit, and no one else. They could argue from Acts that every time a believer was baptized in the Spirit he evangelized. But a few descriptive correlations are very poor ground indeed on which to base a whole system of sanctification, and as McQuilkin helpfully points out how little NT evidence there is for a second sanctification experience post salvation. If the Pentecostal view could be wrapped up, it might be sanctification by gifting.
The Keswick Perspective
The concept of a believer being “able not to sin” seems scriptural. For example, we have clear texts where we are told to resist sin, told that we are servants to God, and we are servants to the one whom we obey. We are Christ’s friends if we do His commands. Thomas Boston in his book Human Nature in Its Fourfold State makes a good argument for this in the second chapter of his third section. The concept of being able not to sin does not in any way mean perfect; it simply means that while we formerly could not do anything that wasn’t sinful (since it was all in unbelief, and whatsoever is not of faith is sin), we now can at times, temporarily, perform an action that is actually well-pleasing to God, that is not an abominable sacrifice, but one that He will accept.
The three categories of sanctification were helpful, and all seemed scriptural as well. The root cause of an unsanctified life, according to McQuilkin, was unbelief and its cure (and the means of perseverance) was faith (which is why sanctification by faith seems to be a Keswick theme).
McQuilkin’s section on differing types of faith was helpful. His definition of saving faith did not seem as fully accurate as it could have been. Thomas Goodwin says in Christ Set Forth “although it be true, that there is that radical disposition in the faith of every believer, which if it were drawn forth to view Christ in his mere personal excellencies, abstractly considered, would close with Christ for them alone, as seeing such a beauty and suitableness in them; yet the first view which a humble soul always does, and is to take of him, is of his being a Saviour, made sin, and a curse, and obeying to the death for sinners.” Faith is not just committing oneself unconditionally to God, but it is take a view of Christ as a substitute, both actively and passively for our sins. While this should have sanctifying properties, it is improper to define our sanctification solely by this justifying kind of faith. Sanctification has integral to it a willingness to die, to follow, or to do whatever it takes to serve the Lord you saw with justifying faith. While faith is the root, it is not the only component in sanctification.
His sections on a new person, which highlighted the Spirit-given ability to overthrow sin; the new relationship, which highlighted the ability to be filled with Spirit and to have union with Christ; and the new potential, which was a victorious and growing Christian life seemed to be most scriptural. While the new potential section could be nuanced more scripturally, it does have much validity given the scriptural injunctions (like the overcomers promises) to defeat sin.
In short, Keswick Sanctification seems to be sanctification by surrender.
Augustinian-Dispensational
His interpretation of Romans 7 was spot on. His attempt utilize the two natures of Christ as an analogy for the two natures in the believer seemed irrelevant. Even if it could be proven than Christ’s two natures function the same way the believer’s do (which it doesn’t, but Christ is obviously fully God and man, and his two natures are inseparable; the two natures of the believer are not the whole of the believer, and they will one day—most gloriously!—be separated), it does not prove that that is actually the way it is.
Regardless, the way he defined the new nature and the old nature (the predisposition to follow the law of God vs. the inclination to sin) is indisputably scriptural. Unless one believes all sinful desires are removed at the new birth (which it does not seem anyone does), then one has to believe that at least to a certain extent, insomuch as we desire something, we are inclined to do that thing, and the believer has both the inclination, or predisposition to sin and not to sin.
He represented the meaning of the two natures very aptly: since you have a new nature, it should show. However, the dispositions to continue in your former tendencies will remain strong. His sections on the baptism of the Spirit and the filling of the Spirit seemed scriptural.
His closing section on the mystery of how sanctification relates to our action and God’s action was very helpful. Just like prayer and evangelism, it is very hard to say whether sanctification is the result of our actions (our faith, perseverance, and obedience) or God’s action of conforming and transforming us to be like his Son. We know that sanctification will not happen if we do not obey the scriptural commands. We know, on the other hand, that God will sanctify his people no matter what.
Conclusion
I had thought when I started reading that I would agree the most with the Reformed perspective, since I am wary of the concept of a continually carnal Christian, which has been popular in some Dispensational circles. However, Hoekema’s view of Romans 7 and his overemphasis on the work of God in sanctification without an equal emphasis on man’s duty to mortify the flesh made me less inclined to the Reformed view as Hoekema represented it. (Although from my reading in the Puritans, it does not seem that Hoekema represented the mainline Reformed view in these two points either). Walvoord’s section seemed orthodox, scriptural, and would be the section of this book I would recommend if I had a new believer who didn’t understand sanctification.
November 7, 2014
As an editor myself, I have to say this book could use one. Practically no introduction and considerable evidence that the contributors were not on the same page as what they were to provide or who they represented - themselves? the Bible? a whole religious tradition? Moreover, most went out of their way to moderate their views and affirm one another's. This may show evidence of their own sanctification but it also weakened this work as an educational or persuasive book.
Note: It appears that some of the GoodReads reviews attached to this book refer to a different one. I am speaking of the book by Dieter, Hoekma, Horton, McQuilkin, and Walvoord.
Note: It appears that some of the GoodReads reviews attached to this book refer to a different one. I am speaking of the book by Dieter, Hoekma, Horton, McQuilkin, and Walvoord.
April 13, 2016
This books provides a helpful overview of the contours within the discussion on sanctification. Coupling claims with critique and simplicity with scholarship, these contributors offer varying perspectives which will guide the reader through some of the essential distinctions between positions.
October 5, 2025
A difficult book to get through for me as I worked through how I personally agreed and disagreed with each perspective. The contributors agreed more than disagreed with one another, but did disagree on some key issues. They all agree on the need for Christians to live holy lives, the need for gradual sanctification or growing in grace, and the need for dependence on the Holy Spirit for this to be a possibility. They disagree on what can happen to the sinful nature in this life, how sin should be defined, what the baptism with the Holy Spirit is, and whether or not sanctification should involve a crisis experience.
1. The Wesleyan Perspective by Melvin Dieter. I thought this was an excellent summary of the Wesleyan concept of sanctification as taught by Wesley and how it was developed in the Holiness Movement. In John Oswalt's book Called to Be Holy he recommends reading Dieter's summary. The definitions of entire sanctification and sin are well-stated and in harmony with Wesleyan theology.
2. The Reformed Perspective by Anthony Hoekema. This perspective may have used the most Scriptures and have employed more biblical theology than the others. His view that the man in Romans 7 is unregenerate is admittedly not widely held by Reformed scholars.
3. The Pentecostal Perspective by Stanley Horton. I enjoyed reading the history of Pentecostalism, but I found this view the least biblically and theologically convincing (particularly that the baptism with the Spirit is evidenced by tongues). His statement that conflating the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the conversion experience results in a downward trend of person's emphasis on the Holy Spirit's involvement in his or her life was very interesting.
4. The Keswick View by J. Robertson McQuilkin. I found this chapter to be the most spiritually powerful. It made me hunger and thirst after "the normal Christian life" the author was describing and is described in the New Testament but is often neglected. Many have found Keswick teaching to be spiritually enriching through teachers such as R. A. Torrey, F. B. Meyer, Oswald Chambers, and A. W. Tozer. McQuilkin asserts that J. I. Packer misunderstands and misrepresents Keswick teaching in his book In Step with the Spirit.
5. The Augustinian-Dispensational View by John Walvoord. I had never heard of this perspective before reading this book and did not find it very interesting or convincing. I did, however, really appreciate the section on the filling of the Spirit.
Some of these authors' disagreements are more about terminology and semantics than major substantial differences. Despite the technical nature of this discussion that may seem to be splitting hairs, this topic is of utmost importance, for "without holiness no man shall see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14). This is a topic that requires great care and biblical precision, yet equally great humility.
1. The Wesleyan Perspective by Melvin Dieter. I thought this was an excellent summary of the Wesleyan concept of sanctification as taught by Wesley and how it was developed in the Holiness Movement. In John Oswalt's book Called to Be Holy he recommends reading Dieter's summary. The definitions of entire sanctification and sin are well-stated and in harmony with Wesleyan theology.
2. The Reformed Perspective by Anthony Hoekema. This perspective may have used the most Scriptures and have employed more biblical theology than the others. His view that the man in Romans 7 is unregenerate is admittedly not widely held by Reformed scholars.
3. The Pentecostal Perspective by Stanley Horton. I enjoyed reading the history of Pentecostalism, but I found this view the least biblically and theologically convincing (particularly that the baptism with the Spirit is evidenced by tongues). His statement that conflating the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the conversion experience results in a downward trend of person's emphasis on the Holy Spirit's involvement in his or her life was very interesting.
4. The Keswick View by J. Robertson McQuilkin. I found this chapter to be the most spiritually powerful. It made me hunger and thirst after "the normal Christian life" the author was describing and is described in the New Testament but is often neglected. Many have found Keswick teaching to be spiritually enriching through teachers such as R. A. Torrey, F. B. Meyer, Oswald Chambers, and A. W. Tozer. McQuilkin asserts that J. I. Packer misunderstands and misrepresents Keswick teaching in his book In Step with the Spirit.
5. The Augustinian-Dispensational View by John Walvoord. I had never heard of this perspective before reading this book and did not find it very interesting or convincing. I did, however, really appreciate the section on the filling of the Spirit.
Some of these authors' disagreements are more about terminology and semantics than major substantial differences. Despite the technical nature of this discussion that may seem to be splitting hairs, this topic is of utmost importance, for "without holiness no man shall see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14). This is a topic that requires great care and biblical precision, yet equally great humility.
May 4, 2025
Wesleyan
Disorganized, contradictory concepts, word salad (the whole essay could have been 10 pages). The second half felt off topic. I think it was a mistake to make this about "Wesley". Every other paragraph starts with talking about what Wesley thought. Though I appreciate this is a view derived from Wesley's influence, I'd have preferred a closer reliance on scriptural quotations, historic church understandings, and logical proofs. This essay was written before AI chatbots, but it would have fooled me.
Reformed
Well organized, clear and logical. Not over reliant on Calvin's writings. Was confused by this idea that we "responsibly participate" in sanctification and "work it out" but we don't "cooperate" in it. What is participation if not cooperation? What is working out our sanctification if it is not work? The emphasis on this distinction is lost on me, though many Christians speak on it endlessly. The section against perfectionism was very effective, though I don't take the Lord's prayer to be relevant in this case.
Pentecostal
Innovation, discord, schism, doubt. These are the words that came to me as I read the first half of this essay. If the Pentecostal world can't agree on seemingly anything, why is it considered a perspective at all? This is an interesting history lesson on the Pentecostal movement, not a persuasive essay on the Pentecostal view of sanctification. The second half of the essay is better, and the sections with the sanctification headings are good.
Kenswick
Impressively clear. Gets to the point. Makes sense. I went in having no knowledge of this view. It's far and away the winner. Helpful clarity on the two classes of sin that cloud this discussion.
Augustinian-Dispensational
This essay is the most philosophical, which is a weakness of mine at the moment. As a result I found it challenging, though refreshingly different from the other essays. As one of differing opinion of Romans 7, I didn't find those portions convincing. I felt unclear on how exactly Augustine was related to Dispensationalism. The explanation of Spirit baptism was clear and I think defeated the Pentecostal position. The portions on sanctification/spirit filling were good. After that I got a bit lost.
Overall this book needed better editing. Some of the essays were just not on topic or really padded the word count. Also the views when you boil it down were difficult to distinguish. You could listen to one of these guys talk for 10 minutes and not yet even know which camp he's representing, with the exception of the Augustinian.
Disorganized, contradictory concepts, word salad (the whole essay could have been 10 pages). The second half felt off topic. I think it was a mistake to make this about "Wesley". Every other paragraph starts with talking about what Wesley thought. Though I appreciate this is a view derived from Wesley's influence, I'd have preferred a closer reliance on scriptural quotations, historic church understandings, and logical proofs. This essay was written before AI chatbots, but it would have fooled me.
Reformed
Well organized, clear and logical. Not over reliant on Calvin's writings. Was confused by this idea that we "responsibly participate" in sanctification and "work it out" but we don't "cooperate" in it. What is participation if not cooperation? What is working out our sanctification if it is not work? The emphasis on this distinction is lost on me, though many Christians speak on it endlessly. The section against perfectionism was very effective, though I don't take the Lord's prayer to be relevant in this case.
Pentecostal
Innovation, discord, schism, doubt. These are the words that came to me as I read the first half of this essay. If the Pentecostal world can't agree on seemingly anything, why is it considered a perspective at all? This is an interesting history lesson on the Pentecostal movement, not a persuasive essay on the Pentecostal view of sanctification. The second half of the essay is better, and the sections with the sanctification headings are good.
Kenswick
Impressively clear. Gets to the point. Makes sense. I went in having no knowledge of this view. It's far and away the winner. Helpful clarity on the two classes of sin that cloud this discussion.
Augustinian-Dispensational
This essay is the most philosophical, which is a weakness of mine at the moment. As a result I found it challenging, though refreshingly different from the other essays. As one of differing opinion of Romans 7, I didn't find those portions convincing. I felt unclear on how exactly Augustine was related to Dispensationalism. The explanation of Spirit baptism was clear and I think defeated the Pentecostal position. The portions on sanctification/spirit filling were good. After that I got a bit lost.
Overall this book needed better editing. Some of the essays were just not on topic or really padded the word count. Also the views when you boil it down were difficult to distinguish. You could listen to one of these guys talk for 10 minutes and not yet even know which camp he's representing, with the exception of the Augustinian.
July 3, 2021
I just finished "Five Views on Sanctification," by "The Publisher," or some dude at Zondervan.
Contributors are as follows:
Melvin E. Dieter, representing for team Wesley.
Anthony A. Hoekema, representing for team Calvin.
Stanley M. Horton's, representing for team Azusa.
J. Robertson McQuilkin, representing for team Keswick.
John F. Walvoord, representing for the predestiniarian dispensationalist Baptist team.
My main goal is to see what each tradition defines as the goal sanctification; what is its telos; sanctification, yes, but what does it do?
Argument 1, Wesleyan:
Telos:
It seems the Wesleyans see sanctification as growing in perfect love for the end goal of being loving persons replicating the person of Christ in our lives. Later on I believe he gets closer to the reality when he says that sanctification gets us closer to God so we can serve Him with all our beings, but he doesnt developed the concept further.
Argument 2, Reformed:
Telos:
That as sanctified we are able to think Gods thoughts after Him, to do what is in harmony with His will and to live lives that are pleasing wo God and all for the glory of God. And also so that we should be conformed to the image of Christ for more of an eschatological purpose.
Argument 3, Pentecostal:
Telos:
For growth unto maturity for works such as apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, or pastors.
Argument 4, Keswick:
Telos:
Healthy Christians live sanctified.
So far the Keswick presentation is the best written.
Argument 5, Augustinian Dispensational:
Telos:
To be christlike for empowerment and as evidence of ones salvation.
Personally, I believe they all have a good telos and one need not choose one but rather have them all. I believe sanctification is essential to mission.
Contributors are as follows:
Melvin E. Dieter, representing for team Wesley.
Anthony A. Hoekema, representing for team Calvin.
Stanley M. Horton's, representing for team Azusa.
J. Robertson McQuilkin, representing for team Keswick.
John F. Walvoord, representing for the predestiniarian dispensationalist Baptist team.
My main goal is to see what each tradition defines as the goal sanctification; what is its telos; sanctification, yes, but what does it do?
Argument 1, Wesleyan:
Telos:
It seems the Wesleyans see sanctification as growing in perfect love for the end goal of being loving persons replicating the person of Christ in our lives. Later on I believe he gets closer to the reality when he says that sanctification gets us closer to God so we can serve Him with all our beings, but he doesnt developed the concept further.
Argument 2, Reformed:
Telos:
That as sanctified we are able to think Gods thoughts after Him, to do what is in harmony with His will and to live lives that are pleasing wo God and all for the glory of God. And also so that we should be conformed to the image of Christ for more of an eschatological purpose.
Argument 3, Pentecostal:
Telos:
For growth unto maturity for works such as apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, or pastors.
Argument 4, Keswick:
Telos:
Healthy Christians live sanctified.
So far the Keswick presentation is the best written.
Argument 5, Augustinian Dispensational:
Telos:
To be christlike for empowerment and as evidence of ones salvation.
Personally, I believe they all have a good telos and one need not choose one but rather have them all. I believe sanctification is essential to mission.
November 11, 2018
This excellent discussion leaves the reader with more questions than answers. The validity of each portrayal of the doctrine of sanctification across holiness, dispensationalist, and calvinist theological systems is difficult to evaluate from the materials provided, but this much is clear:
In my own estimation, a Christian doctrine of sanctification is to reflect the biblical text it must:
1. Acknowledge that sin is not just a problem of actions, but a state of being that requires rescue and transformation beyond any human ability
2. Admit that sin is both a conscious act of transgression and anything that consciously or unconsciously falls short of God’s perfection.
3. Acknowledge that sanctification is participated in actively by the free agency of a believer
4. Acknowledge the sovereign work of God's grace in a human life
5. Teach that the result of sanctification (holiness) in the believer's life is to the glory of God alone with no credit to the Christian's efforts
This leads me to a stronger agreement with the Reformed author than others in this book.
In my own estimation, a Christian doctrine of sanctification is to reflect the biblical text it must:
1. Acknowledge that sin is not just a problem of actions, but a state of being that requires rescue and transformation beyond any human ability
2. Admit that sin is both a conscious act of transgression and anything that consciously or unconsciously falls short of God’s perfection.
3. Acknowledge that sanctification is participated in actively by the free agency of a believer
4. Acknowledge the sovereign work of God's grace in a human life
5. Teach that the result of sanctification (holiness) in the believer's life is to the glory of God alone with no credit to the Christian's efforts
This leads me to a stronger agreement with the Reformed author than others in this book.
August 12, 2017
It gives a clear view of the five different views presented; Wesleyan, Reformed, Pentecostal, Keswick and Augustinian-Dispensational. However, the text is very dry and thick and at times very hard to read through. It is a good text book, but if I had not been required to read this book I would have stopped after the first view unless I was very interested in sanctification points of view.
March 24, 2020
These counterpoint books are often helpful to some degree. This one is helpful in various capacities. Unfortunately, a couple of the essays are not as well-focused on the sub-topics of sanctification as they could have been.
May 27, 2025
Great histories and expositions on different sanctification viewpoints. Note that this is an informational book, not a process book. A highlight was each authors reaction tot he previous authors explanation.
November 13, 2019
Good content. Couldve been 50-100 pages though.
September 16, 2022
Some helpful reviews and responses. I'd suggest reading fuller treatments of each perspective but for introductions to the views of sanctification it is profitable.
March 21, 2024
Some interesting discussions but some is confusing. Many ideas and issues about the work of the Holy Spirit and sanctification which are important to consider.
February 27, 2025
My professor gave us two assignments with this book:
pages 11-103 due Thursday
pages 105-235 due Tuesday
That’s the entire book in two nights
pages 11-103 due Thursday
pages 105-235 due Tuesday
That’s the entire book in two nights
September 11, 2015
This book provides generally helpful summaries of the differing perspectives. In the end, each view generally agrees with the others regarding the distinction between positional sanctification and progressive sanctification. The primary difference between the perspectives is in what some perspectives add to progressive sanctification. Methodists add entire sanctification and perfectionism. Pentecostals add Spirit-baptism and speaking in tongues. Keswicks add the crisis moment initiating a higher life. The essays by Walvoord and Hoekema seemed more complementary rather than representative of different perspectives. Their main differences are in their emphases. Walvoord and Hoekema also seem to provide the most thoroughly biblically-based presentations of the theological issues involved in sanctification. Overall, this book serves as a helpful introduction to the spectrum of belief in the doctrine of sanctification.
March 24, 2012
Overall this book was not what I was expecting. Out of the five views represented they only differ on a few distinct points. Where the authors diverge there inst enough dialogue, while the commonalities get a lot of pages. I felt from a reformed perspective that the representation given by Hoekema was solid but a more prolific writer should have been sought out. Out of the five views the representation of the Keswick position by McQuilkin was the most practical. Readability 2 out of 5 stars. Informative 3 out of 5 stars. Arguments presented 2 out of 5 stars. There should have been more dialogue on the points of difference.
June 20, 2012
An interesting read although not remarkably helpful. The writers share more commonalities than differences and spend little time discussing those differences. Part of the reason why there are little differences is because they are all clearly theologically aware and careful in their exegesis. This of course means that you get the best arguments from each of the positions which is always a good thing. To be honest, I wouldn't really recommend it if you're wanting to learn more about sanctification on a personal level. However at an academic level I'm sure the book will be moderately helpful.
May 4, 2021
Good book. Read for theology of christian holiness with Dr. Chris Bounds. At times, the authors are frustratingly confusing or contradictory, but it was helpful to understand various views of sanctification. Interestingly, the Wesleyan-Holiness position is the only one to advocate entire sanctification as a second work of grace as a crisis experience by faith where God deals with our sinful nature. I wrote two essays from this book.
June 3, 2013
Not bad... not great... Hoekema has some good insights... not his best work though... would have like to have seen them engage a broader range... dealings too much with "fundamentalist" and american categories... would have liked to have seen more historical models addressed, maybe even some broader global perspectives... but that would have required engaging Orthodoxy : ) and at that time of publishing it would have been unheard of.
January 24, 2014
Good overview of some of 5 mainstream Protestant views of sanctification - Wesleyan, Keswick, Reformed, Pentecostal, and Augustinian-Dispensational (aka, Chaferism). A little dated, but still relevant enough for today. Would recommend to someone studying the issue of biblical sanctification, if they are spiritually discerning enough to compare with Scripture itself.
September 25, 2016
Good resource for a basic introduction to five perspectives on sanctification. Would have replaced the Keswick discussion with a Lutheran discussion though. There was difficulty in distinguishing what each author personally believed in comparison to the general position of their denomination/philosophy.
May 18, 2017
This discussion mostly highlighted the similarities between the views, rather than the differences (though there are enough of those for an engaging read). A follow-up book might be something like "Five Views of Baptism in the Holy Spirit" or similar. Walvoord's final chapter does a nice job of approaching the issue from a different angle.
December 30, 2010
Dieter on the Wesleyan View: "Entire Sanctification" - process-crisis-process; Wesley never argued for complete eradication of sin nature; simply argued for the doing away of our bent toward sin. (difference?)
April 3, 2016
The comparisons and contrasts between the representatives of the five churches presented in this book are thoroughly interesting. I thought this work to be very deep and an important work, especially considering the topic. A worthwhile read.
August 22, 2010
Very helpful in discussing the differences 'entire sanctification' and 'progressive sanctification' as well as two natures in one man.
October 3, 2013
Frankly, I don't understand why they wrote so much about this.. Because none of what they argue about the nit picky stuff affects one's salvation...
May 1, 2014
Good book, certainly sharpened my perspective on sanctification.
October 1, 2015
This is a slightly older book, but it still offers a good, succinct overview of 5 differing views of Christian sanctification. Definitely a good place to start.
December 4, 2015
Generally helpful, though sharing the weaknesses of the five views series of books. This does serve to give a general orientation to some of the key areas in discussing progressive sanctification.
June 22, 2010
Good view from the Charismatic side
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews