Page 10

necessary before sanctification begins.

The Reformed model, on the other hand, would

suggest that God initiates both justification and sanctification in those whom He elects.

The Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Keswick, and Chaferian models all agree that some

form of a post-conversion decision is necessary before "real" or "victorious" growth can
occur. While all acknowledge the work of God in sanctification, all appear to place a
great responsibility upon the believers themselves to initiate the growth process. On the
other hand, the Reformed model proposes that believers will grow inevitably because of
their conversion to Christ. Believers are responsible to obey and will do so because of the
Spirit's work in their lives.

Finally, the relationship between justification and sanctification is viewed as

inevitable and necessary in the Reformed model while in the Wesleyan, Pentecostal,
Keswick and Chaferian models this relationship is understood as merely possible or
potential.

Conclusion

Our study has shown that there are several scholars who have equated the

Chaferian model of sanctification with dispensationalism. In studying the numerous
definitions of dispensationalism we found that the main essence of dispensationalism is a
distinction between national Israel and the church. Based on this finding we can conclude
that there is certainly an organic connection between dispensationalism and eschatology
and ecclesiology. But we found no evidence of any essential connection between
dispensationalism and sanctification. Finally, we compared Chaferian ("dispensational")
sanctification with other models of sanctification. We found compatibility between
Chaferian teaching and that of Wesleyan, Pentecostal, and Keswick approaches,
particularly in regard to the necessity of a post-conversion experience and in regard to a
separation between justification and sanctification.

We trust that this study will encourage students of sanctification to avoid labeling

any model as "dispensational." We also hope that those who may have been inclined
toward Chaferian sanctification because they thought it to be tied to dispensationalism
will revisit this subject with the goal of basing their sanctification views on the text of
Scripture rather than upon respect for a favorite theologian or theological system.

Walvoord, "Augustinian-Dispensational Perspective," 235, writes, "One's experience of

sanctification is clearly conditioned on one's response to the sanctification that the Holy Spirit intends to
provide. . . . Though sanctification is a work of God in the heart of the individual, it is accomplished only in
harmony with the human response."

Turner, review of Five Views, 94-98, makes this same point several times by suggesting that the

four views are contrasted with Reformed teaching in their views on the necessity of post-conversion
experiences. He writes (98): "Thus, there may only be two views of sanctification presented in this
volume."

For a more thorough treatment of this entire discussion see Jonathan R. Pratt, "The Relationship

between Justification and Sanctification in Romans 5-8," (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1999),
9-39.