35
the one to whom we must be united throughout our spiritual transformation. Writers on spiritual
formation would do well to highlight our union with Christ at deep spiritual levels (the Rom 6
kind of union with Christ in his death and resurrection) and not only at the experiential level of
soul satisfaction and intimacy.
(2) The nature of sin. All of the models understand sanctification in its
progressive and lived-out sense to involve the overcoming of sin so as to live in ever greater
conformity to Christ. If that is the case, then the nature of the sin that is to be overcome is
crucial. This is clearly the case in the Wesleyan model, which follows John Wesleys definition
of actual sins as willful, voluntary transgressions of known laws of God.
65
This understanding
enabled Wesley to affirm "Christian perfection" in the life of the believer who has experienced
the Spirits gracious work of entire sanctification, but not absolute or total or angelic perfection.
Reformed thinkers, on the other hand, argue that whatever legitimate distinction can rightly be
drawn between actions done intentionally and willfully and those done unintentionally, Scripture
does refer to the reality of hidden and unintentional sins (e.g. Ps 19:12). And the dichotomy
between motive and behavior postulated by Wesleyans (in which you can be free from all sin
motivationally, yet still transgress the law of God unintentionally) seems, they argue, to be
neither biblical nor realistic. But the point for our purposes is that whatever debates may rightly
be had concerning the nature of sin, the issue is an important one. Now, to his credit, Dallas
over substandard Christian living and the freedom from inner conflicts that would keep us from
the victorious Christian life.
65
See Dieter, "The Wesleyan Perspective," in Five Views on Sanctification, 14-15.