Sensualism, Antinomianism, and Sanctification

This weekend I preached at East Mountain Baptist Church in Longview, Texas. In the morning service I spoke from Philippians 3:17-21. See below:

¹⁷ Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.  ¹⁸ For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.  ¹⁹ Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.  ²⁰ But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,  ²¹ who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself. ESV

I argued that Paul is here warning his readers against the heretical views of the sensualists. The sensualists essentially promoted the idea that since we are saved as a result of God’s grace, we have no obligation to regard the moral law. Paul’s response to this teaching was straightforward, to say the least. This teaching fails to take seriously significant portions of Scripture. Historically we have seen different versions of this doctrine. The 17th century American Puritans dealt with this in the Antinomian controversy. The next century in England saw antinomian views being promoted among the hyper-Calvinistic Baptists. In Paul’s era such views were a clearly outside the scope of legitimate Christianity. Is this fact any less true today?

Now, it should be noted that among those historically known to be antinomian, there is a designation between doctrinal and practical antinomians. The doctrinal antinomians rejected the function of the moral law in the life of the Christian only in a theoretical sense. The practical antinomians were, in this bloggers estimation, more in line with the sensualists of Paul’s day. These sort of antinomians rejected the place of the moral law within the life of the Christian in actuality—not just in theory.

The issue has to do with sanctification. Is justification a legal declaration only, or is there an actual or practical aspect to justification? I would argue that James speaks of a justification that is actual in nature. Theologians would now look to Paul to define justification and refer to James’s justification language as sanctification. I would agree. Let me end by quoting the 17th century Second London Confession. These devout Baptists were guarding their denomination against errant teachings that would disregard God’s call for His children to live holy lives. See below:

“They who are united to Christ, Effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new Spirit created in them through the vertue of Christ's death and Resurrection; are also farther sanctified, really, and personally, through the same vertue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof, are more and more weakened, and mortified; and they more and more quickened, and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holyness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” (original spelling retained)