SUPERNATURAL AND SANCTIFICATION:
COMPARISON OF ROMAN CATHOLIC AND WESLEYAN VIEWS

by

John E. Culp

The diversity of claims to truth in the contemporary world demand a way to distinguish among the options for belief. This diversity also exists in Christian theology and challenges the church in its struggle to identify the truth. Wesleyans have experienced this in the tension among different ideas about what constitutes the “Evangelical” movement of the twentieth century. As the debate about how to identify orthodoxy in Christian thought continues,[1] it will become increasingly important to be clear about the criteria that determine consistency and coherency in a theologi­cal tradition.

The concept of the supernatural appears to function as an important criterion in contemporary Evangelical theology and apologetics for deter­mining what is orthodox. The response to the question about the reality of the supernatural identifies the orthodoxy of the system and its coherence with the Christian tradition. The variety of understandings of the super­natural requires careful reflection about the meaning of the term in order to avoid accepting understandings which are inconsistent with the Wes­leyan theological tradition. In attempting to think through the various understandings of the supernatural, Wesleyan theology confronts the diffi­culty that it lacks a concept of the supernatural that was self-consciously developed. Thus, finding a compatible concept of the supernatural can aid in defining the supernatural in a manner which coheres with Wesleyan theology.

Roman Catholic theology offers a concept of the supernatural devel­oped through extensive discussions since the early middle ages. On one hand, intriguing similarities exist between the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural and the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification. On the other hand, the importance of the doctrine of sanctification to Wesleyan theol­ogy makes it a valuable point of departure in the effort to think carefully about coherency within the Wesleyan tradition. Further, the doctrine of sanctification provides a concrete expression of assumptions about God, human freedom, and the God/world relation which are crucial to a con­cept of the supernatural.

Describing and comparing these two doctrines shows that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural and the Wesleyan doctrine of sancti­fication share a common understanding of God’s presence in human exist­ence. It is an existence that enables humans to experience a relationship with God that carries out God’s purposes in the world. This idea of God’s presence can assist the Wesleyan tradition in avoiding a concept of the supernatural which denies the significance of human action. Avoiding a concept of the supernatural which conflicts with the Wesleyan concern for human salvation, and thus the significance of human action, can enable Wesleyans to maintain in a coherent manner both human freedom and the importance of God for the world. Consistent development of Wesleyan theology will assist in making it an effective voice in a pluralistic context where coherency is judged a significant criterion for the adequacy of belief.

The doctrine of sanctification seeks to describe how a believer is enabled to live for God in a world without God so that the world may know and come to have communion with God. While individual affirma­tion is important in achieving this goal, a focus on individual achievement in sanctification misunderstands the purpose of the doctrine and has con­tributed to the contemporary loss of emphasis on the doctrine in Wesleyan churches. Only as the focus is returned to the presence of God in human lives, enabling them to live for God, can the doctrine of sanctification continue to have meaning in the contemporary world.

The Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Supernatural

The term “supernatural” is used in a variety of ways. In popular usage it refers to what is unusual and beyond the ordinary. The comic “Superman” provides an obvious example of this type of understanding. More philosophical and theological understandings of “supernatural” refer to superior substances and surpassing effects (Kenny 96). “Nature,” that which the supernatural is beyond or surpasses, refers to the resources and capacity of a thing (Kenny 4). The natural may be surpassed by either an enhancement of what is present in the natural[2] or by divine action.

In Roman Catholic theology, the supernatural refers only to the sur­passing of natural capabilities due to divine action (Kenny 5). The most adequate definition of the term “supernatural” in Roman Catholic theol­ogy is that it does not refer to a type of existence which is different from human existence and composed of superior substances or surpassing effects, but to a new relationship to God (Kenny 96). Thus, God and Christ are not referred to as supernatural beings because the supernatural is the presence of God and Christ in the Church through holy living, the sacraments, and the conviction of sinners (Kenny 14).

The history of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural reveals a diversity of understandings. But this history also demonstrates a development in understanding what is meant by the divine presence. Building on the early scholastic concern[3] with the presence of the super­natural, Thomas articulated the doctrine of the supernatural as divine presence. Nominalism then shifted the understanding of the supernatural to an emphasis upon divine power. The modern understanding of the supernatural joins the concepts of presence and power and describes God’s presence as both metaphysical and volitional, as both the presence and power of the divine will (Kenny 127-128, Maddox 1987, 3).

The Roman Catholic understanding of the relationship between the supernatural and the natural further develops the doctrine of the supernat­ural. Roman Catholic theology emphasizes the presence of the supernat­ural in the natural rather than the distinction between the supernatural and the natural. Emphasizing the presence of the supernatural in the natural retains the importance of God for the created world. Without the super­ natural, the natural lacks a goal or purpose for existence. The natural by itself cannot overcome the limits that define its existence and nature.

The presence of the supernatural is especially important for human existence. When the focus is on the distinction between the supernatural and the natural rather than the presence of the supernatural in the natural, the supernatural becomes irrelevant for the natural because of the separa­tion between it and the natural (de Lubac xi, 45-48). Such a separation makes much more difficult to resolve the metaphysical problems associ­ated with doctrines such as the Incarnation and sanctification, which express God’s presence.

In contrast to much modern Protestant thought, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural occurs in the context of the Holy Spirit’s activity in human existence rather than in the context of the nature of God. The supernatural is considered under the rubric of sanctifying grace.[4] This context gives additional evidence that the doctrine addresses the presence of God in human existence rather than the nature of God’s existence. God gratuitously grants the supernatural in order to fulfill human, or non-divine, existence (Royo 637).

The central theme of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernat­ural is that human existence achieves its ultimate goal of deification[5] through God’s presence in the realm of the human. Roman Catholic theol­ogy holds that the goal of human existence is God (de Lubac 149). This goal defines human existence and gives it purpose. Theologically this is accomplished by seeing that God as God is in God’s self (de Lubac 217). The beatific vision allows a person to see God as three-personed (Kenny 84). God makes this beatific vision and union with God possible through God’s supernatural presence in human life.

Deification occurs as a result of the increasingly specific presence of divine action as divine grace. This grace first becomes present in creation. In God’s act of creation God provides for the possibility that all existence can accommodate the divine presence. The natural world was created with an openness to the divine (de Lubac 31-42). God created human beings as part of that creation with the gift of the capability for an ontological rela­tionship with God (Kenny 87, de Lubac 239). Thirteenth-century Roman Catholic theology referred to this as created grace present in human exist­ence (Kenny 42). Created grace makes it clear that the possibility of union with God does not occur because of human nature or effort.

In the Incarnation, God acts more directly in human existence to make it possible for humans to experience God. Ontological union with God in Roman Catholic theology became possible because God became human in the Incarnation. God became human in Christ so that humans could become divine in Christ (de Lubac 26-30). The goal of human existence involves a becoming divine. The divine substance gave itself to human substance (Kenny 87). This giving is clearly understood as the expression of divine love.

Deification through the presence of God becomes specific to each individual in the grace given to each person. Grace, as a gift from God, frees the individual from the influence of sin so that the will to know God can be realized (de Lubac 239). Without divine grace, human existence would be frustrated by being directed to the goal of God without the will to know God. This hope of an individual relation to God avoided the extremes of pessimism and optimism found in ancient thought-which fluctuated between submission to fate and belief that human existence was unlimited (de Lubac 149).

The supernatural presence of God thus brings incorporation into the mystery of Christ through the love of God (Kenny 6). Deification became possible as a result of God’s initiative in creating, in becoming human in the Incarnation as a result of God’s love for created human existence, and in giving grace to the individual. Thus, there is a clear understanding that the experience of supernatural existence is not the result of human effort or a matter of fulfilling human abilities.

The process of incorporation into the divine, the means by which divinization occurs, has been described since the time of Thomas (Kenny 49) as participation in the divine. Participation has been described as both becoming part of and inadequately expressing a superior perfection by an inferior thing (Royo 32-33). It is not the activity of the human making itself divine. Instead, participation occurs through divine activity making it possible for the human to share in the divine nature. Through grace, humans seek God, but this searching requires a basis, a nature, which is divine by participation.

Becoming like God through participation in God, however, is more than a metaphor or an occasional similarity.[6] Humans do not just become like the divine, they share in the divine. And they share in the divine in more than one or two aspects. To experience the supernatural is more than merely being creative, or personal, or loving. Sharing in the divine nature involves both ontological and volitional aspects of human existence. Human existence experiences an ontological change due to its created capacity, given through grace, for sharing in the divine (McBrien 152). This change occurs through the presence of the supernatural. The indwelling of God is an effective, physical and ontological union as well as an intentional union (Kenny 87). But this divinization does not lead to a loss of identity or personal integrity. Ontological union with God, the unity of human and divine existence, is not a substantial union but an accidental union, meaning that it depends on God’s grace rather than on human substance (Kenny 87). Thus it is not a union of identity whereby the human becomes divine and ceases to be human. This avoids the posi­tion that humans somehow are considered divine without a change in the human being.

Modern understandings of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the super­natural directly address this issue by dealing with the volitional aspect of human participation in the divine. The supernatural frees the human will from sin so that it can seek God. The supernatural does not destroy or change the human will into the divine will. From the perspective of con­temporary Roman Catholic theology, the most significant characteristic of the supernatural presence of the divine is this personal and relational aspect rather than the ontological or substantial aspect (Fiorenza 118, Kenny 120).

Roman Catholic theology refers to the role of the Holy Spirit in responding to the logical difficulties of the metaphysical claim that human nature becomes divine. The Holy Spirit is crucial as God’s self-­communication. Divine self-communication to the created realm allows an overcoming of the metaphysical impossibility of the divine being pre­sent in the finite realm (Kenny 89-90). This contrasts with the Greek solu­tion where humans are immortal because of their nature apart from the divine. The presence of an immortal soul in human existence makes pos­sible the Greek concept of immortality (de Lubac 154). The Roman Catholic concept understands the basis for human supernatural existence as the result of a possibility which is external to human nature. This possi­bility depends on God’s creative and special grace (de Lubac 155).

In summary, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural holds that human existence can be united with the divine, with God, resulting in a change both in being and in purpose. This union with God does not destroy the integrity of human existence and does not come about solely through human nature or effort. The Trinity brings this relationship about through creation, Incarnation, and special grace. This supernatural exist­ence is the goal for human existence and enables human beings to fulfill their goal. Thus, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural describes the relationship of divine nature with the human rather than a state of nature, or a type of existence which is separate from human exist­ence. For Catholics, the supernatural is not a characteristic of the being of God, but the presence of God in human existence.

The purpose or function of this doctrine is to account for the goal of human existence and how it is possible to achieve this goal. In the histori­cal context of modern thought, where the concept of the self as individual was developing, this doctrine emphasized the importance of personal rela­tionship with God, first in terms of being and then in terms of action. By implication, then, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural includes the possibility and responsibility of acting on behalf of God. This action on behalf of God becomes the expression of God’s specific action in the present context.

The Wesleyan Doctrine of Sanctification

Any presentation of the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification faces the initial issue of which doctrine of sanctification-John Wesley’s, Ameri­can Methodism’s, or the Holiness Movement’s? The vitality of the Wes­leyan doctrine of sanctification, expressed in this variety of understand­ings and emphases, does not destroy a common understanding of the doctrine. This commonality can be seen in the terms that recent inter­preters from different branches of the Wesleyan tradition use to structure their discussion of sanctification.

William Greathouse, a Nazarene speaking from one perspective of the American holiness movement, deals with “Sanctification and the Order of Salvation,” “The Path to Perfection,” “The Development of Wesley’s Doctrine, Christian Perfection,” and “The Sanctifying Spirit” (Greathouse 208-231). Melvin Dieter, representing another part of the American holiness movement, describes sanctification by discussing the theological themes of “Original Sin and Prevenient Grace,” “The Contin­uum of Law and Love,” and “The Nature and Work of the Holy Spirit” (Dieter 21-29). Randy Maddox, writing as a United Methodist influenced by the holiness movement, treats sanctification as part of “the way of sal­vation” by treating “New Birth,” “Growth in Grace,” “Christian Perfec­tion,” and “Glorification” (Maddox 1994, 176-191). John Cobb, Jr., writ­ing as a United Methodist in a chapter entitled “The Way of Salvation, II; God’s Transformative Work,” describes sanctification by using the cate­gories “The New Birth,” “Sanctification,” and “Perfect Love” (Cobb 97-­114). The themes of perfection, love, the Holy Spirit, a connection to sal­vation, and recognition of growth occur throughout these treatments of the doctrine of sanctification, indicating a common understanding which has been expressed in a variety of ways.

The Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification stresses the believer’s empowerment by God for holy living and action. Sanctification describes the Christian life following justification. The experience of sanctification develops out of being made right with God through God’s forgiveness. The doctrine of sanctification is not a doctrine which competes with, or replaces, the importance of the person’s initial trust in God’s forgiveness. While Wesley saw sanctification as the special responsibility o€ Methodists, he was very clear that the doctrine of sanctification assumed the reconciliation of sinners with God through Christ’s atonement (Mad­dox, 1994, 170,176).

The Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification involves three stages. The first stage begins with the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the person who believes that God forgives (Greathouse 212). This aspect of sanctifi­cation is referred to as “initial sanctification” and consists of the work of the Holy Spirit in moving the individual to a more complete involvement in God’s purposes and life. At this initial stage, the Holy Spirit establishes the love of God and neighbor as the basis for the new life which is experi­enced through justification (Cobb 98).

By responding to the direction and presence of the Holy Spirit, the believer experiences further spiritual growth (Maddox, 1994, 122). This further growth brings the believer to the realization that God offers a new level of fellowship. This level is the level of conscious commitment to loving God. Referred to as perfect love or entire sanctification by Wesley, this is the stage most distinctive of Wesleyan theology, but it is not seen as the entire experience of sanctification. The final stage of sanctification is glorification. Maddox describes these stages as moving from forgive­ness for sin to deliverance from the power of sin to removal from the presence of sin (Maddox, 1994, 144). The three stages of sanctification demonstrate the significance of the action of the Holy Spirit in sanctifica­tion for all of Christian experience.

The need for sanctification arises because justification deals with the guilt from sin, but does not deal with the ongoing life of the Christian. The Christian lives a life of forgiveness. However, in living a life based on forgiveness, the Christian discovers the continuing influence of sin. The Wesleyan understanding of sanctification is that the experience of forgiveness for sin is not the final word that can be said about a person’s relationship with God (Greathouse 215). Maddox describes this level of existence as experiencing the “plague of sin” (1994, 144). Forgiveness does not remove the presence of sin nor give the believer the resources to resist the influence of sin. Cobb says that the believer finds that the “unre­generate nature, with all of its perceptions and habits, is far from obliter­ated. It resists the newly dominant love” (98). God desires more for the Christian than repeated experiences of sin and forgiveness.

A comparison between Wesleyan and other understandings of the relationship between justification and sanctification highlights the distinc­tiveness of the Wesleyan concept of the role of sanctification in the Chris­tian life. While Roman Catholic theology often requires the transformed moral life in order for justification to occur, Wesleyan theology holds that the transformation of life follows justification. In contrast to Lutheran understandings which hold that sanctification results from justification and is never complete until resurrection, Wesleyans expect that moral transformation involves significant change in the life of the Christian prior to death. Calvinists distinguish sanctification from justification and do not require sanctification for justification, but Wesleyans see sanctifi­cation as the vital completion of God’s grace first experienced in justifica­tion (Maddox, 1994, 169). The doctrine of sanctification is crucial to Christian experience in the Wesleyan tradition.

The result of sanctification in the life of the believer is a life of per­fect love resulting from the love showed by God to the believer (Great­house 208). The believer lives in relationship with others in a manner demonstrating perfect love (Greathouse 226). The heart of what is claimed is that the Christian lives a life which has been changed in terms of its motivation. Sanctification ends the inner struggle to do God’s will (Dieter 17). Life becomes motivated by the desire to do God’s will, to love, rather than to do one’s own will, by acting out of self-interest. This perfection is described at times as participation in God (Maddox, 1994, 132) or a restoration of the image of God in the life of the believer.

Development or maturation describes the experience of sanctifica­tion most adequately. Wesley held that there was no perfection which could not be improved (Plain Account 23). Sanctification involves a process which Outler described as “perfecting” not “perfected” (Peters “Foreword”). Maddox uses the terms “character formation” and .”thera­peutic” to convey the sense that sanctification is a process of becoming perfect rather than a juridical declaration of being perfect (Maddox, 1994, 23). Sanctification, he adds, is not the achievement of a certain state even in terms of motivation (1994, 122).

This emphasis on a process of motivational development appears to conflict with Wesley’s interest in the instantaneous achievement of entire sanctification. This tension has led some interpreters to describe Wesley’s view as one of process, crisis, and process (Dieter 42). Maddox explains that Wesley’s interest in the instantaneous aspect of entire sanctification comes from his concern to make clear that sanctification is the result of divine grace. Wesley thought it was necessary to say that there is a spe­cific act on God’s part which sanctifies the believer (Maddox, 1994, 189). Whether or not sanctification is instantaneous is not important in terms of the experience of the believer. Maintaining God’s initiative is the crucial concern. Wesley himself held that there is both a gradual and an instanta­neous aspect to entire sanctification (Plain Account 62). Contemporary holiness interpreters, as a result of the context of revivalism, have stressed the instantaneous aspect as a means of encouraging believers to make a commitment to loving God (Dieter 38). It does not seem necessary to require the instantaneous as the only way to retain either divine initiative or human commitment. On the other hand, as long as the emphasis on the instantaneous aspect of sanctification does not lead to unrealistic expecta­tions of the sanctified life,[7] the divine initiative and human decision can be expressed in an understanding of sanctification as instantaneous. Keeping in mind the basic nature of sanctification as a developing reality helps resolve numerous debates about the nature of the sanctified life, its initiation, and its attainment or development. These debates grow out of attempts to explain the basic doctrine of sanctification in more detail. The sanctified person has been enabled by God’s grace to move beyond the type of existence which remains subject to the power of sin. The issue is claiming enough without claiming too much (Cobb 101). Wesley established the position that the sanctified person is not changed from a person who makes decisions which may be sinful to a person who can never choose again to go against God’s will. It is always possible for the sanctified person to choose to act in a way which does not express God’s perfect love (Wesley, Plain Account, 94-95). The sanctified person is not a person who has achieved a level of perfection in behavior or relationship with God which will never improve. Finally, this perfec­tion is a perfection which may still act in a manner which harms other people. The actions of the sanctified person who is responding whole­heartedly to God’s grace grow out of the intention to love God perfectly. But that motivation does not rule out the possibility of misunderstandings and misinformation. Actions based on inadequate information may fail to express God’s love.

Perfection does not mean perfect knowledge. Further, perfection does not require perfection even of motivation. A person may act out of a habit or learned response in a manner which does not demonstrate love even though the desire is to demonstrate love. When persons become aware of influences that lead them not to love God and neighbor, their intent to love God and neighbor leads them to seek a change in those influences that seek any other goal. This requires a decision on the part of the person to choose to continue to act on God’s grace or to act on the basis of a motivation other than loving God. The problem with the expec­tation that perfection means never again doing the wrong thing or even never again being motivated to do the wrong thing is that sanctification is a renewal of the affections which are the basis for our decisions. It does not refer to external actions, whether they are the avoidance of sin or the doing of good (Maddox, 1994, 132).

Wesleyan thought about the means of sanctification consistently attributes sanctification to divine grace (Cobb 108). God takes the initia­tive in prevenient grace by means of convicting and freeing the person’s will from the effect of sin so that a choice to accept God’s forgiveness becomes possible (Cobb 98, Dieter 24). God continues to take the initia­tive in entire sanctification through the work of the Holy Spirit cleansing the believer from the influence of sin and enabling the believer to love God and neighbor perfectly. God supervises the maturation process of character formation in the person who has been perfected in love. Wes­ley’s understanding of God’s grace includes two aspects, pardon and power. God’s grace as pardon, for Wesley, was part of God’s grace as power. Thus, God’s grace pardons the sinner and God’s grace as power enables the sinner to make the response to God’s pardon which makes entire sanctification actual (Maddox, 1994, 119).

At the same time that the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification firmly holds to God’s initiative in sanctification, it also clearly maintains the importance of the human response to God’s grace. God’s grace does not bring about the doing of God’s will in the believer’s life (Maddox, 1994, 22). God’s grace frees the believer from sin so that doing God’s will is possible; God’s grace also empowers the believer to do God’s will, with the believer becoming responsible to choose to do God’s will.[8] The believer’s willing response to God’s love brings the believer into a deeper relationship with God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Maddox, 1994, 122). This ongoing human involvement is the basis for growing maturity in sanctification and avoids the problems associated with think­ing of sanctification as a state which is achieved and then goes unchanged. Understanding perfection as a state which does not change reflects an understanding of God which tends to emphasize God’s dis­tance from human existence and deny human involvement in God’s pur­poses and action.

To summarize, the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification describes the goal of Christian existence as a choice to live a life empowered by God’s grace through the Holy Spirit. The sanctified person responds to God’s offer of pardon and empowerment by loving God and neighbors. This is a life of continuing maturation in the commitment to perfect love through responding to the experience of God’s love. There is a clear recognition of the necessity of divine initiative and human response.

Similarities of Roman Catholic and Wesleyan Concepts

The differences between the Roman Catholic doctrine of the super­natural and the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification, and the differences in the terminology used to express them, may obscure their similarities. The references to early Greek theology in the development of each of these doctrines hint at a common historical influence. Thinkers in each tradition refer specifically to the Greek theological tradition’s understanding of human existence as capable of divinization (theosis). Fiorenza, in dis­cussing the divinizing aspect of grace, states that this is more typical of Greek than Latin theology but has been part of Roman Catholic theology since the Middle Ages (Fiorenza 124). Outler first called for the study of Wesley’s relation to the Greek Fathers (Maddox, 1994, 260 n. 42), and subsequent work has demonstrated the significance of this source for Wesley’s theology in the areas of his anthropology and understanding of the divine-human relationship.[9]

More importantly, these two doctrines share a foundational under­standing that human existence is capable of becoming Godlike. This occurs through human response to a contact initiated by God which cul­minates in a fully restored relationship with God and the transformation from human to Godlike existence. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural expresses this understanding by identifying the goal for all human existence as God. The presence of the supernatural makes it possi­ble for human existence to achieve its goal. When the presence of the supernatural is understood as a matter of being, of a certain type of exist­ence, the doctrine of the supernatural explains how human existence could overcome the mortality which resulted from the Fall. When the presence of the supernatural is understood in relational terms, the doctrine demonstrates the common purposes of divine and human existence. Wesleyan theology expresses the notion of becoming Godlike in the doctrine of sanctification. Entire sanctification describes the possibility of a person loving God perfectly in response to God’s love and grace which makes possible the overcoming of the presence of sin in the believer’s life. In Wesleyan theology, the doctrine of sanctification calls a believer to commitment to God’s purposes, which results in a life of perfect love. The doctrine of sanctification expresses the ideal of being Godlike in love. Both doctrines maintain the conviction that attaining the goal of becoming Godlike depends on divine action. For the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural, union with God is possible and occurs because God acts to create beings with the possibility of being Godlike. In the Incarnation God identified with human existence and gives to indi­viduals by, the presence of the Spirit, the full vision of who God is. Human existence is incapable of achieving union with God apart from God’s action.

Wesleyan theology expresses the necessity of divine action by find­ing the presence of God’s grace prior to the initial experience of forgive­ness (calling the person to forgiveness), in the experience of forgiveness of sins through God’s love, and in the experience of entire sanctification through the deliverance from the power of sin. There is never any sense in which serving God is possible except as a response to God’s actions. In fact, Wesley’s concern with the instantaneous nature of sanctification sought to maintain the crucial presence of divine grace rather than to describe the psychological state of the sanctified person.

Finally, both of these doctrines hold that human action is crucial in becoming Godlike. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural emphasizes this both by speaking of the divinization of human existence and by denying that this divinization is identification. The importance of human experience can be seen in that human existence has the potential for divinization. Other types of existence lack this potential. Furthermore, this doctrine does not overcome or end human existence, but rather calls for the human to see God as God is. Divinization does not lead to a loss of human identity. Participation in the divine is still human existence as human existence.

Likewise, the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification maintains a crucial role for human existence. Sanctification involves the human response to divine grace. God does not sanctify apart from the individual’s commit­ment to living the life to which God calls. In fact, this commitment involves a lifetime of development through repeated responses to God’s grace. Furthermore, the careful expositions of the doctrine of sanctifica­tion avoid considering it to be a state which somehow is no longer charac­terized by human experience. Excessive claims for sanctified existence have occurred when people overlooked the human involvement and focused on the divine. To assume that humans become identical with God results in overlooking the importance of individual expressions of perfect love and the fact that individuals may not always and completely express perfect love.

Differences of Roman Catholic and Wesleyan Concepts

Although there are foundational similarities between these two doc­trines, differences exist and must be considered in order to determine whether or not these two doctrines are actually compatible expressions of a common experience and understanding of God.

One of the more obvious differences relates to the difference between Roman Catholic and Wesleyan understandings of the relation­ship between justification and sanctification.[10] Often this difference is understood as the difference between sanctification being necessary for justification in much of Roman Catholic theology and sanctification being possible only after justification in Wesleyan theology. While popular Roman Catholic theology has required sanctification or being Godlike before justification, the historic Roman Catholic understanding differs. It was that the Spirit was God’s gift usually received at baptism for cleans­ing in preparation for perfection, which was attained only at death (Bas­sett 114, 117). This led to the understanding in the Middle Ages that per­fection was necessary for justification (Bassett 118).[11]

Another contrast between these two doctrines is the emphasis in each doctrine. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural emphasizes the divine. This is most obvious in that human existence is to experience divinization. The goal, for human existence is God. This goal is achieved in the beatific vision, a vision of God as God is. The formulations of the doctrine of the supernatural that stressed the ontological understanding of being assumed the priority of divine existence. Even in those understand­ings which take a more relational approach, the ontological and divine aspect did not become lost.

In contrast, the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification has primarily focused on human experience. While it is clear that the experience of entire sanctification comes about because of divine action, the emphasis falls on the Christian life. The practical development of the doctrine expresses this focus on Christian experience. Questions about whether the experience is instantaneous or develops, what exactly is meant by perfec­tion in the life of the sanctified person, and how the person can be certain of sanctification deal with human experience.

A contrast in terminology between the exponents of these two doc­trines reflects the contrast in emphasis. The Roman Catholic tradition has predominately utilized metaphysical terms such as “substance” and “nature.” Even with the move to relational language, Roman Catholic the­ologians such as Karl Rahner have continued to talk about “human exist­ence” and “being,” metaphysical terms. The Wesleyan tradition has drawn more on personal language by using terms such as “will” and “love.” The use of terms such as “imparted” and “imputed,” which tend to have a more metaphysical orientation, has not been dominant.

This difference in terminology reflects the patterns in use at the time of the initial formulation of each doctrine. The Middle Ages thought in terms of substances and natures and debated questions such as the nature of divine existence. John Wesley was familiar with this type of terminol­ogy, but sought to bring the Gospel to those who were not. Personal lan­guage was much more meaningful in his context. As the more recent shift to relational language in the development of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural shows, it is not impossible to express this doctrine in personal terminology. Again the differences in terminology do not change the purpose, basis, or nature of the concepts. The only way in which ter­minological differences are significant is if ontological/metaphysical lan­guage implies a closer identity than personal language does. This might be the case if humans are seen as changing from a non-divine substance to the substance of God. Personal language does assume the continued existence of the individual rather than a loss of identity through union with another. Roman Catholic theology of the supernatural has been care­ful to retain human identity in its understanding of divinization.

Another difference between the Roman Catholic doctrine and the Wesleyan doctrine relates to the understanding of the nature of the dis­tinction between God and human existence. Roman Catholic thought has placed more emphasis on the distinction between human and divine natures while Wesleyan thought has stressed separation from God due to sin.

Roman Catholic theology of the supernatural begins with reflection on the difference between divine and human natures. Even though one of the characteristics of human nature is mortality due to sin, the metaphysi­cal claim that humans can become divine has received more attention. The metaphysical problem of how one nature can become another nature has challenged Roman Catholic theologians (Kenny 84). The concept of being Godlike, of participating in the divine, is meaningful only after the difficulty of relating a finite nature to an infinite nature is overcome. The initiative for overcoming this distinction comes from, and only from, the divine.

For the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification, the separation between divine and human existence occurs because of human sin and the continu­ing presence of sin in the believer’s life. While there may be an ontological difference, this is not the major issue. The need is for cleansing from sin, not for overcoming ontological barriers. Reconciliation occurs with God’s forgiveness as a result of Christ’s death, but the presence of sin hinders the full and complete relationship with God that is possible for the believer. After God has cleansed the believer from the power of sin, the possibility of ongoing and maturing fellowship with God becomes a reality.

One final difference exists. The Wesleyan theology of sanctification has always retained some sense of development or growth in holiness in relation to God. This emphasis becomes even more pronounced when Maddox uses terms such as “therapeutic” and “character formation” (Maddox, 1994, 23, 168). Roman Catholic theology, on the other hand, has tended to talk more about a state or type of relationship than a devel­opment. The beatific vision is not described in terms of an increasing insight into the nature of God. To be divinized means to be divinized wholly, not partially or incompletely. Even when the supernatural is understood in relational terms in Roman Catholic thought, the nature of the relation is described rather than the development of the relationship.

The comparison of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural and the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification shows that they share an understanding of divine action as divine presence making human response and communion with God possible. This relationship begins with divine action but does not conclude with only divine existence remaining because humans are empowered to act for God. While there are some differences in emphasis, terminology, and use of a concept of devel­opment, these differences do not change the basic similarities of the assumptions and understandings of the nature of the divine-human inter­action. These doctrines concretely affirm that the God/world relationship is one of ongoing significance for both partners in daily existence, as well as in reflections about the nature of each partner.

Roman Contributions to Wesleyan Thought

The comparison of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural and the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification offers insights which can be helpful in the development of the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification. One of these insights grows out of the Roman Catholic emphasis on God. Ontological/metaphysical language indicates the importance of God to human existence in a way that personal language cannot. Ontological lan­guage about being deals with the existence of God while personal lan­guage deals with relationships. Although Wesleyan theology has always affirmed the necessity of divine grace for salvation and sanctification, its focus on human experience has made it susceptible to strong cultural influences leading to excessive individualism.

The Roman Catholic emphasis on becoming Godlike provides an emphasis which supports the idea that entire sanctification as perfect love seeks to show love to God and neighbor. Acknowledging the ontological basis for relationship with God can assist Wesleyans in avoiding the indi­vidualism inherent in the subjective focus on personal preparation for sanctification without surrendering the interactive nature of the relation­ship between God and human beings. Wesleyans can thus avoid surren­dering the importance of the social aspect of holiness.

This comparison offers an additional insight which is especially helpful in maintaining a coherent Wesleyan theology in the face of other perspectives in contemporary Evangelical thought. The comparison of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural to the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification has shown a common understanding of God’s presence in human experience as action enabling significant human action. Other understandings of divine action make the significance of human action problematic.

Much of the contemporary Evangelical use of the concept of super­natural, for example, moves in a negative direction by making a sharp dis­tinction between the supernatural and the natural. This distinction becomes so complete that reality is understood to be composed of two realms, a divine and a human or natural. The agency in each realm is unique to that realm. While the assertion is made that God can and does act in the natural realm, God’s action is understood as an intervention which overrules the natural order[12] rather than an action which enables human action or acts without reference to human action.

The compatibility of the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification and the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supernatural avoids assuming an under­standing of God’s relationship to the world and individuals which results in either reducing the presence of God or the significance of human action. Wesleyan theology must avoid contemporary pressures to under­stand God’s presence in the world in ways which make human existence meaningless and incoherent. The best response to the search for meaning in our times is not to assert a divine determinism, but to recognize the graciousness of the divine presence.[13]

WORKS CITED

Alston, William P 1988. “The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.” In Philoso­phy and the Christian Faith, ed. Thomas V Morris, 121-131. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Bassett, Paul M. 1985. “From the Apostolic Fathers to Early Protes­tantism.” In The Historical Development, Paul Bassett and William Greathouse, 15-199. Vol. 2 of Exploring Christian Holiness. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City.

Cobb, John B., Jr. 1995. Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

de Lubac, Henri. 1967. The Mystery of the Supernatural. Trans. Rose­mary Sheed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Dieter, Melvin. 1987. “The Wesleyan Perspective.” In Five Views on Sanctification, Melvin Dieter et al., 9-46. Grand Rapids, MI: Zonder­van.

Fiorenza, Frances and John Galvin, eds. 1991. Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, vol. 2. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Greathouse, William. 1985. “From Wesley to the American Holiness Movement.” In The Historical Development, Paul Bassett and William Greathouse, 203-318. Vol. 2 of Exploring Christian Holi­ness. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City.

Kenny, J. P 1972. The Supernatural. Staten Island, NY: Alba House.

Maddox, Randy. 1987. “Karl Rahner’s Supernatural Existential: A Wes­leyan Parallel?” Evangelical Journal. 5(1987), 3-14.

Maddox, Randy. 1990. “John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy: Influences, Convergences, and Differences.” Asbury Theological Journal. 45:2, 29-53.

Maddox, Randy. 1994. Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical The­ology. Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, Abingdon Press.

McBrien, Richard P 1980. Catholicism. v. 1. Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press.

Peters, John L. 1985. Christian Perfection and American Methodism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Royo, Antonio and Jordan Aumann. 1962. The Theology of Christian Perfection. Dubuque, Iowa: The Priory Press.

Wesley, John. A Plain Account of Christian Perfection. Reprint, Kansas City, MO; Beacon Hill Press, 1971.

Endnotes:

[1] See Clark Pinnock, et. al., The Openness of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994). This book openly raises the issue of which understanding of God in contemporary Evangelicalism is the most faithful to biblical Christianity. See Randy Maddox (1994, 56) for a concise summary of the difference between Wesley and Calvinistic concepts of God.

[2] This often is referred to as the preternatural in Catholic theology and is distinguished from the supernatural.

[3] The doctrine is not found in Biblical or Patristic texts, but emerges in scholastic thought in the 11th century (Kenny 3).

[4] See the Table of Contents in Royo where the supernatural is considered in the chapter entitled “Sanctifying Grace.”

[5] The concept of “deification” comes from the Greek theological tradition and indicates that human existence becomes like God. Catholic theologians recognize the influence of Greek theology on the doctrine of the supernatural (de Lubac 275, Kenny 12).

[6] The term “theosis” or divinization can be understood in three ways: as pantheistic union, metaphorically and extrinsically, or literally and intrinsically. Orthodox thought understands “theosis” literally as participation in God’s activities and characteristics without a confusion of substance or loss of identity. Protestant thought generally takes a metaphorical approach and Roman Catholic theology leans in the direction of the Orthodox understanding. See Kevin Meagher, Thomas O’Brien, and Consuelo Aherne, 1979, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, vol. 3 (Washington, DC.: Corpus Publications), 3507.

[7] Cobb regrets that the emphasis on the instantaneous nature of sanctification has led at times to untenable positions emphasizing attainment of a state of perfection. According to Cobb, this has led much of Methodism to abandon the doctrine of perfection (109-111).

[8] Two of the most significant recent books on Wesleyan theology include the term “responsible” in their titles. They are Randy Maddox, Responsible Grace, and John Cobb, Grace and Responsibility.

[9] See Bassett, Maddox (1990, 1994), and Howard A. Snyder, “John Wesley and Macarius the Egyptian,” Asbury Theological Journal, 45:2, 55-60, for representative articles dealing with this relationship. The discussion has moved from the initial suggestion by Outler that this might be a fruitful avenue of research to Maddox’s proposal that Wesley can best be understood as a kind of mediating Anglicanism influenced by Greek theology (Maddox, 1994, 22-23, 66-67).

[10] LaVerne Blowers pointed out this difference to me.

[11] But see Bassett (148 n. 92) for a suggestion that more recent Catholic theology avoids this position. This perspective can also be seen in the move from ontological language to relational language in the development of the doctrine of the supernatural. Relational language moves beyond a state of being which is necessary for acceptance by God.

[12] Most popular evangelical definitions of miracle illustrate this under­standing and then generalize from divine action in miracles to all divine action. For a more careful statement from an evangelical perspective, see either William Abraham, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985), 152-164, or Michael Peterson, et. al., Reason and Religious Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 156-173.

[13] My colleagues Alan Padgett and Steve Wilkens provided me with invaluable assistance in developing and expressing my thoughts in this article.

Edited by Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2003 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.