FIFTH PRINTING, 1966

COPYRIGHT 1962 BY BEACON HILL PRESS

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS No. 62-14842

PRINTED IN THE U.S.A.

1981 Foreword

Great doctrines do not need protection as much as they need proclamation. The most effective defense of the “faith once delivered” is a spiritual offense. Again and again we must measure our message by the only absolute authority, the Word of God, and declare ourselves. Each generation must hear the age-old message with a prophet’s “Thus saith the Lord.”

The National Holiness Association has come to be recognized as the national and interdenominational voice of Wesleyan-Arminian theology. Associated with this organization, which will observe its centennial year in 1967, are most of the denominations often referred to as holiness churches. Many colleges, seminaries, camp meetings, state, county, and local organizations have auxiliary relationship.

The leadership of the National Holiness Association was led of God, and enthusiastically supported by the Administrative Board and by vote of the Ninety-third Annual Convention, in its program to sponsor a series of six seminars on holiness doctrine during the fall months of 1961. These seminars, designed especially for pastors and ministerial students, were held on the following campuses: Nazarene Theological Seminary, Kansas City, Missouri; Azusa College, Azusa, California; Western Evangelical Seminary, Portland, Oregon; Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky; Taylor University, Upland, Indiana; and Houghton College, Hough-ton, New York. Featured were scholarly and scriptural presentations of various topics in the general field of Wesleyan-Arminian theology and holy living or Christian experience. Each paper was followed by an objective discussion.

The response on the part of those in attendance was enthusiastic and many requests have been received to have these papers made available in printed form. The National Holiness Association is indebted to Beacon Hill Press for their interest and help in fulfilling these many requests. Their commitment to the propagation of this message parallels that of the National Holiness Association.

The reader should understand that these papers deal with assorted subjects. Their order as chapters in this book may or may not be logical. There was no collaboration on the part of the writers, who represent various denominations and a wide scope of Christian service, in the selection of topics or the development of the same. However, the basic unity within the framework of Wesleyan-Arminian theology is readily discernible.

In this first series of seminars there were a few duplications in the assignment of topics. Inasmuch as plans are being made for future seminars and future publications of this nature, we have decided against including two papers in this volume on the same subject. Thus some valuable material will be available for possible later volumes.

Thanks is hereby expressed to the many publishers who have given permission to use copyrighted quotations in this volume.

This volume is presented with the prayer that it may communicate the message of full salvation with the emphasis and terminology of the Bible. The old cliches are not sufficient for our times. Those of the Wesleyan-Arminian persuasion must be in the stream of dynamic Christian witness and they will be when this message is properly presented, experienced, and lived.

I would like to suggest a scriptural authority for the program that made this volume possible. In Acts, chapter two, we have recorded the glorious history of Pentecost, the coming of the Holy Spirit, and the beginning of a new dispensation. Peter’s sermon on that day provides a classic illustration of good preaching for all of us.

Peter identified this great event and the accompanying phenomena. He said, “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (v. 16).

This great message and divine Person were experienced. The experience was received by faith in the promise of God (v. 39) and brought with it both purity and power.

Pentecost was communicated. This was accomplished not by merely rehearsing the facts of Scripture but by a dynamic evangelism that was to characterize this new Church and turn “the world upside down.”

These papers are being shared with the prayer that men may recognize anew the fact that the message of full salvation is scriptural, that Pentecost may be personally experienced, and that when the Holy Spirit does cleanse and empower, effective evangelism always follows.

KENNETH GEIGER, President

NATIONAL HOLINESS ASSOCIATION

Acknowledgments

Every effort has been made to secure permission for quoted materials. Acknowledgment is made to all who have kindly granted this permission.

Quotations from the Holy Bible have been used with the permission of the following publishers:

Harper & Brothers, New York, New York: The Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech. Copyright, Harper & Brothers.

Thomas Nelson & Sons, New York, New York: Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible. Copyrighted 1946 and 1952 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches.

Oxford University Press, New York, New York: The New English Bible. Copyright, The Delegates of the Oxford University and the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1961.

Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Berkeley Version in Modern English. Copyright 1958,1959, Zondervan Publishing House.

Contents

Title Page

Copyright Page

Developments in Holiness Theology After Wesley

Dr. George E. Failing

The Carnal Nature

Rev. Merne A. Harris

The Wesleyan Arminian Teaching on Sin

Dr. William M. Arnett

Consecration and Crucifixion

Dr. Ralph Earle

Holiness—Crisis and Process

Dr. John E. Riley

Christian Perfection, Not Sinless Perfection

Dr. Delbert R. Rose

John Wesley’s Teaching on Christian Perfection

Rev. Ward M. Shantz

Holiness and the Human Element

Dr. Roy S. Nicholson

The Holy Spirit in the New Testament

Dr. Jesse F. Lady

The Holy Spirit and the Converted Man

Dr. Claude A. Ries

The Spirit-filled Life

Dr. Donald E. Demaray

The Gifts of the Spirit

Dr. Jared F. Gerig

Ethics and the Holiness Movement

Dr. Harold B. Kuhn

An Appraisal of the Keswick and Wesleyan Contemporary Positions

Dr. Everett L. Cattell

Needed—Neo-Wesleyanism

Dr. Walter H. Johnson

George E. Failing

Minister, Wesleyan Methodist church, and editor of the Wesleyan Methodist, Marion, Indiana; A.B., Houghton College; M.A., Duke University; Litt.D., Houghton College. Has served as pastor, Sunday school editor, college professor and administrator, camp meeting and Bible conference speaker. Author of Practical Bible Studies. Presently writing volume on I Corinthians, Evangelical Commentary.

Developments in Holiness Theology After Wesley

by George E. Failing

Holiness itself is incapable of development. This is true of that absolute holiness that is inherent in Deity.

In human experience, however, holiness is capable of development, through faith and obedience. It is also possible to gain better insights into that holiness, and to develop more accurate expressions of those concepts. Nothing is clearer from church history, I think, than that doctrinal statements about holiness have been more perfectly developed through the centuries—in particular since John Wesley.

In this paper I propose, with your patience and understanding, to share with you some of my observations on “Developments in Holiness Theology After Wesley.”

I

Protestantism doubtless owes its greatest debt to Luther. Structural theology owes a large debt to John Calvin. The apostle of perfection, of Christian holiness, however, was John Wesley. Perhaps no man since St. Paul has done more for the promotion of revivals and the deepening of the spiritual life of the Church than he.

What made John Wesley so great? One element was his unquenchable thirst for God, for holiness of heart and life. With all the love passion of an Augustine or a Bernard of Clairvaux, John Wesley pursued Christian perfection.

John Wesley was an explorer of continents of truth. He could not be accused, as can many of us, of holding only one corner of the truth. Though sometimes accused of making small matters great, it can never be said that he made great matters small. None of the structural timbers are missing from his foundation of biblical theology, and no cardinal truths were neglected in his sermons.

John Wesley did not merely enter upon the life of Christian holiness. He traveled that way for over fifty years, praying, preaching, observing, singing, and writing. He added to and subtracted from earlier statements or emphases. For example, he once taught (in the 1740’s) that the entirely sanctified were eternally secure. This he later retracted.

Furthermore, he once lumped together in one crisis experience deliverance from moodiness and human fears as well as from sinful impurities of nature. This position he later condemned, asserting that his previous statement had been strong, “far too strong.”

During his own lifetime Wesley strove mightily to maintain a sensible biblical standard for those professing to be made perfect in love. It is well known that he differed strongly with, though he highly respected, the gifted George Whitefield, a Calvinist by theological persuasion. It is also well known that he had to contend at times with fanatics, such as Maxfield and Bell, men who were unwilling to receive counsel from men or to receive discipline from God. It is not so well known that Wesley took repeated exception to the overstrong statements often made by his brother Charles. Charles, John believed, claimed too much for Christian perfection— an error John Wesley admits he himself had been guilty of in his early ministry. So when Charles Wesley wrote in his hymns—of the entirely sanctified— “All the struggle then is o’er,” and, “I wrestle not now,” John Wesley plainly observed, “These are two of my brother’s expressions, which I do not subscribe to.”

Furthermore, “I still think that to set perfection so high as you set it is to effectually renounce it…. The Son of God does not destroy the work of the devil in man, so long as he remains in this life. He does not destroy bodily weakness, sickness, pain.”

John Wesley maintained also some nice balances. For example, he balanced doctrine and experience. Unceasingly, John Wesley searched the Bible for doctrines of truth and unceasingly he observed the work of God in those to whom he preached. But always he went back to the Book!

Furthermore, John Wesley nicely balanced the instantaneous and gradual work of God in the soul. It had been so in his own life. Over a period of years the Holy Spirit had been leading him toward and preparing him for the Aldersgate crisis experience. The same was true regarding his own second crisis. It has been doubted, of course, that Wesley ever professed to be entirely sanctified. Some scholars categorically deny that he did. However, John Wesley left statements that can easily be understood to testify that he had entered into perfect love. Bishop Leslie R. Marston of the Free Methodist church believes that John Wesley received this grace within a year after his Aldersgate experience and quotes largely and convincingly from John Wesley’s Journal to support his position.[1] Other authorities incline to take the view that John Wesley entered this second crisis perhaps in 1744. John A. Wood held to this view, basing his observation on the December 23, 1744, entry in Wesley’s Journal.

John Wesley found “that there is a gradual work of God in the soul, and that, generally speaking, it is a long time, even many years, before sin is destroyed…. But we know likewise that God may, with man’s good leave, ‘cut short his work,’ in whatever degree He pleases and do the usual work of many years in a moment. He does so in many instances; and yet there is a gradual work, both before and after that moment. So that one may affirm the work is gradual, another, it is instantaneous, without any manner of contradiction.”[2]

John Wesley believed and taught that salvation is both a blessed, present glorious experience, introduced by two clear crisis entrances, and is also a solid expectation of better things. Thus, we have while we hope. We are not merely left to inherit future blessings, sometime—at death, for want of a better point at which to establish in us full redemption. Perfect salvation to Wesley was both present and future, attained and yet to be attained.

II

It may be surprising that this theological balance was early threatened—we might almost say, was early thrown off center—and that by Methodism’s first theologian, Adam Clarke.

A definitive study of genuine significance has been done in this field by John L. Peters in his book Christian Perfection and American Methodism. A similar and extremely helpful study may be found in Revivalism and Social Reform, written by Timothy L. Smith.

Adam Clarke, though a scholar in languages, was essentially an evangelist in doctrines. His book Christian Theology neatly packages and labels the various doctrines.

Chapter twelve of his volume on Entire Sanctification has been published separately through many editions.

Clarke emphasized almost exclusively the instantaneous phase of sanctification and quite neglected the growth phase. “In no part of the Scriptures are we directed to seek holiness gradatim (gradually, step by step). We are to come to God as well for an instantaneous and complete purification from all sin, as for an instantaneous pardon. Neither the gradatim pardon or the seriatim purification exists in the Bible.”

If that be true, then we have not read the Scriptures correctly. What are we to do with II Cor. 7:1? “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” What also shall we do with I John 1:7? “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” as we walk in the light. What is walking but a step-by-step progress, seriatim or gradatim, if you please, and are we not cleansed as we thus walk? A cleansed heart must be kept clean. The stream of water that cleanses a riverbed keeps that riverbed cleansed only as it flows in full and strong measure through it.

We agree that there is an initial cleansing in entire sanctification that should not require repetition. But a life follows that crisis. What are we to do then? Should we not, as Paul advises, “follow after charity” (I Cor. 14:1)? Are not other pardons needed (I John 1:9 and 2:1) and other purifications (I John 3:3)?

Perhaps Clarke ought to have taken more seriously Wesley’s caution, in a letter dated 1790: “To retain the grace of God is much more than to gain it. Hardly one in three does this. And this should be strongly and explicitly urged on all who have tasted of perfect love…. It is impossible to retain true love without growing therein.”

Clarke also included a bit too much in his claim for perfection. “This perfection is the restoration of man to the state of holiness from which he fell, by creating him anew in Jesus Christ, and restoring to him that image and likeness of God which he has lost.” Is indeed that total image recovered now? Adam Clarke does not sufficiently explain this.

More significantly, Clarke taught the immediate urgency of entering this second crisis now, on pain of losing your salvation. “Turn from every sin, give up every idol, cut off every right hand, pluck out every right eye…. Thy day is far spent, the night is at hand…. A month, a week, a day, an hour, yea, even a moment may send thee into eternity. And if thou die in thy sins, where God is thou shalt never come. Do not expect redemption in death…. The gate may appear strait; but strive and thou shalt pass through…. Hear his voice, believe at all risks, and struggle into God.”

But neither Wesley nor Fletcher was so bold and so demanding. They had more confidence in the providential guidance of God so far as His children are concerned.

In his Last Check, John Fletcher voices his confidence: “So long as a Christian believer sincerely presses after Christian perfection, he is safe, because he is in the way of duty; and were he to die at midnight, before midnight God would certainly bring him into Christian perfection or bring Christian perfection to him.”

The classic statement of John Wesley on this point, I think, may be found in his Works. It appears in a letter addressed to Miss H., dated Dublin, April 5, 1758.

The doctrine of perfection, you say, has perplexed you much, since some of our preachers have placed it in so dreadful a light; one of them affirming, ‘A believer, till perfect, is under the curse of God and in a state of damnation.’ Another, ‘If you die before you have attained it, you will surely perish.’

I am confident that every believer may attain perfection; yet I do not say, He is in a state of condemnation or under the curse of God, till he does attain. No! He is in a state of grace, and in favor with God, as long as he believes. Neither would I say, ‘If you die without it, you will perish.’ But rather, ‘Till you are saved from unholy tempers, you are not ripe for glory. There will, therefore, more promises be fulfilled in your soul before God takes you to Himself.’

‘But none can attain perfection unless they first believe it attainable.’ Neither do I affirm this. I know a Calvinist in London, who never believed it attainable, till the moment she did attain it; and then lay declaring it aloud for many days, till her spirit returned to God!

Were you to ask, ‘What if you should die this moment?’ I should answer, ‘I believe you would be saved; because I am persuaded, none that has faith can die before he is made ripe for glory.’ This is the doctrine which I continually teach….

Whatever warm expressions may drop from young men, we do not teach that any believer is under condemnation. All inferences drawn from this supposition fall to the ground at once.…[3]

These words would be John Wesley’s caution to his esteemed friend, Adam Clarke, in his (Clarke’s) immediate insistence on “Be perfect or perish!”

The position of Richard Watson came much closer to the teaching of John Wesley.

The second theologian of early Methodism was Richard Watson, whose work was contemporary with Clarke’s—though he was younger by twenty-one years. While Clarke probably isolated too completely the crisis experience of entire sanctification from the total walk of the Christian, Watson tended to emphasize the gradual by showing how regeneration led right into entire sanctification. “The regeneration which accompanies justification is a large approach to this state of perfected holiness; all dying to sin, all growth in grace, advances us nearer to the point of entire sanctity. This is so obvious, that on these points there can be no reasonable dispute.”[4] Watson believed the regenerate man was a holy man and that his holiness would increase.

However, Watson held that his views were “not at all inconsistent with a more instantaneous work, when, the depth of our natural depravity being more painfully felt, we plead in faith the accomplishment of the promises of God.”[5] Such holiness is attainable in this life, Watson held, but there was no safe terminal point for it. Life must go on and a person is to increase in love and holiness.

III

Transplanted to America, Methodism lost little of its emphasis on perfection. Before and after the organizing Christmas Conference of 1784, American Methodism reflected accurately the message of John Wesley.

Asbury and many of Methodism’s early pioneers faithfully proclaimed the doctrine of Christian perfection, and very many bore witness to the experience. But it is evident that the perfection emphasis began to decline swiftly, particularly after 1812, when the General Conference, in the interests of size and convenience, ordered that Wesley’s Plain Account of Christian Perfection and his tracts on Christian perfection be removed from future editions of the Discipline. Observes John L. Peters, “The practical result for the doctrine of Christian perfection was to remove its authorized delineation from widespread circulation and to place it in a less authoritative status. Moreover, during the twenty years in which the tracts were not published [separate volumes containing them did not appear until 1832], a generation or two of Methodist ministers were rounding out their doctrinal views.”[6] It may be doubted that the doctrine has ever since been officially and wholeheartedly reinstated in American Methodism.

Subsequent history bears this view out, we think. In the Pastoral Address delivered to the General Confrence in 1832, the bishops sadly confessed, “Why have we so few living witnesses that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin? … Among primitive Methodists, the experience of this high attainment in religion may justly be said to have been common; now, a profession of it is rarely to be met with among us.”[7]

IV

But the cry of the heart for holiness would not be quieted. Another movement had an extremely modest beginning. From two Methodist churches in New York City (Allen Street and Mulberry Street) several women joined together in a Tuesday Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness. Its sponsors were Mrs. Phoebe Palmer and Mrs. Sarah Langford. For four years it was open only to women, but in 1839 Mrs. Thomas C. Upham asked for the privilege of bringing her husband to the meeting. For over sixty years the Tuesday Meeting continued.

In 1837 Phoebe Palmer professed to be sanctified wholly and began to urge others into the experience. Mrs. Palmer was able, charming, devout, and circumspect. Dr. Nathan Bangs, twice offered the episcopal chair, said of her, “I feel it a duty to record my belief in the deep devotion and the intrinsic usefulness of this Christian woman.”

Strong and thoughtful person that she was, Mrs. Palmer was invited to assist in meetings. She began to develop what was called “the altar phraseology.” She used Paul’s figure in Rom. 12:1 that we should present ourselves sacrifices acceptable unto God. She reasoned this way: Christ is our Altar; He is the Sanctifier. We come and bring our gifts (ourselves) and place them on the Altar, namely, on Christ. When we do that, the Altar sanctifies the gift. Therefore we are at liberty to say, when we come to the altar, “Lord, I bring myself to Thee. I place my gift on the Altar. I accept Thy word of promise that the Altar sanctifies the gift. Therefore, I am sanctified.” Actually, this procedure comes very close to some current teaching concerning entrance into the justified experience. Take God’s word as it is stated, make your confession of faith in Christ, accept that word, and you are saved. It’s a proposition—one, two, three, and that’s it. To many of us, the formula is less than satisfactory.

Nathan Bangs, an outstanding American Methodist of the early nineteenth century who was also a clear witness to and exponent of Christian perfection, appreciated the work of Dr. and Mrs. Palmer and often attended their meetings. However, in attendance at a meeting on March 15, 1857, he was moved to exhort “against certain theories which have sometimes been broached here and elsewhere.” In particular, Bangs took strong exception to “the theory which teaches that we are to lay all upon the altar or surrender up our hearts to God by faith in Christ, and then believe that God has accepted, or does accept the offering, without our having evidence of the Holy Spirit that it is accepted, or having any change in our disposition, or any emotion of joy and peace, more than we had before, as being not sound, unscriptural and anti-Wesleyan.” Bangs denied that the Holy Scriptures constitute the evidence of personal sanctification, though indeed they are its promise and means. He warned that we must not believe we are accepted in Christ before we have a witness that we are.

Dr. Bangs frankly stated that “the error at which I aim is not a mere incidental error. It is, in my judgment, a fundamental one, as it strikes at the root of experimental religion. For if I may believe myself sanctified without any evidence of the Holy Spirit that the work has been wrought, I may believe anything else before I have any evidence of it, and this tends to destroy all rational and scriptural belief, as it supersedes the necessity of evidence in faith. I may believe or not, as whim, or fancy dictate.”[8] Dr. Bangs, according to his biographer, Stevens, left explicit and written charge that if any public use should be made of his autobiographical notes this important passage should not be omitted.[9]

It has been observed that the Palmer teaching was doubtless a reaction against Clarke’s emphasis on sanctification by self-striving, and again the increased number of special rules appearing in various conference Journals of the Methodist Episcopal church.

But revivals of holiness were not restricted to the Palmers’ work nor to the Methodist church. It is said by Dr. Peters in his book Christian Perfection and American Methodism that during the 1850’s camp meetings flourished so greatly that whole trains were chartered to take people to camp meeting. They went to camp meeting for the one purpose of learning about and entering the experience of holiness. Attendance at those camp meetings seems almost phenomenal. Forty thousand are reported to have attended one camp in Maine. As a result of that larger holiness movement John Inskip was sanctified in 1S64 while preaching on the experience in his own pulpit in Newark. He was destined soon to become president of the National Camp Meeting Association for the Promotion of Holiness, an organization which served an invaluable purpose in that particular period. For decades it made entire sanctification vocal throughout Methodism, across the length and breadth of the land, and interpenetrated many denominations.

In the 1850’s and 1860’s, to conclude this period, a sufficient number of Baptist ministers also experienced the second work of grace to begin a movement in their denomination. Among them was John Q. Adams, pastor of the North Baptist Church in New York. Adams found the blessing in Dr. Palmer’s house after a woman had shared with him a copy of William E. Boardman’s famous book, The Higher Christian Life. Brother Boardman was a Presbyterian. One of the outstanding holiness evangelists in the 1850’s and 1860’s was none other than A. B. Earle, a Baptist holiness evangelist. We can see, therefore, that between 1840 and 1870 there was a tremendous resurgence of the teaching of holiness and many entered into the experience. Later, holiness became so generally identified with interchurch fellowship that a call was issued for a national week of prayer. Parishioners began to deal with their pastors and urge them into the experience. From the rise of the N.H.A. in 1867 one would say that the doctrine was no longer found in the main stream of Methodism, not at least in large currents.

V

The history of the so-called modern “holiness movement” dates from the rise of the National Association for the Promotion of Holiness. That movement, historically, may roughly be divided into two periods: the “association” stage, from 1867 to about 1910; and the “denominational” period, from about 1910 until the present.[10]

For almost fifty years there were associations of holiness people, who retained membership in their local denominations. For many years the entirely sanctified were urged to remain in their local churches to “leaven the lump.”[11]

Then either one of two things happened—or perhaps both. (1) The “leaven” was unable to permeate the “lump,” and in some cases the “leaven” was cast out by the “lump.” (2) Those who met together so often in these holiness fellowships came to desire constant communion with one another and mutual support. Between 1890 and 1910 most of the present-day holiness denominations had their beginnings.

Theologically, within the Wesleyan groups there has been little variation during the century now closing. The statement of the Vineland group has remained unchanged and unchallenged by the holiness denominations originating during the past century.

Dr. A. M. Hills stated: “We are now prepared to give a formal definition of sanctification or Scriptural holiness, which would probably be accepted by the three hundred teachers and preachers in the National Holiness Association of America.… Entire sanctification is a second definite work of grace wrought by the Baptism with the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer subsequent to regeneration, received instantaneously by faith, by which the heart is cleansed from all corruption and filled with the perfect love of God.”[12] This statement was adopted by the General Holiness Assembly of 1885.

Is not this a restatement of Adam Clarke’s position? Can any comparable definition be found in Wesley’s works?

However, this past century did witness the rise of a new movement, coming out of the holiness movement, that developed a novel and distinct emphasis of its own. I refer to the Pentecostal movement. More about that later.

VI

The initial impetus of the holiness revival in mid-nineteenth century United States had passed when a new movement arose in England, initially within the Church of England—the same church that had given unwittingly to the world a son (Wesley) who in turn gave to the world its first full doctrinal statement on entire sanctification.

The Keswick movement was not started any more deliberately than the original Methodist movement.

In 1874 a devout and admirable vicar of St. John’s Church, Keswick, the late Canon D. T. Hartford Battersby, received a manifestly new gift of spiritual power. For long years he had not only labored for God, but had shone with the noble light of example as pastor in the parish and leader in all good works. Gradually and at length with calm conviction, he had arrived at the great evangelical experience of justification by faith. Yet, a sense of trying friction and restraint attended his own spiritual life. With some distrust he attended a remarkable convention held at Oxford in the summer of 1874. There, among other addresses and expositions, the incident of the nobleman at Cana was unfolded. It was shown that faith, in the nobleman’s experience, acted under two successive aspects. First, it carried the man from Capernaum up the hill to Cana seeking for the Lord. Then when he had got the Lord’s word of power, His mere assertion that the longed-for boon was given, faith carried him down from Cana to Capernaum resting on the Lord….

To Canon Battersby, the Oxford Meetings were the epoch of a practically new inward life. The old friction and bondage of the inner world were displaced by a wonderful repose and liberty, as regarded the relation of his will to the will of God. He found himself able, in a profound sense, to meet the most trying hours, not with a sigh but with a song.[13]

It is not amazing that Canon Battersby labored a bit before he entered into this experience, for John Calvin did not emphasize or magnify sanctification in anything like the sense we now know. Calvin was, and here are his own words, “alarmed at the monstrosity termed essential righteousness.” So strongly did he feel about this that he magnified imputed at the expense of imparted or infused holiness. Here is a quotation of his: “Our righteousness is not in ourselves, but in Christ, under the person of another, as Jacob and Esau. We conceal ourselves under the precious purity of Christ, our first-born Brother, having our vices covered and buried by His perfection.” To which we answer, There is no cleansing at all in that!

However, Dr. A. T. Pierson points out that

in the earliest years … the chief emphasis was placed upon the great matter of deliverance from the power of besetting sin, the attainment of victory in the little conflicts of everyday life and conduct…. Many spoke of this deliverance as a “second conversion” … It was very noticeable that the first step toward this new life was commonly negative rather than positive.[14]

Some outstanding men were associated with the early and the developing Keswick movement. They have left us some of the finest devotional literature obtainable. Among early leaders may be named Dr. Arthur T. Pierson, author of Shall We Continue in Sin? recently republished by Zondervan under the title Vital Union with Christ.

Take F. B. Meyer, one of the sweet saints of God, Keswick by faith, a man who was committed to holiness in heart and life, though at certain points his definition would deviate from ours. Nonetheless, he made a full and utter commitment of himself to the Lord. Permit him to speak for himself.

“We shall never be absolutely sinless in this world, [we must take these words as Meyer means them] because [accepting the Westminster definition of sin] sin is a coming short of God’s glory as well as a violation of His will, but we may be delivered from conscious sin. Always there will be in us a susceptibility to evil, always the presence of the tempter and always the liability to fall. The height of the absolutely holy will always tower above us in the blue sky, but in spite of all we may be kept from known and conscious sin in the holy sight of God. Judged by His perfect standards, our best will be full of infinite deficiency, but up to the measure of our knowledge we may walk before Him in holiness and righteousness all our days; never faultless in this world, we may yet be blameless. We shall always need the precious blood to cleanse us from sin which God’s eye may discern, even if it is hidden from ours. The work which our Lord did for His disciples, when He girded himself and washed their feet, we shall always need Him to do for us, but we may walk with God in the sweet consciousness that there is no known controversy between Him and us.”[15]

Another classic writer of the Keswick movement was Andrew Murray, who wrote on Absolute Surrender, Humility, the Beauty of Holiness, The Power of the Blood of Jesus, The Two Covenants or the Second Blessing. Some Keswick writers did affirm specifically a second blessing, even using those words.

The movement continues and one cannot but thank God for it. I have read a number of their classic works, such as Keswick’s Authentic Voice, edited by Herbert F. Stevenson and published in 1959 by Zondervan (Grand Rapids); and The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life, by Evan H. Hopkins, published in 1952 by The Sunday School Times (Philadelphia).

The early Keswick movement gave to the Christian world stalwarts of the deep devotional life, men like H. C. G. Moule, George Mueller, Evan Hopkins, Theodore Monod, Hudson Taylor, W. H. Griffith Thomas, J. Stuart Holden, W. Graham Scroggie, R. A. Torrey, A. C. Dixon, S. D. Gordon, and many more. In more recent times the following may be mentioned: Alan Redpath, L. E. Maxwell, Charles G. Trumbull, Theodore Epp, G. Allen Fleece, William Culbertson, V. Raymond Edman, and C. Stacey Woods.

It is important to bear in mind an observation made by Dr. Richard Taylor of the Nazarene Theological Seminary. “While the Keswick teaching flourishes chiefly among those of Calvinistic persuasion, there is nothing in the distinctive message of Keswick that requires a commitment to Calvinism.”

VII

The final development may be called the Pentecostal movement.

This movement, Pentecostal writers claim, is as old as the Christian Church. Some believe Montanism, in the late second century, to be its earliest and typical embodiment. The present movement, however, traces its origin back to the holiness revivals which took place in the United States and Canada toward the end of the nineteenth century.

The early apostles of this movement, though regarding the Jerusalem bestowment of the gift of tongues as normal and permanent throughout this dispensation of the Spirit, found in Acts 2 the prophecy of a particular and widespread fulfillment to occur at the end of the Christian era, just before the second coming of Christ.

Dr. Ch. Wardi states in the May, 1961, issue of Christian News from Israel:

Modern Pentecostalism is sometimes viewed as a left wing of the Holiness Movement which was started shortly after the American Civil War. In fact, both “wings” have in common the fundamental doctrines of the Arminian churches…. But what in particular distinguishes the Pentecostalists is their emphasis on the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, and especially their belief in baptism in the Holy Spirit…. Baptism in the Holy Spirit obviously is an ecstatic experience, accompanied and signalized by the speaking in an unknown tongue and sometimes also manifested by other charismatic gifts, such as prophecy and healing…. Many Pentecostalists consider the work of the Holy Spirit an important factor in the dispensational scheme of world history. History, according to this view, has known several dispensations, the sixth one having begun about 1890, when a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit occurred.

Perhaps the most recent and authentic reference work is Klaude Kendrick’s The Promise Fulfilled. He writes:

The Holiness Movement made two contributions that prepared fertile ground from which [a] modern Pentecost could ultimately spring. First, it introduced to American religion a new interest in “spiritual experiences” subsequent to the “crisis-experience” of salvation, and, second, it produced another wave of motor phenomena which included “tongues.”

The scriptural phrase “Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” which was to have an important significance in the Pentecostal movement, was popularized as the name for the experience of sanctification, or “second blessing.” … The Holiness Movement stimulated in its worship unusual motor phenomena that apparently contributed to a new interest in tongues…. The more or less isolated instances of “tongues” indicate that during the time of the Holiness revival this particular expression of religious enthusiasm once more made its appearance in widely scattered localitics in America. For the most part this unusual manifestation (speaking in “tongues”) passed unnoticed.[16]

In particular, the Pentecostal movement is indebted “to the Holiness Movement for four major doctrinal tenets—salvation, sanctification, faith healing, and premillennialism—and for the practice of enthusiasm, all of which were to become fundamentals of the modern Pentecostal Movement.”[17]

The beginning of the modern Pentecostal revival dates from January 1, 1901, when Agnes Ozman received the gift of tongues.

Although Agnes Ozman was not the first person in modern times to speak in “tongues,” she was the first known person to have received such an experience as a result of specifically seeking a baptism in the Holy Spirit with the expectation of speaking in tongues. From this time Pentecostal believers were to teach that the “baptism in the Holy Spirit” should be sought and that it would be received with the evidence of “tongues.”[18]

Characteristics of the early days of the Pentecostal movement are listed as follows: (1) a strong feeling against church membership rolls; (2) unusual musical programs, not directed by anyone but carried forward by the suggestions of various members of the congregation; prearranged, rehearsed numbers were not allowed; (3) no one person was designated to preach— “thus the less able and inhibited would preach more frequently”; (4) no public solicitation for money; (5) free exercise of religious enthusiasm, particularly freedom of physical expression in praise, shouting, weeping; (6) the movement was very evangelistic and missionary-minded.[19]

Interestingly enough, no occurrence of tongues is ever recorded under the ministry of John Wesley, though healings were sometimes mentioned. Once, in a long letter to the Reverend Dr. Hamilton, Wesley records his own faith that apostolic gifts were available to the Church today under the same conditions that prevailed then. Wesley particularly denied that spiritual gifts were the common possession of all believers and stated that “where all are of one mind, and all speak the same language,” the gift of tongues is “of no use.”

It should be pointed out that many of the Pentecostal faith do not hold to the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification. In fact, Dr. Kendrick observes that the position taken with reference to the doctrine of entire sanctification actually separates the Pentecostals into two groups. Both believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second crisis, evidenced by speaking in tongues, but at least one large group does not teach that the second crisis experience cleanses the heart from all sin. They rather hold to “the baptistic view that sanctification is imputed in the experience of salvation, thus eliminating ‘the second experience’ of the perfectionists.”[20]

VIII

I have reviewed these movements: the Wesleyan movement; the post-Wesleyan movement characterized by Adam Clarke’s theology; the movement under the Palmers; the N.H.A. movement; the Keswick movement; the Pentecostal movement. I have chosen these because they seemed to represent to me significant developments in holiness theology since John Wesley.

All of these linger with us. The holiness movement, evidently, is in no danger of dying out. Much of the Palmer emphasis may be seen in the Keswick movement. Adam Clarke’s emphasis and the N.H.A. position seem to dominate the theological field among Wesleyan-Arminian groups. The cautions of Wesley and Fletcher and the observations of Richard Watson seem to be worth our reconsideration. The Keswick movement advances, chiefly among the Baptists and Presbyterians, and others of Calvinistic persuasion. And there can be no doubt that the group making the largest membership gains currently are the Pentecostals.

My explanation of the strength of the modern Pentecostal movement is (1) the “coldness” of holiness denominations, (2) the lingering liberalism of much of Protestantism, and (3) the current failure of the Keswick movement to teach real deliverance from the power and practice of sin. Pentecostalism is the “protest” movement of our day.

Merne A. Harris

Minister, Wesleyan Methodist church; vice-president and dean, Vennard College, University Park, Iowa; U.S.L., Chicago Evangelistic Institute; B.A., William Penn College; M.A., Drake University. Has served as pastor and general evangelist, college professor and administrator. Presently serving as seminary dean for National Holiness Association convention.

The Carnal Nature

by MERNE A. HARRIS

Several years ago I was invited to present a series of sermons on the subject of holiness at one of our established holiness camps. The response was one for which I was totally unprepared and occasioned a disquieting sense of uneasiness. Many who had heard the series admitted that, although they had been regular attendants at that camp for many years, and faithfully attended a holiness church at home, it had been years since they had heard any systematic presentation of the subject of holiness.

This summer a missionary on furlough who had traveled extensively in the United States in his deputation responsibilities confessed to me his concern over the holiness movement. It was his report that in all his travels, visiting various holiness camps and churches, he had heard little definite holiness preaching. He had, in fact, heard much which would be classified as being in opposition to that emphasis, albeit the speakers were occupying holiness pulpits.

Just a few weeks ago I sat in an assembly of ministers representative of the holiness movement. When asked to give witness as to the specific nature of their relationship with God, less than one-fourth of these holiness preachers gave any indication that they were conscious of the sanctifying grace of God in their own lives, or that they were diligently striving to lead others into such an experience.

These experiences, widely separated with reference to time and space, and yet plainly related in their underlying significance, have caused me to engage upon some serious introspection as relates to the holiness movement, of which I freely confess to being a part. For if these experiences are at all indicative of the current state of our holiness emphasis (and I regretfully believe they are), then we are guilty of a serious failure. But we have heard this so often that the indictment has become something of a cliche with us. Perhaps the entire atmosphere of our present discussion ought to derive from a deeper sense of failure than we have up to the present admitted, so that our penitence can be the more thorough and our attempts to make restitution more relevant.

The specific nature of our negligence will reveal that seriousness of our failure which I believe must be revealed.

First of all, let it be stated that the modern holiness movement owes its birth and its right to continued existence in a singular way to the message of the sanctified life. Church history teaches us that God has often raised up groups to proclaim specific message, and that their failure to fulfill that mission has sounded the death knell of their effective ministry. Such was John Wesley’s persuasion as it related to the early Methodists:

In 1729 my brother Charles and I, reading the Bible, saw we could not be saved without holiness, followed after it, and invited others to do so. In 1737 we saw that holiness comes by faith. In 1738 we saw that men are justified before they are sanctified; but still holiness was our object—inward and outward holiness. God then thrust us out to raise up a holy people. This doctrine is the grand depositum which God has lodged with the people called Methodists; and for the sake of propagating this chiefly he appears to have raised us up.[1]

What Wesley said of the early Methodists can well be said of later holiness groups—the doctrine of holiness is the “grand depositum which God has lodged with our people; for the sake of propagating this chiefly he appears to have raised us up.”

More important than the welfare or future of a movement, however, are the spiritual welfare and future of its people. Herein is lodged the second concern which I feel should occasion deep remorse at our failure to sound a clarion call to a holy life. If there is any ascendant duty which befalls the holiness preacher, it is an obligation to present the message of redemption in such a way that it appropriates fully the provisions of Christ’s death and antidotes totally man’s problem of sin. It is our persuasion that these two factors find their best and most perfect union in the preaching of the sanctified life as a second crisis experience productive of the fullest degree of spiritual victory mortal man can know. Brethren, what a serious offense to willingly withhold from our charges a truth that we know can set them free indeed!

But all of this I presume you have heard before. Accordingly, I am anticipating one of two responses. Either you are ready to slip back into a mood of nonchalant irresponsibility at the spectacle of another prophet “who has come to point out your already-known shortcomings, or you are even now mentally challenging me to produce some constructive remedies for the problem I have raised.

I hope the latter is the case. I also fervently pray God the Holy Spirit will help all of us as we focus our attention upon this serious issue. Admitted the seriousness of our failure, what fair conclusion can be drawn from the incidence of our negligence in this area?

Do you recall the adage, “Faint heart never won fair lady”? This may be more related to our problem than you would at first suspect, for underneath the triteness of the saying there is to be found a fundamental principle applicable to the communicating of ideas. To that swain who is sure of his ground and is willing to press that advantage there is the distinct possibility of success. To that holiness preacher who is sure of his ground and is willing to press that advantage there is the distinct possibility of success. The key is the first part of the statement: “who is sure of his ground.”

This I contend to be basic to our problem. If we have ceased testifying to, preaching about, and leading folk into the experience of holiness it is because we are unsure of our ground. Too many questions remain, questions which serve to check us on at least two counts: (a) We are afraid someone might ask us a question about the doctrine which we could not answer, and we are unwilling to suffer that blow to our ministerial dignity and ego, or (b) We are too intellectually honest with ourselves to preach to others a truth about which we have serious doubts ourselves. And out of the wide spectrum of uncertainties, none is so devastating as our intellectual fuzziness as to the nature of sin. Now nothing could be more basic to the doctrine, but by the same token, how utterly catastrophic to the structuring of any significant holiness theology or ministry is any uncertainty in this area!

It is not that we are illiterate as to the basic beliefs integral to our whole system of theology. All of us are familiar with the traditional concepts in which we were well schooled during our academic encounters, having learned well such definitions as this one stated by Dr. Jessop:

Man has a sinful nature. He is born with an inclination or tendency to evil. His heart is wrong; he prefers his own way to God’s way. This depravity or disposition to sin affects every part of man’s being, and it renders him unable by his own efforts, to deliver himself.[2]

Or the statement of H. Orton Wiley, that eminent scholar identified recently by Christianity Today as an “Arminian Theologian”:

The condition of the regenerate, therefore, previous to entire sanctification, is in a modified sense, a mixed state. There is within the heart of the believer, both grace and inbred sin.[3]

Nothing wrong with these beliefs, but how do we proceed to make them relevant to the thinking and the needs of the man of today? Until we can do this, we are in no position to begin to preach a message which has as its chief objective the handling of the “nature of sin.”

Generally three question areas arise when a discussion of the nature of sin is presented: (a) What is the nature of sin? (b) What can be done about the nature of sin? and (c) What areas of spiritual challenge remain after God has dealt with the nature of sin?

What Is the Nature of Sin?

Since lexicographers justify our doing so, it will facilitate matters if we begin this phase of the study by introducing a correlative term for the nature of sin, namely, the carnal nature.

This is obviously valid when it is remembered that our goal is not an evaluation of the nature of sin, but rather an attempted understanding of the sin nature. Variously described by ecclesiastical bodies as “an incentive to sin,” “the sinful nature,” “this infection of nature,” “tendencies to evil,” “an inclination to evil,” the fundamental idea is the same: There is something innate to born-again believers which is causative of further spiritual difficulty. Since it is thus correctly described as antispiritual in nature, it is valid, as will later be evident, to use the term “carnal” rather than “sin” nature.

It now becomes imperative that we arrive at a definition of the terms so employed.

A common definition of the term “carnal” is nonspiritual or, more forcefully, antispiritual. To speak of a carnal nature, then, is to refer to a nature which is, by virtue of its very character, antispiritual in its few or several manifestations.

It is true that the word translated “carnal” in the New Testament is derived from the Greek word sarx, which in its most literal interpretation means “fleshly.” Thus it has been argued that the term carnal is applicable to the behavior of the unregenerate. Actually this is true; but we must also bear in mind the fact that the fleshly nature, blamed for the unspiritual behavior of the unregenerate, will continue to produce after its own kind until removed. This we know does not occur at regeneration; for the careful student, Paul, referred to a group of believers as carnal.

Nature is fundamentally the possession of identifying traits. If we apply the definition in a less abstract sense and relate it to a person, we would say that an individual’s nature consists of his identifying traits observed or deduced as a consequence of a variety of experiences.

Drawing the two related concepts together, we are now able to state our definition as follows: The carnal nature is defined as the evidencing of identifying traits which are antispiritual. The definition assumes horizontal scope when we make it applicable to human behavior, and the definition assumes relevance when we apply it to Christians, making the definition descriptive of their behavior.

Of course, we must be assured in our minds that such an application of the definition is valid. Unless you are dedicated to those philosophic systems of the day which deny the validity of assigning moral judgment to the acts of man, it is a correct procedure to speak of human behavior as being antispiritual. And unless you are totally unaware of the teachings of the Bible, most especially those of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 7:14; 8:7; 15:27; I Cor. 3:1, 3-4), you will agree that such a definition can be applied to the behavior of Christians.

However, it is my present contention that the whole matter of the validity of applying the term carnal nature to humans will be resolved when once we explore areas in which the activity of that nature can be clearly isolated.

To do this will first of all require a simple understanding as to the elements which are always present in any situation involving human behavior, spiritually oriented or not.

Perhaps most of us have at some time or other wondered why we act the way we do. From the field of psychology we learn that human behavior follows a consistent sequence: the stimulus plus the response is equal to or causative of the reaction.

All of us are capable of receiving stimuli or suggestions that some response ought to be forthcoming. In fact, we may be conscious of more than one stimulus at a time, and these quite often will be stimuli of a conflicting nature, i.e., to do something “good” or to do something “bad.”

The strength of the respective stimulus will be dependent upon the desirability which it communicates. That stimulus with the stronger desire attached will receive, under normative conditions, the preferential consideration.

This moves us into the next area, that of the response. What determines the response that will follow the perception of the stimulus? The fixing of a value. So out of the welter of stimulus demands there is one (for we can follow only one at a time) which gets the nod. And it receives our favorable consideration because to our own established value system the stimulus has merit or worth.

Hence the reaction. Or at least one would expect that to be the next development. But, strange as it may seem, the human individual does not always follow the predicted course of action. For some reason, unintelligible to both observer and individual, the desired and valued stimulus is sometimes not eventuated by the will. There is a reaction but not the one that might have been anticipated.

I hope you are quick to perceive the application that can be made in the area of spiritual living and more specifically in our understanding of the carnal nature. Since the term carnal nature does involve behavioral situations with spiritual connotations, we can aptly apply the S-R-R (Stimulus-Response-Reaction) formula in an attempt to isolate the evidences of the carnal nature in the maze of human behavior.

As a beginning, let us assign more readily usable terms to the ideas we have borrowed from the field of psychology, since giving the terms a theological orientation will not violate their basic meaning. The beginning desire we will term affections. The authenticating value judgment we are soon to discover can be identified as the self, while the eventuating aspect of the personality is most certainly the will.

Now to further expedite our discovery of the carnal nature in action, we will add the descriptive adjective carnal to each of our key terms. We are now ready to state our central thesis: that the carnal nature is clearly evidenced in those behavioral experiences of spiritually motivated people as we observe the integrated relationship of the carnal affections, the carnal self, and the carnal will.

Earlier it was stated that basic to all behavior is desire. Presently we have taken the liberty of using the term affection rather than desire. The transition must be justified at this point.

It is true that all behavior originates with desire, but in order to introduce the elements of moral choice and spiritual value into our evaluation of human behavior, we will find it necessary to differentiate between desire as a physical compulsion and desire as an affectional goal. Representative of the first category would be such behavior complexes as the physiological processes of eating, drinking, resting, and procreation. While it is true that there should be interjected the moral and spiritual qualities appropriate to such activities, it is scarcely correct to say that such drives are the result of an affection for the activity under question.

But when we come to the realm of affectional goals we have quite a different situation confronting us. This is more than a physically related drive; this is a demanding goal, the attainment of which commands a thorough involvement of the emotional aspects of the personality. It is, in fact, a realm which C. S. Lewis declares will even supersede the demands of a physical drive.[4]

Apparent to the Christian is the importance of individual affectional objectives being spiritually geared, if spiritually acceptable behavior is to ensue. But we must avoid generalities—a weakness at which we in the holiness movement have been altogether too proficient—and relate exactly how the influence of carnal affection becomes apparent as we observe the life of the unsanctified.

Is it not basic to the Christian life to assume that there should be, after conversion, an affection for spiritual things? To me, it seems that this trait is a foregone predicate of spiritual living after conversion has taken place. But we have evidences in the average church situation which indicate that such is not generally the case among the born-again. In fact, one of the chief tasks of the clergyman today is the introduction of subtle, or sometimes not so subtle, devices to compel an expression of this anticipated affection for the spiritual. God’s Word, God’s house, and God’s people are all sources where the spiritual desires can be satisfied. And yet these are not the objective of many of today’s Christians. In such a person the affectional system is out of kilter—it is carnal because instead of evidencing spiritual traits it gives evidences of a disturbing antispiritual trait—a distaste for spiritual things.

Further, is it not right to expect that the regenerate would respond with alacrity to the demands of stewardship—that practical measure of our affections? Despite the logic of this claim, we must admit that the norm shows little of the speedy response that we would anticipate. On the contrary, the sound of murmuring and demurring is too often heard. Here again the affections are wrongly centered; they are carnal because instead of evidencing the spiritual trait of glad stewardship they evidence the carnal trait of greedy selfishness.

Or consider the individual who expresses an unwillingness to accept the criteria of Christian living, accepting in their place the triple threat to effective Christian witness in this age—lukewarmness, compromise, and backsliding. Certainly there must be an alloy in the love, for pure love would not quibble in the light of an opportunity to effectively demonstrate the change that being a Christian must be. But more than the presence of an alloy is detected—we see here the certain evidences of a carnal nature when affection is seriously debilitated to the point where identification, a sure mark of affection, is no longer wanted. Consequent of all this—an affectional system which delays spiritual pursuits, defaults in stewardship, and dislikes standards—is the hopelessness of a rewarding Christian life. Never can the right choices be made and the right actions ensue when the affections are so seriously misdirected. Our problem in a nutshell is this: We do not love as we ought to love. Such was the problem of Demas. He had behavioral troubles— “hath forsaken me”—because he had affectional troubles — “having loved this present world.”

The Carnal Self

The second phase of the behavior trilogy is the assigning of value to the suggested simulus. This is vital, for more than one of the stimuli can match the affectional makeup of the individual. Some basis of choice, then, other than emotional acceptance, must be discovered before volitional activity can occur. Hence the need for a value judgment. At this point it is interesting to note that a helpful interpretation of self is that it is the value-fixing mechanism of the personality. The development of this condition and its operation will prove relevant to this project.

Upon entering the world, the baby finds it, to the best of our knowledge, a vague blur—a “blooming buzzing confusion.” As he begins to mature and to find order in his environment, one of the most important things he learns is a concept of self.[5]

The child psychologist, Strand, describes one phase of this process uniquely:

It is a notable day when he first realizes that his toes belong to him instead of to the world in general. He is doubtless perplexed during the first year by the fact that his shoes come off at night while his feet do not.[6]

But the significance of the developing self-concept is reflected not so much in the differentiation, integration, and ultimate individuation which it produces, but in the intrinsic dynamics of the concept. For once this stage has been reached, every contact with one’s environment becomes a value-fixing situation. The demands for response must now all meet the acid test of “as I see it” or “as it looks to me.” Self-considerations are, in fact, the only frame of reference at the disposal of the individual. For this it is useless to condemn him—he is only fixing values as his total experience up to now has conditioned him to do. Accordingly we have learned to accept the value judgments which, while they may be unwanted, are none the less the normal consequence of the decisions of self. In an infant we accept it in the form of crying for a bottle or a change. In children we accept it in the form of cruel selfishness or retaliatory efforts to get one’s own way. In adolescents we accept it as the inevitable price of growing up when pettiness and self-centeredness seem to dominate every decision. And even in adults, we have convinced ourselves that there are some persons, far beyond the stages of infancy, childhood, and adolescence, who are just plain selfish. We mean that every decision of life is made in the light of the greatest pleasure or benefit to the individual, irrespective of the legitimate claims of others. This much can be said—these patterns are consistent with the lifelong activity of making judgments according to one frame of reference— self-consideration.

Transferring this faculty to the spiritual realm of life, we can clearly understand the self is unavoidably the source of much of the spiritual instability. Herein lies the fatal area of betrayal. In the response to be given conflicting stimuli—good and bad, spiritual and antispiritual—the unsanctified Christian has a preconditioned value-making mechanism working against his spiritual choices—a tyrannical carnal self.

Many ministers are painfully aware of the evidences of carnal self; we contact them with distressing regularity in the discharge of pastoral duties. Let a few of them be listed to refresh our minds on this score.

1. Self-justification—unable to accept God’s will or His reproofs

2. Self-evaluation—power seeking, pride, prestige

3. Self-indulgence—laziness, sensuality, creature comforts

4. Self-exaltation—strange phenomena where God’s will becomes pitted against our personal frame of reference

5. Self-exoneration—I am right; none dare contradict me

Perhaps some terms, descriptive of the ramifications of the above traits, will sound familiar to you—cowardly, hardened, immovable, insensitive, proud, comfort-loving, selfish, critical, backbiting, censorious, angry, jealous. If you are astute in your judgments, you will note that every one of these earthly evidences of the carnal nature can be traced right back to the precluded decisions of the carnal self.

The Carnal Mind

Let us recall the third phase of the behavioral syndrome upon which our exposition of the carnal nature has been based. Once a decision has been made as to which of the stimuli demanding attention is to be heeded—as a result of the combined influence of affection and self— the proposed activity must be implemented. Here we encounter the most recalcitrant aspect of the personality, it seems to me—the will. For, confronted by a stimulus, and convinced by a value judgment, the will yet exercises its peculiar sovereignty and acts only if it will do so.

The source of this dynamic authority we do not pretend to understand. Psychologists are content to simply term it the “motivation force of the personality,” but its influence in the total spectrum of human behavior is quickly seen. It is as though the will were to paraphrase the words of the Saviour and declare to the whole individual, “For without me ye can do nothing.”

The spiritual implications of this situation should be obvious to us. Paul was quick to understand the situation when he declared that the carnal mind was not subject to the law of God. The use of the term mind is justifiable since the mind is defined as the center of and the source of volitional activity—the precise function of the will. J. G. Bringdale used to declare that, if the carnal mind was not subject to the law of God, it certainly was not going to be subject to the desire of man. So we are confronted by this militant force in our lives which retains the right to sabotage any spiritual pursuit we may set forth.

The most basic of God’s requirements for His people is that we should do His will. Assuming there is the stimulus of an affection for His will and further assuming the validation of the self in its value-fixing activity, the anticipated behavior can yet be stymied by the will, which may, for reasons known only to itself, subvert all previous data and simply refuse to do the will of God. Can it not be observed with accuracy that this is one of the key areas of difficulty in the lives of many Christians today? We freely admit to the logic of doing the will of God, but there is not the freedom of the human will to accomplish the divine will.

This I submit to be the definition of and the working of the carnal nature. I believe it to be the evidencing of unspiritual traits which are demonstrated in the lives of born-again believers. Those traits seem to follow the pattern of human behavior in general— basic desire, authenticating value, and activating will. When these terms are identified as carnal affection, carnal self, and carnal mind, they open up an illuminating expose of the activities of the carnal nature—a source of defeat to the individual Christian, a discredit to the cause of Christ, and a denial of the provision of the Calvary atonement.

Such traits so condemned would include a lack of desire for spiritual things, an unwillingness to accede to the demands of Christian stewardship, and a reluctance to be identified with behavior patterns commensurate with our understanding of the Christian life. Further, this carnal nature evidences itself in decisions which are distinctly self-related, giving those unlovely character traits which Paul described in Galatians 5 as being the evidences of the fleshly (non-spiritual) life. The capstone of the whole problem is reached when we discover the sovereign of them all—the carnal will. It is this intangible yet dynamic aspect of humankind which is in the final analysis responsible for human behavior. And so the triple threat to effective Christian living—carnal affections, self, and will.

Let me pause to remind us that these are the problems with which we daily come to grips, perhaps personally but most assuredly in our ministry. More adequate than a reappraisal of our beliefs or a restatement of our position would be a reaffirmation of our problem. Regenerate man is afflicted with a carnal nature, and that nature, operative through the normal routine of overt behavior, is the blight of the holiness church of today. Ours is the challenge to live and to preach a dynamic message of destruction of this unwonted thing which through its domination of the affectional, self, and volitional aspects of the personality is the occasion of so much spiritual distress.

This challenge opens another area of inquiry, anticipated earlier in this chapter, but now appropriate to our discussion.

What Can Be Done About the Carnal Nature?

Any discussion which raises with ease problems to be handled but then closes without postulating answers must be considered a useless endeavor. To avoid that criticism being applied to this presentation, I should now like to direct your attention to the remedy for the problem—a delightful task indeed.

May I suggest again that we must move far beyond the cliches which have long marked our movement. Reference is not here made to terms which are relevant and meaningful, such as consecration and cleansing, but rather to phrases which are pious and possibly graphic but devoid of any practical content for the thinking seeker. And even the use of these two acceptable terms will serve little purpose unless we can show their connection with everyday behavior—the paramount issue to the needy.

Bear in mind the fact that we are, in our problem, dealing with a threefold entity— carnal affections, carnal self, and carnal mind.

But now we will begin at the opposite end of the continuum, where the regal will reigns supreme. Obviously, any progress toward the solution of the problem of the carnal nature must begin there; for even if desires and self are totally harmonized with spiritual desire, the will has the unassailable veto power. As we well know, there is but one answer to the problem of the carnal will, and that answer is covered by the all-inclusive term surrender. Here is the act of consecration which has long been identified with the holiness movement. Here is that yieldedness of will which we have often admonished upon our people. We do not speak of a broken will or a destroyed will. No man would be worth his salt in spiritual endeavor if such a thing could ever occur. But we do speak of a yielded will and a submissive will— a will mystically transformed in its objectives once it performs that inexplicably powerful act of surrender to a higher Sovereign—Almighty God.

But, and here is the real distinctive of the holiness movement as we know it today, consecration alone is not the answer. Even as good desires and high values cannot be activated without a yielded will, neither can a yielded will properly direct itself without desires and values which are totally Christian in their every frame of reference. And since the far-removed areas of desire and value seem unapproachable to the individual, it is at this point that God steps into the picture. To enable us to eventuate the promises of a now-yielded will, God cleanses the heart of its unspiritual desires and of its unspiritual value system.

In the electric thrill of this statement, let us not let enthusiasm rob us of proper discrimination. No individual is to feel that this great cleansing of God’s grace removes all desire; it sanctifies it—makes it clean. Nor is it valid to pray for or to testify to the fact that the self has been destroyed in sanctification. We cannot tolerate such an event, for without the self how shall we make those value judgments so necessary to probationary existence? No, let us be content with declaring that our God cleanses the self of wrong affectional pulls and erroneous value standards. Then the stimulus to love wrong—when actually understood as a stimulus—does not exist. The values which would lead to antispiritual judgments do not exist. Enhanced is the ability of the will to carry out every pledge of the moment of consecration.

What Areas op Spiritual Challenge Remain After God Has Dealt with the Carnal Nature?

To finalize our discussion of the carnal nature, we should note some concepts which cannot be equated with the carnal nature and are not, therefore, to be considered as settled issues on the same basis as is the carnal nature.

The carnal nature is not to be equated with the fact of moral responsibility and choice. Numerous have been the casualties among zealous adherents to the way of holiness when this distinction has not been made. Erroneously they have felt that being cleansed from the carnal nature orbited them into a nether world of moral irresponsibility. The heartbreaking tragedies disproving this premise are eloquent beyond words. Free from inbred sin we are, but free from the daily necessity of moral choice we can never be.

This issue has close relationship to the hoary chestnut which has plagued holiness preachers: “If an individual is cleansed from sin, how can he ever sin again?” And our reply is emphatically this: He need not, so long as his will remains yielded. But once this area is relaxed, an unfortunate chain of consequences ensues. For in retracting his consecration, the individual has served notice inwardly that he is now ready to return to the former standard of values and affections which marked his life before sanctification. We would do well to mark carefully that statement—it might induce a sense of sober thinking before we begin to tamper with our consecration. Once this notice has been served, the individual has brought back into his life the forceful activity of the original trinity—carnal mind, carnal self, and carnal affections.

One basic biblical illustration will serve to establish this point. Adam and Eve, created in the image of God, possessed a degree of spiritual cleanliness and wholeness totally foreign to any of us. If anyone would have kept free from the path of sin, the odds would have favored this couple. And yet the tragic record of their sin is undeniable. How could they do it? Wrong affections? No. Carnal self? No. Theirs was a decision of the will. Deceived though they were by Satan, their whole action was based upon the issue as to doing God’s will or not. We know the choice that they made. And we are also familiar with the consequences which followed. From that moment to this, they and their successors have possessed a nature which is basically carnal—dominated by carnal affections which cause us to, like sheep, go astray. We are as well dominated by such an inordinate sense of self-tyranny that our motives are impugned by the Word of God in declaring that “man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21).

Thank God for the victory that prevails, once we have consecrated and God has cleansed, simply by the expedient of a yielded will. Undoubtedly this is what A. B. Simpson had in mind when he defined the life of sanctification as “cooperating with the Holy Ghost.” The Holy Ghost will keep us clean, if we will keep yielded. Herein rests our responsibility to rely upon the grace of God continually—keeping us clean; and herein rests the inevitability of human responsibility—keeping consecrated.

The carnal nature is not to be equated with the fact of spiritual contest. Numerous are the sources of this ever-present evidence of the fact that our antagonist is a persistent and insistent personal devil. Included would be the harassment to which we are subject through repeated temptation, the embarrassment which is ours through a sensibility of our limitations, and the chagrin which is ours as a result of our shortcomings which occur with perfect motivation. There is no release available from the fact of temptation, limitation, or failure as there is for the dominance of the carnal nature. But while there is no release there are grace, profit, and a greater dependence upon the Holy Spirit—all profitable experiences in themselves.

Further, the carnal nature is not to be equated with the fact of interpersonal differences. Even the sanctified are bound to know the reality of the pressures and tensions of living with other people. Because people are who they are, what they are, they will differ with us in methods, mannerisms, and motives. There will, therefore, be tensions and differences, and perhaps even disagreements. But this very experience, while we are not to expect deliverance from these realistic situations as we do of the carnal nature, can be predictive of a healthy experience in spiritual maturation. The key appears to be in Acts 15, where we observe that such situations give us a chance to show our love and to develop our skills in the art of adjusting with other people.

Nor is it possible to equate the carnal nature with the physical nature. While the deliverance from the force of carnality is real, the presence of physical factors after sanctification is just as real. Paul discovered the key, I believe, as indicated in I Cor, 9:27. Herein we learn that the appetites and desires of the physical man must be brought under a scheme of rigid spiritual discipline, so that such desires might be kept subservient to the ultimate spiritual good.

Understanding the carnal nature, knowing the provision of God’s grace to destroy it, and observing the distinctives between the carnal nature and the remaining challenges of holy living, we as holiness leaders should go forth with a new dynamic; we have a message to tell, and the cognitive structure necessary to relate that message tellingly to the needs of mankind today.

William M. Arnett

Minister, Methodist church; professor of Christian doctrine, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky; A.B., Asbury College; B.D., Asbury Theological Seminary; Th.M., Princeton Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Drew Theological Seminary. Has served as pastor and camp meeting speaker. Is presently writing “John Wesley, Man of One Book.”

The Wesleyan Arminian Teaching on Sin

by WILLIAM M. ARNETT

The fact of sin is fundamental in Christian theology. It is a doctrine which underlies all other doctrines of the Christian faith. John Wesley’s contemporary, the saintly Fletcher, declared that “in every religion there is a principal truth or error which, like the first link of a chain, necessarily draws after it all the parts with which it is essentially connected. This leading principle in Christianity, distinguished from deism, is the doctrine of our corrupt and lost estate.”[1]

The human problem of sin is very closely bound to the fact of redemption through Jesus Christ, the crowning truth of the Holy Scripture, and “any tendency to minimize sin has its consequences in a less exalted view of the person and work of the Redeemer,”[2] as the late H. Orton Wiley, an outstanding theologian of the present-day Wesleyan movement, insists. Indeed, the three great central themes of our Christian faith—God, sin, and redemption—are so interwoven and interrelated that the views held concerning any one of them profoundly affect the other two, as Dr. Wiley points out.[3]

It is imperative, then, that our conception of sin should be stated as clearly and carefully as possible. Richard S. Taylor warns us of the dangers involved here.

“Sin,” he writes, “as one doctrine of the Christian system, is the common denominator of the other doctrines … And, as Christians, if our conception of sin is faulty, our whole superstructure will be one error built on another, each one more absurd than the last, yet each one necessary if it is to fit in consistently with the whole erroneous scheme.”[4]

The strength of the Wesleyan Arminian teaching regarding sin is evident in the fact that it carefully avoids two extreme interpretations of the doctrine of sin. On the one hand, it steers clear of a naive and shallow optimism, which, in varying forms, believes that everything is quite well in the garden of the human heart, and that we shall get to the New Jerusalem by and by very largely under our own momentum. Such a view is out of touch with the radical realism of Holy Scripture and the rugged facts of human history. Sin is not a sort of surface blemish which education, modern science, low-price technics, and three-piece plumbing will rectify,[5] It is a deep-seated, radical evil, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt” (Jer. 17:9, ASV). On the other hand, Wesleyan Arminianism repudiates the dark and sometimes morbid pessimism of Calvinism and Lutheranism.

To interpret human corruption in such an intensive manner as to make man “solid mud” in his fallen estate is plainly excessive. Furthermore, to say that a Christian and a criminal have one thing in common (both are sinners, as some present-day theologians in the Reformed tradition allege) is to dwarf “abounding grace” to the status of an armchair cripple, and to make sin a giant colossus with a big stick, leaving us with a sin-fixation. Such a view likewise betrays the New Testament and inadequately comprehends the Pauline conception of the “new man in Christ” (II Cor. 5:17).

In setting forth the salient aspects of our subject, the discussion will include five major areas: (1) the origin of sin, (2) the nature of sin, (3) the effects of sin, (4) the transmission of sin, and (5) the remedy for sin.

The Origin of Sin

It is generally conceded by Wesleyan Arminian writers that evil had its origin outside and prior to the human family. While this fact is not elaborated thoroughly in Scripture, the Bible does connect the origin of evil with the abuse of freedom in free and intelligent beings. Sin did not arise out of an eternal dualism in which a principle of evil opposes the principle of good. Neither is sin’s origin to be traced merely to ignorance, based on the Socratic or Platonic notion that knowledge is virtue and ignorance is vice. Sin is not simply the unhappy vestige of an evolutionary overhang. Moral evil has its origin in the violation of the freedom of the created will.

In answer to the question, “How came evil into the world?” John Wesley replied: “It came from ‘Lucifer, son of the morning.’ It was the work of the devil. ‘For the devil,’ saith the Apostle, ‘sinneth from the beginning’; that is, was the first sinner in the universe, the author of sin, the first being who, by the abuse of his liberty, introduced evil into the creation. He … was self-tempted to think too highly of himself. He freely yielded to the temptation; and gave way, first to pride, then to self-will.”[6] Thus, the great rift in the universe centers in an evil personality who was once a holy being. The notion that there is in the universe no personal power of evil is “philosophically unwarrantable, biblically unsound, and religiously perilous,”[7] as Dr. John A. Mackay contends.

The fall of man is bound up with the activity of this superhuman creature called Satan or the devil. In the thought of Wesleyan Arminian theologians, man was highly created and endowed. His high origin is seen in the fact that he came from the hand of the Creator and was made in “the image of God” (Gen. 1:26-27). That image is twofold, consisting of a natural or essential image, which is summed up in the word personality, and includes spirituality, rationality, and immortality, as well as the moral or incidental image that is summed up in the word holiness. The image of God means likeness unto God, as the apostle implied in Eph. 4:24: “And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness”; and Col. 3:10: “And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.”

Thus God made man an intelligent creature, like the angels, and consequently free to choose either good or evil. Placed in the Garden of Eden, he was given one law, the law of loyalty or obedience. The account of man’s probation and fall in Genesis 3, though rich in symbolism, is an inspired record of historical fact. To reduce the record to the status of myth or allegory is to falsify sound biblical exegesis. The Apostle Paul alludes to the Genesis record as historical in II Cor. 11:3: “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ”; and in I Tim. 2:13-14: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression”; as well as in Romans 5, where he introduces Adam in order to show how Christ stands in a unique relation to humanity as Saviour in a manner analogous to Adam’s relation to the race as a sinner, both of whom are regarded historically.

As originally created in the image of God, man was qualitatively holy and morally pure. The first Adam was a free agent, and was endowed with capacities and powers to remain holy and perfect, but at the same time equipped with the power of choice whereby it was possible to forfeit his first estate. Confronted by an evil suggestion of Satan, Adam sinned by a self-chosen separation from God. His fall not only resulted in the loss of holiness, but also in the corruption of his nature.

The origin of all sin, and therefore of all evil, is to be located ultimately in the freedom of the created will. As William Burt Pope concludes:

Conscious freedom in the origination of action, and the choice of the end of action, whether ultimate or subordinate, belongs to the personality of our spirit stamped with the image of God. The Divine law in the creation of intelligent moral beings seems to be that they must voluntarily make the supreme end of life their own by a free self-determination … Thus that likeness of God which is the note of our highest dignity involved the possibility of our deepest degradation.[8]

This view of sin’s origin harmonizes with the biblical teaching concerning man’s personal responsibility to God for his life and deeds (cf. Rom. 14:12: “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God”).

The Nature of Sin

The essence of sin in Wesleyan thought, as in the thought of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, is spiritual pride. Basically, it is self-centeredness, arising out of unbelief and issuing in rebellion against God and a repudiation of His purpose for man. As we have already observed, man was created an intelligent being with the power of choice, and was given one law, the law of loyalty and obedience. It was the tragic misuse of his freedom which caused sin in the human family. Wesley’s conviction is that we are “to look for the cause of every sin, in, and not out of, ourselves. Even the injections of the devil cannot hurt before we make them our own.”[9] And the root of all sin, says Wesley, is the desire to be independent of God,[10] while it is implied in the very nature of sin to set God’s authority at nought. Adam rebelled against his Creator, having sinned first in his heart before he sinned outwardly.[11] It was the sin of inward idolatry—loving the creature more than the Creator.[12]

Wesleyan interpreters of the problem of sin have been careful to insist upon the twofold nature of sin: sin as an act, and sin as a principle or condition with which each individual is born. The New Testament conception of grace and redemption cannot be properly understood apart from the underlying concept of sin. As Drs. Turner and Greenlee point out, “Perhaps the most subtle aspect of Biblical hamartiology is sinfulness, by which is meant, not the act of sin, but the moral conditions which cause sin. While sins are properly regarded as acts of rebellion against God and are ojective in nature, sinfulness is a condition, principle, or state and hence is subjective in nature.”[13]

Wesley’s oft-quoted definition of sin is “a voluntary transgression of a known law.” Elaborating upon this idea, he wrote: “Nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of a known law of God. Therefore, every voluntary breach of the law of love is sin; and nothing else, if we speak properly. To strain the matter farther is only to make way for Calvinism. There may be ten thousand wandering thoughts, and forgetful intervals, without any breach of love, though not without transgressing the Adamic law. But Calvinists would fain confound these together. Let love fill your heart, and it is enough.”[14]

This statement gives us one aspect of Wesley’s concept of sin. It has been asserted that Wesley “attempted no definition of sinfulness.”[15] But this judgment does not comport with the facts. Wesley’s conception of sin was more inclusive than sin as “voluntary transgression,” In the area of the doctrine of sin and sinfulness, and deliverance therefrom, three sermons of Wesley are of great importance for an understanding of his thought. These are: “On Sin in Believers,” “The Repentance of Believers,” and “The Scripture Way of Salvation.” It is his sermon “On Sin in Believers” that sets forth espeecially the twofold nature of sin, and recognizes sin as a state or principle as well as rebellious acts. In his Journal for March 28, 1763, he wrote: “I retired to Lewisham, and wrote the sermon on sin in believers in order to remove a mistake which some were labouring to propagate —that there is no sin in any that are justified.”[16]

In doing this, Wesley sought to counteract the teaching of Count Zinzendorf and the Moravians that justification and sanctification occurred at once, and that no sin remained in the believer. Wesley calls attention, with approval, to article nine of the Anglican church: “Original sin is the corruption of the nature of every man, whereby man is in his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth contrary to the Spirit. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated …”[17] He asserts that “sin did still remain, though not reign, in him that is born of God.”[18] He carefully distinguished between outward sin or sins and inward sin. Outward sin as a practice ceases when one is born again, as I John 3:9 so plainly declares. “The question is not concerning outward sin; whether a child of God commit sin or no. We all agree and earnestly maintain, ‘He that committeth sin is of the devil.’ We agree ‘Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.’”[19]

Then, defining the sin that does remain in the justified, Wesley wrote: “By sin, I here understand inward sin; any sinful temper, passion, or affection; such as pride, self-will, love of the world, in any kind or degree; such as lust, anger, peevishness; any disposition contrary to the mind which was in Christ.”[20] Citing the Apostle Paul’s teaching in Gal. 5:17: “The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other,” Wesley observes that “the Apostle here directly affirms that the flesh, evil nature, opposes the Spirit, even in believers; that even in the regenerate there are two principles, ‘contrary the one to the other.’”[21] These two contrary principles— nature and grace, the flesh and the Spirit—are in the justified believer. Other Wesleyan writers, such as William Burt Pope, Randolph Foster, John Miley, and A. M. Hills, concur in this view. On the basis of such evidence in Wesley, recent Wesleyan-minded scholars, such as Dr. George Allen Turner and Dr. Leo G. Cox, rightly insist that Sangster and Flew wrongly accuse Wesley in regard to his concept of sin.22, 23, 24, [25]

The Effects of Sin

The immediate consequences of man’s sin can be summed up in two general propositions: externally, it was an alienation from God and an enslavement to Satan; internally, it was the loss of divine grace by which man became subject to physical and moral corruption.[26] Two immortal passages in Holy Scripture remind us of man’s alienation from God: the account of the Garden of Eden in the Book of Genesis, and the parable of the prodigal son. Man is a vagabond from his Father’s house, a needy outcast in a far country.

But Adam was not only an individual; he was a racial being as well. His rebellion and unlawful deed entailed personal responsibility and guilt, but also implicated the race. Wiley states these consequences as follows:

Sin, whether actual or original, assumes two forms, guilt and corruption. Guilt in turn has a twofold aspect, first it is personal blameworthiness as regards the commission of sin … and second, it is the liability to penalty … Actual sin includes both of these forms of guilt, while the second attaches only to original sin. Corruption or depravity likewise attaches to both the individual and the race. As it attaches to the sins committed by the individual, corruption is known as acquired depravity; as it attaches to the race it is called inherited depravity or original sin.”

The racial corruption is summed up in Article VII, as abridged by Wesley, for the Methodist Church in America under the title “Of Original or Birth Sin”: “Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.”[27] It is deplored by some that the term “original sin” became applied to the racial consequences of sin. It must be allowed that “the original sin” was the personal act of Adam, whereas the racial consequences are expressed in terms of inherited depravity, which originated in original sin, to be sure, but is not identical with it.

The divine warning had been given to the first earthly pair that “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17). Wesleyan Arminian theologians have generally interpreted this to mean the “fullness of death,” including physical, spiritual, and eternal death. “The moment of man’s separation from God brought in the reign of death. That man’s earthly existence did not end immediately was due to God’s counsel for redemption.”[28] Spiritual death resulted from the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit as the bond of union between the soul and God. Eternal death is God’s final judgment upon sin, and is the separation of the soul from God made permanent.

It should be pointed out that whatever guilt or condemnation rested upon the race through Adam’s sin is removed by the free gift in Christ.[30]

Wesley’s concept of Christian perfection did not exclude all infirmities, ignorance, and mistakes. He wrote:

A man may be filled with pure love, and still be liable to mistake. Indeed I do not expect to be freed from actual mistakes, till this mortal puts on immortality. I believe this to be a natural consequence of the soul’s dwelling in flesh and blood. For we cannot now think at all, but by the mediation of those bodily organs which have suffered equally with the rest of our frame. And hence we cannot avoid sometimes thinking wrong, till this corruptible shall have put on incorruption … A mistake in judgment may possibly occasion a mistake in practice … And a thousand such instances there may be, even in those who are in the highest state of grace. Yet, where every word and action springs from love, such a mistake is not properly a sin. However, it cannot bear the rigour of God’s justice, but needs the atoning blood.[31]

As Joseph H. Smith, the gifted expositor-evangelist of the holiness movement, asserts:

Perfect love is “compatible with many deficiencies if not defects” … Perfect love out of a purified heart is not therefore to be identified with, or to tarry for, a well-skilled hand, or a well-trained mind, or a well-balanced temperament, or a finished character. It is rather a quality of nature and spirit with which to work at the task of building character, improving one’s temperament, mind, and skill.[32]

It is in this manner that Wesley and others have sought to clarify the difference between the voluntary and willful sins of unbelievers, the indwelling sin of the unsaved and the unsanctified, and the mistakes in practice of those who are perfected in love.

The Transmission of Sin

Wesleyan Arminianism has accepted the genetic mode of sin’s transmission. It is simply an application of the natural law of heredity. According to this view, “it is the law of organic life that everything reproduces its own kind, and that not only as to anatomical structure and physical characteristics, but also as to mental life and disposition.”[33] Simply stated, it is the heredity law that “like begets like.” Following man’s primal fall, it is significant that Gen. 5:3 tells us that “Adam … begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.” “Since Adam by his sin was separated from God, this state of separation or death has passed on to his descendants, who in their natural state are therefore said to be ‘dead in trespasses and sins,’ and ‘by nature the children of wrath,’”[34] as the apostle states in Eph. 2:1, 3. Dr. John Miley explains the genetic mode of sin’s transmission as follows:

On the obedience and the maintenance of his own holiness of nature, his offspring would have received their life and begun their probation in the same primitive holiness. There would still have been the possible lapse of individuals, with the corruption of their own nature and the consequent depravity of their offspring; but apart from this contingency, or so far as the Adamic connection is concerned, all would have been born in the primitive holiness. Under what law would such have been the consequence? Unquestionably, the law of genetic transmission … as the law of genetic transmission rules in all the forms of propagated life and determines the likeness of the offspring to the parentage, and as it was sufficient for the transmission of the primitive holiness to all that race, it must be a sufficient account of the common native depravity.[35]

This seems to be a commonsense explanation of sin’s transmission, and avoids some of the extremes of Calvinism and the Reformed churches. Man’s solidarity in evil is a terrible fact. The human family is “subject to a possession or infection by evil from which no individual can dissociate himself. This possession is so sinister, cunning and strong that the New Testament can only describe it in terms of demonic powers.”[36]

The Remedy for Sin

The throbbing heart of theology is Christology, the doctrine of the person and work of Jesus Christ, whose vocation it is to seek the salvation of lost men. The three great redemptive facts concerning Christ which are the sine qua non of the gospel are the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection of our Lord. One of the most marvelous statements of Holy Scripture is that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (II Cor. 5:19). Indeed, God hath “spoken unto us by his Son” (Heb. 1:1-2). Here is the very cornerstone of our Christian faith. Christianity stands or falls in whether or not the Church faithfully maintains that Jesus Christ is nothing less than God’s redeeming gift of himself to sinful man. As one of the church fathers put it, the Son of God became the Son of Man in order that the sons of men might become the sons of God (cf. Gal. 4:4-5: “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons”).

It is the great drama of redemption, the divine activity of God in loving provision, that becomes the adequate source for sin’s remedy. “But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Rom. 5:20). That remedy, in its application to the individual, includes justification, sanctification, and glorification. It begins with a bestowal of prevenient grace, the grace that goes before salvation, upon all men. It is the “free gift” of righteousness (Rom. 5:16-18) which enables all men to turn again, if they will, unto God and to regain the privilege of which by nature they have been deprived. It is an unconditional benefit to all men. The first benefit of Christ’s atonement (1) preserved mankind from sinking below the possibility of redemption; (2) removed the condemnation for inherited depravity, and opened up the possibility of eternal life with God; and (3) restored the Holy Spirit to the race as an awakening and convicting presence. Thus divine provision opened the way for man’s salvation.

As already indicated, three major steps are involved in man’s restoration from his fallen condition. (1) Justification is the act of God, through the merits of Christ’s atonement, by which fallen man is forgiven of his sins and is brought back into favor with God. The human condition is “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). (2) Entire sanctification, likewise, is the act of God, again through the atoning work of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, whereby the justified believer in a second, definite work of grace is fully restored to God’s likeness in righteousness and true holiness in his moral nature. The human condition is full consecration to God and faith. (3) Glorification, involving man’s resurrection and full restoration, is the final step in man’s redemption, saving him. forever from the very presence and scars of sin, and giving him a resurrected body and an eternal home where the conditions of life will be perfect forevermore.

The concomitant blessings of conversion or initial salvation are (1) justification, (2) regeneration, (3) adoption, and (4) initial sanctification. Acquired depravity, resulting from the personal acts of sin, is removed in initial sanctification. Negatively, entire sanctification is the removal of inherited depravity, or the crucifixion of the flesh, and positively it is the baptism with the Holy Spirit. The crises of justification and entire sanctification are not ends in themselves, but introduce the believer to a life of continuous progress toward full maturity (cf. II Pet. 3:18; Eph. 4:13).

Since the burden of the various seminars on the doctrine of holiness centers is the message of full salvation from all sin, this phase of our topic should be given further elaboration. Earlier in the discussion, attention was called to the two contrary principles in a justified believer, namely, the flesh and the Spirit. It is in the entire sanctification of the believer that the tensions between these two principles is resolved. This glorious reality is set forth by strong implication, for example, in Gal. 5:24 and Rom. 6:6. Commenting on the tense of the verb “crucified” in Gal. 5:24, Dr. W. B. Godbey observes: “The verb here is not the perfect … but the aorist, which does not denote time, but instantaneity and completion, setting forth the fact that all the elect of Christ were legally crucified with Him, which is in due time verified by grace being summarily executed and completed in a moment.”[37]

This exegesis in regard to full deliverance from the “flesh” principle is supported by a great Baptist scholar, Dr. A. T. Robertson, formerly professor of New Testament interpretation in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of Louisville, Kentucky. He writes: “Crucified the flesh (ten sarka estaurosan). Definite event, first aorist active indicative of stauroo as in 2:19 (mystical union with Christ). Paul uses sarx here in the same sense as in verses 16, 17, 18, ‘the force in men that makes for evil’ (Burton). With (sun). ‘Together with,’ emphasizing ‘the completeness of the extermination of this evil force’ and the guarantee of victory over one’s passions and disposition toward evil.”[38]

Thus we observe that the Apostle Paul teaches that the “flesh,” viewed as a motivating principle of evil, can be destroyed or eliminated, while the physical body continues to live. Commenting on the phrase “cleanseth us from all sin,” in I John 1:7, John Wesley wrote: “Both original and actual, taking away all the guilt and all the power.”[39] God’s gracious and wonderful provision for sin-burdened humanity is “free salvation for all men, and full salvation from all sin.”

A very forceful and convincing summary of the New Testament evidence of “full salvation from all sin” is given by Professor J. Baines Atkinson of Cliff College, England, in his book, The Beauty of Holiness. On the background of three basic convictions, namely, (1) human nature is completely redeemable, (2) the sphere of this victory over sin is the present life, (3) God’s initiative in the work guarantees its achievement, Atkinson sets forth “ten statements or situations or figures of speech, which together give irresistible evidence that the New Testament proclaims a full salvation possible to and expected of the believer in this life.”[40] Briefly summarized, the ten points are as follows:

(1) The Apostle Paul says that in the church at Corinth some in Christ were spiritual and some were carnal (I Cor. 3:1). In chapter two he speaks of some as perfect, and some not perfect. “Here then is a state of grace referred to as spiritual or perfect, which is realizable in this life, but may not be realized.”[41]

(2) The entire sanctification of believers is spoken of as the goal of apostolic work and preaching (Eph. 4:11-13; Col. 1:28; I Thess. 3:10).

(3) The New Testament always reveals God dealing with sin in a decisive, radical way; it is never a tinkering, patching process (Col. 2:10-12; I John 1:7; I John 3:8; John 8:34-36).

(4) The New Testament speaks of the believer being restored to the image of God, or of Christ, as Paul declares in II Cor. 3:18 and Rom. 8:29.

(5) Also “there are awe-inspiring promises of the fullness of the divine indwelling which must exclude sin”[42] such as Eph. 3:19; Col. 2:9-10; John 1:16.

(6) Two outstanding passages in I Thessalonians (3:10-13; 5:22-24) proclaim an entire and perfect work of grace.

(7) There are three references in the First Epistle of John where it is said that love is perfected in us (I John 2:5; 4:12, 17). Hence one of Wesley’s terse definitions of entire sanctification or Christian perfection is “love excluding sin.”

(8) Preparation for Christ’s second coming is that believers are to be sanctified wholly, unblamable in holiness, ready to meet Him (Heb. 9:28; Titus 2:13-14; Phil. 1:6).

(9) Furthermore, “there is no text in the New Testament which says that sin must remain in a believer until death.”[43]

(10) “The work of the Trinity in our salvation, the initiative of God the Father, the incarnate work of the Son, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, both demand and guarantee salvation from all sin.”[44] (Cf. Ezek. 36:36 and Exod. 15:11.)

It is on the basis of such overwhelming evidence that we conclude that the burden of the New Testament is not a sin-fixation but a Christ-fixation. As Sir Edwyn Hoskyns says, “The whole New Testament rings with a sense of freedom from sin.”[45] Its emphasis is not the incurable persistence of sin, but the illimitable triumph of Calvary! Not sin reigns, but grace reigns! The final words are not “sin” and “defeat,” but “grace” and “victory.” This is the message which Wesleyan Arminians have emphasized and proclaimed to the ends of the earth.

Dark the sin that soiled man’s nature, Long the distance that He jell, Far removed from hope and heaven, Near to deep despair and hell. But there was a fountain opened, And the blood of God’s own Son Purifies the soul, and reaches Deeper than the stain had gone.[46]

Ralph Earle

Minister, Church of the Nazarene; professor of New Testament at the Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City; A.B., Eastern Nazarene College; M.A., Boston University; Th.D., Gordon Divinity School; postdoctoral studies at Harvard University and University of Edinburgh; author of Evangelical Commentary (Mark) and other titles, as Know Your New Testament, Meet the Minor Prophets, Meet the Major Prophets, Meet the Early Church, etc. Coauthor of and contributor to numerous other works.

Consecration and Crucifixion

by RALPH EARLE

Since the writer is a Bible teacher, the approach taken here will be primarily exegetical and expositional, rather than philosophical, psychological, theological, or historical. The basic concern will be to find exactly what the New Testament has to say on this twofold subject.

There are two important preliminary questions which we should like to introduce at the beginning. The first is this: What basis do we have for speaking of “entire sanctification”? That phrase, we are reminded, is not found in the New Testament. That is true. But in I Thess. 5: 23 we find adequate support for it. There we read: “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly.” The last word translates the Greek holoteleis. This is composed of holos, from which we get our word “whole,” and telos, which means “end.” So it means “Wholly to the end.” This strong compound can be represented adequately in English only by some such hyphenated expression as “wholly-completely” or “completely-entirely.” Martin Luther translated it durch und durch, “through and through.” That is exactly what it means.

Furthermore, the word “sanctify” is aorist optative (hagiasai). This suggests a crucial crisis rather than a prolonged process. What the apostle is saying is: “The God of peace himself sanctify you through and through, right here and now.”

A second preliminary question is this: What basis do we have for asserting that entire sanctification is a second work of grace, subsequent to regeneration?

Again one of the clearest answers is to be found in Paul’s First Epistle to the Thessalonians—which, incidentally, was perhaps the earliest book of the New Testament to have been written.

In the first chapter of this letter the apostle describes his readers as having “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (v. 9). He further indicates that they became “examples” to the believers elsewhere (v. 7). In the third place they were proclaiming the Word of God to their fellowmen (v. 8). In other words, they had turned from paganism to Christ, they were living exemplary Christian lives, and they were propagating the gospel that had saved them from sin.

Yet to such people Paul wrote: “This is the will of God, your sanctification” (4:3, RSV). And in 5:23 he makes more explicit what this sanctification is. It is an entire sanctification, which cleanses through and through. That the main emphasis of sanctification in I Thessalonians is on the cleansing aspect is shown by 4:3—”This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication”—and 4:7—”For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness”—as well as by the context of 5:23. Holiness means purity of heart and life. This is one of the main thrusts of the New Testament.

Having disposed of these two preliminary considerations we now turn to our main topic,

Consecration and Crucifixion

There is a vital relationship between these two ideas. Crucifixion is necessarily dependent upon consecration. This is illustrated vividly in the case of Jesus. The night before His crucifixion He prayed: And on behalf of them I consecrate myself [to the will of God, which for Him at this time meant primarily the Cross] in order that [as a result of My death for them] they might be sanctified in truth” (John 17:19, literal translation). That same night in the garden He prayed: “Nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). Right then and there He accepted the Cross—particularly with its excruciating agony of separation from His Father’s face—as the cup which He must drink.

Just as for Jesus Gethsemane must precede Golgotha, so for His followers consecration must precede crucifixion. To us this seems both logically and psychologically sound. God will not violate the free wills with which He has endowed us. We must submit to be slain. Self-surrender is the necessary condition for self-crucifixion. We cannot crucify ourselves. Asceticism, legalism, and mysticism are all false isms. They lead only to failure and frustration. But when we place ourselves on the altar of sacrifice, God will strike the deathblow to the carnal self.

There are two prerequisites for justification—repentance and faith. Jesus’ first text was: “Repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). When the convicted crowd on the Day of Pentecost asked, “What shall we do?” Peter answered: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). For them baptism would be an open confession of faith in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour.

Unfortunately we cannot find in the Scriptures such specific passages indicating the two prerequisites for sanctification—consecration and faith. But the general tenor of New Testament teaching supports their validity as such. On believing as a necessary condition for sanctification one can cite Acts 26:18—”That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” Pertinent also is Paul’s question in Gal. 3:3—”Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” Just as justification is by faith alone, not by the works of the law, so is sanctification.

It should be noted that “made perfect” is literally “brought to completion.” But this completing of one’s salvation includes the experience of entire sanctification. Christian perfection involves both a crisis and a continuation. Since sanctification is by faith, not works, it can be instantaneous, as John Wesley noted. In his A Plain Account of Christian Perfection he wrote: “I believe this perfection is always wrought in the soul by a simple act of faith; consequently in an instant.” Then he added: “But I believe in a gradual work, both preceding and following that instant.”[1]

The Relation of Consecration to Sanctification

The relation of consecration to sanctification is a bit more complicated. The first problem that confronts us is the semantic one: Is there any difference in meaning between these terms? That question became acute when the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament appeared in 1946. In reply to my letter of query, one of the members of the revision committee, an internationally known scholar, wrote that his dictionary showed no difference. I must confess that I wondered what kind of dictionary he used! For the Webster unabridged dictionary does make a clear and significant distinction. The definitions of the two terms “consecrate” and “sanctify” follow much the same line through “make sacred or holy” and “set apart to a sacred office.” But whereas the definition of “consecrate” terminates with this emphasis, that of “sanctify” goes much further. It means, quoting Webster, “to make free from sin; to cleanse from moral corruption and pollution; to purify.” And John 17:17 is cited as an example of this usage. The same distinction in definition occurs in Funk and Wagnails’ Standard Dictionary (unabridged), which follows closely the pattern of Webster’s. That there is a difference in English usage between these two terms is evidenced by the separate articles on “Consecration” and “Sanctification” in such reference works as The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge and Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.

It was exactly for this reason that a number of holiness scholars concurred in requesting the revision committee to change “consecrate” or “consecration” back to “sanctify” and “sanctification” in eighteen specific passages in the New Testament. The committee very courteously and graciously complied in full with the request, as evidenced in the 1952 edition.

In the course of the discussion at that time a false antithesis between consecration and sanctification was sometimes made. One heard people affirming that the former is a human work and the latter a divine one. This, of course, cannot be supported by Scripture. Several times in the Old Testament the Israelites are commanded, “Sanctify yourselves” (e.g., Lev. 11:44; 20:7). (The same Hebrew verb, qadesh, is translated both “consecrate” and “sanctify” in the King James Version.) At the same time Jesus prayed, as already noted, in John 17:19 (RSV)—”I consecrate myself.” This translation seems preferable to “sanctify,” since He had no need for cleansing.

Consecration Precedes Sanctification

Having denied the false distinction sometimes made between the correct meanings of “consecrate” and “sanctify,” we may go on to say that the common usage of the two terms leads us to affirm that a human consecration is the prerequisite for a divine sanctification. We must present ourselves, and God sanctifies the offering as His.

One of the important New Testament passages on consecration is Rom, 12:1-2. Literally it reads: “I beseech [or exhort] you therefore, brothers, through the compassions of God, to present [aorist infinitive] your bodies to God—living, holy, well-pleasing—your rational [or spiritual] service [or worship]. And stop being conformed to this age, but go on being transfigured [same word as in the transfiguration of Jesus] by the renewing of your mind, to your proving what is the will of God—the good and well-pleasing and perfect.”

Here there is the call for a complete consecration of oneself to God and then a continual transfiguration of one’s personality into the image of Christ through a daily renewing of one’s thinking. The crisis of consecration is indicated in the first verse by the aorist infinitive, while the continuous process of growth in grace (one aspect of sanctification) is mentioned in the second. The two together give a picture of the sanctified life.

The late Bishop H. C. G. Moule has an excellent comment on the exhortation to “present your bodies” in Rom. 12:1. He writes:

That precept is conveyed, in its Greek form (parastesai, aorist), so as to suggest precisely the thought of a critical surrender … So, from the side of his conscious experience, the Christian is called to a “hallowing of himself” decisive, crucial, instantaneous. But its outcome is to be a perpetual progression, a growth, not so much “into” grace as “in” it (2 Peter ill. 18), in which the surrender in purpose becomes a long series of deepening surrenders in habit and action.[2]

The last sentence is admittedly a reflection of the Keswickian view. Yet it has a large measure of truth in it. Unless the initial surrender of our whole being to God for entire sanctification is followed by a continuing surrender of various new areas which come into conscious focus, there will be spiritual difficulty. We must not only say, “Yes,” to all of God’s will in a crucial act of complete consecration, but we must also keep on saying, “Yes,” in the multitude of daily decisions. Always, at every turn of the road, it must be: “Not my will, but thine, be done.”

Many commentators call attention to the fact that paristanox is the technical term for presenting offerings or sacrifices on the altar in the Levitical system. So the Christian is to offer himself as a sacrifice on God’s spiritual altar.

The use of the term “body” in Rom. 12:1 calls for some comment. There is a considerable variety of opinion as to its interpretation. We would agree with Barrett when he says: “By ‘body’ Paul means the whole human person, including its means of expressing itself in common life.”[3] In a similar vein Lange writes: “The body is the organ and symbol of the present life in all its relations and parts.”[4] Brown comments somewhat more at length on “your bodies,” as follows:

That is, ‘yourselves in the body,’ considered as the organ of the inner life … As it is through the body that all the evil that is in the unrenewed heart comes forth into palpable manifestation and action, so it is through the body that all the gracious principles and affections of believers reveal themselves in the outward life. The Christian must never forget that as corruption extends to the whole man, so does sanctification.[5]

This interpretation of the term “body” fits well with the figure used here of offering a sacrifice on the altar. John Wesley makes that connection clear when he gives this explanation for “your body”: “That is, yourselves; a part is put for the whole; the rather, as in ancient sacrifices of beasts, the body was the whole.”[6]

Adam Clarke likewise recognizes this as “a metaphor taken from bringing sacrifices to the altar of God.” He goes on to say: “They are exhorted to give themselves up in the spirit of sacrifice; to be as wholly the Lord’s property as the whole burnt-offering was, no part devoted to any other use.”[7]

Consecration Must Be Complete

Thus the emphasis is on a complete consecration. One is not to reserve any part for himself. The Christian must recognize that his body, just as much as his spirit, belongs wholly to God. The surrender of the will involves the submission of the body. And the body includes the brain. One’s intellectual life must be on the altar. We must submit our thinking, being willing to lead every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. The lack of surrender of the intellect is too often today, we feel, the fatal Achilles’ heel in the consecration of keen students. Is your intellect surrendered to God?

Perhaps the closest parallel to this exhortation of Paul is his command found in Rom. 6:13— “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.” This makes a bit more explicit what it means to “present”—”yield” is the same Greek verb as “present” in 12:1—one’s body as a living sacrifice. It means that every member, or part, of the body shall be fully dedicated to doing God’s will—the brain as well as the brawn!

To live the sanctified life requires consecrated eyes, to look at only what God wants us to see; consecrated ears, to listen to only what God wants us to hear; consecrated lips, to speak only what God wants us to say; consecrated hands, to do only what God wants us to do; consecrated feet, to go only where God wants us to go. This may seem very simple—almost childish. But it is essential to a life of spiritual victory. To ignore it spells defeat. Only as we are willing to think what God wants us to think are we fully Christian. This is perhaps the most crucial test of one’s consecration.

Lest some should assume that all this refers only, or even primarily, to a daily devotion of our lives to God, attention should be called to the tenses of the verb used here. The English translation obscures these differences. What Paul wrote was: “Stop presenting [present tense] your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but present [right here and now, aorist tense] yourselves unto God.” This calls for a crucial consecration of one’s whole being to do the divine will, not only in one’s spirit, but in the body as well.

The physical body is more than a clay tenement in which we dwell for a few short years. It is the instrument through which we express ourselves in our daily living. Hence it is not enough to say that our wills are consecrated to God, or our spirits, or even our minds. The body, the whole being, must be placed on the altar to be wholly His. A defective consecration will result in a defeated life.

Crucifixion

We turn now to the second part of our topic— crucifixion. Here again Paul is our main mentor. To the Galatian Christians he wrote: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). But the Greek very clearly reads: “With Christ I have been crucified; and I live no longer, but in me Christ lives, etc.” The second clause is: zo de ouketi ego. And the perfect tense in the first clause indicates both a completed act and a continuing state. So this is what Paul really says: “With Christ I have been crucified and still remain dead; and no longer is it the ego that lives, but Christ is living in me.” That is, Christ has taken the place of the carnal ego on the throne of my heart and at the center of my life. The result is that the life which I now live in the human body I live, not by dependence on myself, but by faith in Christ. The sanctified life is the Christ life instead of the self-life.

The outstanding passage on the crucifixion of the Christian is Rom. 6:6— “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” The context, both before and after, centers in the phrase “dead to sin.” That is God’s purpose for the believer.

This is such a strong statement that various efforts have been made to circumvent it. One argument is that Paul declares: “Our old man was crucified with him.” That is correct; the Greek has the aorist tense, not the present. So it is averred that the meaning here is that in the divine purpose all the elect were on the Cross with Christ. But that does nothing for me now. I need to know that what was potential and provisional at Calvary has become actual and experiential in my life. Otherwise this statement of Paul is merely a theological dogma. But theology, however orthodox, is valueless unless and until it is translated into human experience. Doctrine without life is dead.

What is it that was crucified? Paul calls it the “old man.” Godet defines it thus:

The expression: our old man, denotes human nature such as it has been made by the sin of him in whom originally it was wholly concentrated, fallen Adam reappearing in every human ego that comes into the world under the sway of the preponderance of self-love, which was determined by the primitive transgression. This corrupted nature bears the name of old only from the viewpoint of the believer who already possesses a renewed nature.[8]

It would appear that he makes the expression “our old man” equivalent to original sin, the fallen Adamic nature. He goes on to comment: “The apostle does not say that he has been killed. He may exist still, but like one crucified, whose activity is paralyzed.”[9] But this is an artificial distinction. When we are told that a man was crucified, we certainly assume that he met his death in that way. Then, too, as already noted, the context repeatedly uses the phrase “dead to sin.”

It is true that crucifixion is a lingering death, a long and painful process. But there comes a moment when the man is dead. John Wesley states it well in these words:

Q. Is this death to sin, and renewal in love, gradual or instantaneous?

A. A man may be dying for some time; yet he does not, properly speaking, die, till the instant the soul is separated from the body; and in that instant he lives the life of eternity. In like manner, he may be dying to sin for some time; yet he is not dead to sin, till sin is separated from his soul.[10]

A third effort to avoid the full force of this verse is found in. the assertion that Paul does not say the body of sin is destroyed but simply that it is “rendered inoperative, or abrogated.” It is true that katargeo does often have these lesser meanings. But Godet says that here “… the translation destroyed probably renders the thought best.”11 And Sangster admits that “… Wesley does no obvious violence to the original in pressing for ‘destroyed.’”[12] It is not without significance that whereas the American Standard Version changed to “done away,” the Revised Standard Version restored the King James rendering “destroyed.”

A careful study of katargeo has been presented by Cremer in his well-known lexicon. Concerning Paul’s use of this term he says:

With him it always denotes a complete, not a temporary or partial ceasing. Elsewhere it signifies a putting out of activity, out of power or effect; but with St. Paul it equals to annihilate, to put an end to, to bring to naught.[13]

A fourth and final objection is supported by the contention that by “body of sin” Paul means the physical body. This interpretation is frequently presented in commentaries. Only by physical death will one be freed from sin.

Adam Clarke has a good answer for this argument. He writes:

Then death is his justifier and deliverer … So then, the death of Christ and the influences of the Holy Spirit were only sufficient to depose and enfeeble the tyrant sin, but our death must come in to effect his total destruction. Thus our death is, at least partially, our Saviour; and thus, that which was an effect of sin … becomes the means of finally destroying it. The divinity and philosophy of this sentiment are equally absurd. It is the blood of Christ alone that cleanses from all unrighteousness; and the sanctification of a believer is no more dependent on death than his justification.[14]

If death sanctified us it would be our best friend. But Paul calls it an enemy—“The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (I Cor. 15:26).

How are we to experience this death to self? Paul furnishes the answer in Rom. 6:11: “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” The word “reckon” is not to be interpreted in its modern colloquial sense of “guess” or “think.” In the first century the Greek word was a technical commercial term, used in bookkeeping. It meant to put down to one’s account. So we by faith are to reckon or account ourselves as dead to sin. What we thus appropriate by faith God makes good in our experience.

Jesus said: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). The first two verbs are in the aorist tense, suggesting crisis experiences. The one who would become Jesus’ disciple must deny himself in conversion and then take up his cross in a complete consecration of himself to the will of God. It was not at Golgotha but in Gethsemane that Jesus took up His cross; that is, accepted His coming crucifixion, with all it involved, as the will of His Father. The battle was fought and won there, though the actual execution took place some hours later.

Thus it must be with the Master’s disciples. They must dedicate themselves to the death of the cross, a crucifixion of the carnal self—that self-willed, self-centered, self-ambitious self that wants to have its own way; something within that rises up in rebellion against the will of God. This must be surrendered to the Holy Spirit for His execution. Then will one’s personal Calvary take place. He will die to self and sin, that he may be fully alive to God.

The heart of consecration, then, is self-surrender. This makes possible the crucifixion of self. Gethsemane and Golgotha go together in Christian experience.

John E. Riley

Minister, Church of the Nazarene; president, Northwest Nazarene College, Nampa, Idaho. A.B., Eastern Nazarene College; M.A., Boston University School of Theology; D.D., Eastern Nazarene College. Has served as pastor, instructor in theology, and speaker on college and university campuses. Author of The Golden Stairs and This Holy Estate.

Holiness – Crisis and Process

by JOHN E. RILEY

For thirty years I have remembered the vivid expression which Jorgenson (one of his biographers) used to describe St. Francis of Assisi. It was nostalgie de sanctitie—homesickness for holiness. What an expression to use in a description of the man who has been described by another as the man who “most nearly understood Jesus Christ!”

The whole drive of Christianity is toward the ideal, toward perfection, toward God. Jesus said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). David prayed, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Create in me a clean heart, O God” (Ps. 51:7, 10). Isaiah cried out, “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts” (Isa. 6:5). St. Paul described the upward call of the Church in these words: “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13).

John Wesley said that there were three elements in religion: repentance (the porch to religion), faith (the door to religion), and holiness (the essence of religion).

Why should any of this be thought strange, when the basic elements of the Christian faith are the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, and the outreach of each for the other—God yearning to cleanse away man’s sin; and man desperately, though perversely, yearning to be made clean? This yearning to be made fit for fellowship with God is seen all through the Scriptures. It is also seen here and there among rare spirits all through human history. Every crude attempt to purge away guilt by some formal sacrifice or offering, or by some form of self-inflicted suffering, every religious rite or ceremony, every monastic order, is, in one way or another, witness to the sense of need for God. And during the Christian era the longing for and glad testimony to holiness of heart have been multiplied.

This yearning for holiness has been obscured to the point where holiness people are regarded as the small, peculiar fringe of the Christian world—out of the mainstream of Christianity, neither scriptural nor scholarly, neither intellectually respectable nor socially acceptable. Sometimes holiness people have been willing to accept this estimate of themselves. Some of this is explained by the fact that many people who are religious at all want just enough religion to salve their consciences and give them a cloak of respectability. Relatively few people ever really face the issue of putting God first, with all that that means. Since they are so loosely committed to religion (if at all), the very idea of perfection is enough to frighten them. It sends them into protestations that “no one is perfect,” or causes them to castigate as a fanatic anyone who is so bold as to say that one could have a perfect love for God. The universality of sin, the halfheartedness of most so-called Christianity, and the entrenched self-centeredness of much religious life explain in large measure the rare mention of “Christian perfection” and its unpopularity when it is mentioned. Since ministers are made of the same “mud” (you should pardon the expression) as the rest of humanity, it is quite understandable that they should further the unpopularity of Christian perfection. Too many ministers, in fact, go so far out of their way to show that they are not “holier than thou” that they even make a fetish of swearing or smoking or drinking or gambling. In the light of this, it is not at all strange that so many preachers have so little to say that really calls for Christian action on the part of the members of their congregation. They might well say of themselves:

I live in a sea of words Where the nouns and the adjectives flow, And the verbs speak of action that never takes place, And the sentences come and go.

It must be granted that some of the unpopularity of holiness is explained by the extremisms of certain fringe sects; some is undoubtedly the misunderstanding of, or prejudice against, terms which we think are both exact and scriptural. In all fairness, it must be said that in the minds of many people such terms as “perfection” or “holiness” connote Pharisaism, for they believe that they imply “sinlessness” or “absolute perfection.” Perhaps in this connection it might be said that those who deeply and earnestly desire to reach the hearts of men with the full gospel will not stubbornly insist upon thrusting terms without explanation down people’s throats. Everyone who has endeavored to lead others into the experience of holiness has been humbled many times by his failure to reach what seemed to be a hungry heart.

Until rather recently there have not been too many modern scholarly presentations of the scriptural basis for the doctrine of entire sanctification. However, it is encouraging to note that in recent decades there have been several scholarly works, presenting the sound scriptural, historical, and psychological basis of the doctrine and experience.

The surface disinterest in the spiritual life and in the idea of perfection cannot be explained without recognizing our century’s absorption in material values. The present preoccupation with “this world,” with the vivid things of sense experience, would seem quite unlike some other days when there were otherworldly strivings —to make one’s peace with God, to prepare for heaven.

Despite the spirit of the age, there is a wide interest in inner personal victory: a great deal of religious writing and preaching (with a strongly psychological cast, but genuine nevertheless); the wide popularity of such forceful writers as E. Stanley Jones and others, who give a witness to a distinct work of grace subsequent to conversion. For example, Sam Shoemaker in his little book How You Can Find Happiness writes:

I can well remember a time in my life, long alter my first decisive spiritual experience, when I was facing the need to take another big step forward. I could almost see myself shrinking out of sight under the withering effects of an honest facing of my faults, and, like Alice in Wonderland when she was shrinking, I wondered whether I wouldn’t go out like a light if this process went on. But this was not the real case: When I let go deeply inside, my true ‘self was never more fulfilled and expressed, and I realized that all this fanfare of resistance and self-will is the protective device of the ego to keep the true ‘self’ from emerging and being victorious. This fear of giving up, of giving in, is a contrivance of the ego. As Fenelon said, ‘If we looked carefully into ourselves, we should find some secret place where we hide what we think we are not obliged to sacrifice to God.’ But until that false ego dies, the true self cannot live. And the death of an ego is the greatest of all human crises.[1]

E. Stanley Jones, who has witnessed around the world to this second experience of grace available to Christians after they have been born again, writes in his well-known book Victorious Living as follows:

We have seen that we cannot merely try to fight our sins, or forget our sins, or to whip up our wills—we must go deeper. For our outer sins are rooted in something deeper. Just as my fingers are rooted in the palm of my hand, so my individual sins are rooted in the unsurrendered self. It is the thought of self-advantage, in some form or other, that lies at the root of our sins. Why do we lie and steal? We think the self will be protected or advantaged. Why do we quarrel with others? Because the self has been crossed. Why are we envious? Because we are afraid that someone will get ahead of the self. Why do we give way to sex passion? Because we think the self will thereby find pleasure. Adler is profoundly right when he says the ego urge is our prime difficulty in life and is at the basis of most of our unhappiness. The problem of victorious living centers, then, in one thing chiefly: self surrender. ‘But,’ you ask, ‘didn’t I do that in conversion?’ Yes, you did in a measure. But not wholly. Now you see deeper depths that must be surrendered. The conscious mind was given to Him in conversion; now the subconscious mind, the center of our divisions and inner clashes, must be laid at His feet as well. Christ now asks that we allow Him not merely to treat the individual sins, the symptoms of a deeper malady, but the very root, the self. That self must be crucified in order to rise again. His finger is on our problem.[2]

There is a homesickness for holiness, not only on the part of a few rare spirits here and there, but also on the part of multitudes of people who do not realize that their distress and hunger are really a hunger for God.

Where the sun shines in the street There are very many feet Seeking God, all unaware That their hastening is a prayer.

Perhaps these feet would deem it odd (Who think they are on business bent) If someone went, And told them, “You are seeking God.”[3]

Observations on Entire Sanctification as the Crisis Entrance to Christian Holiness

It need hardly be said that the term holiness refers to the nature of God and, in a more relative sense, to man’s moral or religious state, while sanctification, or more particularly entire sanctification, refers to the divine act by which man is brought into the state of holiness.

Now to discuss briefly another term which should be related to sanctification, namely, justification. In one sense justification and sanctification are two golden threads of grace which run continuously through all of Christian experience. In another sense justification is a crisis, the first crisis by which the sinner is freed from sin, the act of God’s grace “by which He grants full pardon of all guilt and complete release from the penalty of sins committed and acceptance as righteous, to all who believe on Jesus Christ and receive Him as Lord and Saviour.” In that same sense sanctification, or more exactly entire sanctification, is the second crisis of grace, “the act of God subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made free from original sin, or depravity, and brought into a state of entire devotement to God, and the holy obedience of love made perfect.”

Wrote the late H. Orton Wiley,

(1) Justification in a broad sense has reference to the whole work of Christ wrought for us; sanctification, the whole work wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. (2) Justification is a forensic and judicial act in the mind of God; sanctification, a spiritual change wrought in the hearts of men. (3) Justification is a relative change, that is, a change in relation from condemnation to favor; sanctification, an inward change from sin to holiness. (4) Justification secures for us the remission of actual sins; sanctification, in its complete sense, cleanses the heart from original sin or inherited depravity. (5) Justification removes the guilt of sin, sanctification destroys its power. (6) Justification relieves the soul from exposure to the penalty of violated law; sanctification prepares it for the gracious rewards of virtue. (7) Justification makes possible adoption into the family of God; sanctification restores the image of God. (8) Justification gives a title to heaven; sanctification, a fitness for heaven. (9) Justification logically precedes sanctification, which in its lowest or initial stage, is concomitant with it.[4]

If I may be so bold as to suggest a simple diagram for some profound spiritual mysteries, I would propose two parallel ascending lines, one representing justification and the other sanctification, sharply arched or pointed heavenward at two points where human need reached up in faith and divine power reached down like bolted lightning to work a miracle of grace in the human heart.

The first of these divine-human encounters we call justification, though initial sanctification (regeneration and adoption) is intrinsic to the experience. The second of these we call sanctification, though justification is also involved. The primary focus of justification is on the acts of the sinner; of sanctification it is on the carnal state of the believer. Yet both threads continue on and on daily in the Christian’s life.

But let us return to the simple statement of the scriptural teaching concerning Christian holiness.

1. Holiness is the New Testament standard of Christian experience. It is the will of God that His people shall be holy. “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:17-18). “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification” (I Thess. 4: 3). “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). God has promised to sanctify His people. “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me … shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matt. 3:11-12). God commands His people to be holy. “Be ye holy; for I am holy” (I Pet. 1:16).

2. The New Testament makes it clear that holiness is brought about by entire sanctification, which is a second work of grace, an act of God wrought instantaneously, though preceded and followed with process. This is illustrated and exemplified in the lives of the believers and is promised to “all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Rom. 12:1-2). It is clear here (a) that this exhortation is addressed to those who were at that time Christians; (b) that an appeal to the mercies of God would mean nothing to those who had not already experienced His pardoning grace; (c) that the sacrifice was to be presented holy, as initially sanctified by the cleansing from guilt and accumulated depravity; (d) that it was to be acceptable, that is, those who presented it must have been justified. In the second verse it is acknowledged (e) that there remained in the hearts of the believers a bent toward worldliness, or a bias toward sin; (f) that this tendency to conform to the world was to be removed by a further transformation, or a renewal of their minds; and (g) that they were thereby to prove, or experience, the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

The carnal state or inner dispositional condition of the believer, frequently stated and illustrated in the New Testament, has been almost universally acknowledged by Christendom.

As stated in the Thirty-nine Articles, ‘this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek , is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe, yet this lust hath of itself the nature of sin’ (Art. IX). ‘By sin,’ says Mr. Wesley, ‘I here understand inward sin; any sinful temper, passion, or affection; such as pride, self-will, love of the world, in any kind or degree; such as lust, anger, peevishness; any disposition contrary to the mind which was in Christ’ (Sermon: Sin in Believers). The condition of the regenerate, therefore, previous to entire sanctification, is in a modified sense, a mixed state. There is within the heart of the believer, both grace and inbred sin, but there is not, nor can there be any commingling or blending of these antagonistic elements. They exist in the heart without admixture or composition. Otherwise we should have an adulterated holiness. Those who hold to the erroneous idea of regeneration as a making over of the old life, instead of an impartation of the new, find difficulty in accounting for a second work of grace.

The work accomplished by the Holy Spirit in entire sanctification is both negative and positive, cleansing and empowering. The real crux of the matter seems to rest on the negative, for the positive empowering seems generally to be no point of disagreement. Concerning the negative or cleansing phase, it would be well to note here that the Greek language had many terms which meant control or suppression, such words as (blank), “hold down” or “suppress” (Rom. 1:18); (blank), “constrain” or “control” (II Cor. 5:14); (blank) “bind” (Mark 3:27); (blank) “withstand” (Acts 11:17); (blank) “close” or “shut up” (Gal. 3:23). But instead of using these, the inspired writers used words which indicate a radical dealing with sin—(blank), “to purge, purify” (Acts 15:9; etc); (blank), “to annul, abolish, put an end to” (Rom. 6:6); (blank), “to break up, dissolve, put off” (I John 3:8b); (blank), “to crucify” (Rom. 6: 6); (blank), “to mortify, kill” (Rom. 8:13).

Not only the verbs used but also the verb tense (often the aorist) would indicate a complete, thorough, and instantaneous work of cleansing.

There is much that could be said concerning the secondness of this experience of grace. Why should not God accomplish all that is critical in grace in one work? There are some scriptural and some rational answers to this question, but the most significant fact here is that both in the New Testament and among Christians throughout the centuries the almost universal testimony is that God does not accomplish all that is critical in His grace in one work; rather He has done it in two.

Perhaps the holiness people have erred in failing to apply scriptural holiness in all its social and ethical implications. They probably have erred, too, in not attempting more successfully to interpret scriptural holiness in psychological terms. It seems to this speaker that much of the present-day psychological emphasis on religious experience opens the door for the holiness preacher to walk right in with the promise of the Father, the blessed, ever-present Holy Spirit.

I must not conclude these observations, which have served but to remind us of the nature of entire sanctification, without expressing my profound concern for the evangelical propagation of the doctrine and experience. There must be the clear scriptural teaching of the doctrine. But there must also be the prayerful cultivation of a spiritual climate in which the blessed Holy Spirit, who is the Conservator of orthodoxy, may bring the hearts of believers to a consuming hunger for and glorious reception of the fullness of the blessing. I must tell you I share a profound concern that “holiness people” and even “holiness preachers” may not be holy people, Spirit-filled people, because they have holiness of a sort in their heads but no Holy Ghost in their hearts. At this point we need a mighty revival of prayer and soul searching. The “homesickness for holiness,” to which we may appeal, is quickly diffused in our busy materialistic age; clear preaching and much prayer are necessary to bring needy hearts to a positive experience of entire sanctification. If I say nothing else today and if I make no new scholarly contribution, I want to deliver my soul at this point without equivocation. Nothing can be a substitute for the personal infilling of the blessed Holy Spirit in one’s own heart. What a tremendous responsibility at this point rests upon every parent, pastor, teacher!

Observations on Holiness as a Process

Our thoughts on Christian holiness should be kept as much as possible in dynamic personal terms, lest we be tempted to swing first to the one extreme of making the crisis too absolute, and thus unrealistic and unattainable; and then to the opposite extreme of postponing holiness to the indefinite future or even to eternity.

In an effort thus to describe holiness, may I hazard another diagram to visualize what happens when one is sanctified wholly, what does not happen, and what is the nature of growth? It goes without saying that, as no analogy goes on all fours, so no unartistic diagram can illustrate every factor involved.

Let us take a three-petaled flower with the stem to represent the springs of personality or the motivational life, the three petals to represent the intellectual, emotional, and volitional activities of man, and the whole blossom to represent the outward life of physical expression and action.

In the first work of grace the grossest faults in outer behavior are corrected and new life is imparted to the stem or inner motivation (regeneration) with resultant improvement in thought, feeling, and action.

In the second work of grace the distortion or pollution remaining in the stem or motive life is corrected or cleansed so that one loves God “out of a pure heart fervently.” Nevertheless, one’s intellectual, emotional, and volitional responses, though much improved in general health, are still less than ideal, and one’s behavior may be even less ideal.

The areas of growth, then, in the sanctified life are functional and multiple.

a. The strengthening of one’s pure love for God (the stem)

b. The improvement of love’s control over mind, emotions, and will (the petals)

c. The steady perfecting of one’s total external life in the image of Christ (the whole blossom)

This dynamic concept of the spiritual life is based upon the assumption that life is intrinsically good as God made it, that sin is the perversion of the good and is best understood as “the good out of bounds.” The overconscientious soul who believes that all self is destroyed when one is sanctified is devastated when he discovers that he is still human. If he could but understand that the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself provides for self-respect, for normal, wholesome love of self, it would save him from despair. Self is not destroyed, thank God, when one is sanctified. Only carnal self-centeredness is destroyed; the self is more healthily, happily alive and Christ-centered than ever before.

Here, then, are the areas of growth in the sanctified life: (1) The building of additional safeguards against the perversion of good; (2) the wholesome expression of all God-given capacities in disciplined balance; (3) the cultivation of the fruits of the Spirit to the end of a growing Christlikeness; (4) the dedication of one’s ransomed powers to loving service for God and others.

Present-day holiness people would do well to emulate the early Methodists with their disciplined efforts at self-improvement and growth in grace.

At the same time they would do well to give greater place to the person and work of the Holy Spirit in the moment-by-moment infusion of His presence and power, thus “practicing the presence of God.”

Perhaps a word should be said about another area where the holiness people have failed to bring the full New Testament emphasis, namely, upon the koinonia or fellowship of the Spirit. Among others, Canon Dewar, in his 1959 The Holy Spirit and Modern Thought, has accused the Wesleyans of over-individualizing the work of the Holy Spirit and failing to give adequate place to the Church or the fellowship of believers. Basically, it is not a question of either, or; but rather both, and.

In summation, the spiritual need of man will never be met except by the dynamic of the Holy Spirit in response to faith in the atoning death of our Lord Jesus Christ. The process by which one avails himself of this dynamic is to be born of the Spirit, to be filled with the Spirit, and then to walk in the Spirit.

Spirit of the Living God, fall afresh upon us!

Delbert R. Rose

Minister, E.U.B. church; professor of biblical theology, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky; A.B., John Fletcher College; M.A. and Ph.D., State University of Iowa; special studies at Garrett Biblical Institute, Union Theological Seminary, and Biblical Seminary in New York. Has served as pastor, college professor, evangelist, and camp meeting speaker. Author of A Theology of Christian Experience, and a section on Hebrews in the “Aldersgate Biblical Series.”

Christian Perfection Not Sinless Perfection

by DELBERT R. ROSE

That dean of expositor-evangelists in the National Holiness Association, the late Rev. Joseph H. Smith, gave three reasons why we should seriously consider the subject of perfection. First of all, “Man’s mind is so constituted as to demand perfection.” This is especially true in matters in which he believes God is directly at work. But even in the realms of his own achievements, in the arts and the sciences, man has set up standards of perfection by which to test, measure, and evaluate. Dr. W. R. Matthews, dean of St. Paul’s, London, wrote, “The real artists and poets always suffer from frustration. They know that their imaginations had [sic, have] caught sight of a perfection which they have not completely embodied in their picture or their poem.”[1]

The second reason we should study carefully the meaning of perfection is that “men’s hearts need and cry for a perfect solace and satisfaction.” And having turned to Christ to answer this heart-cry, “is it not true that we all, either from instinct or intuition or a measure of inspiration, expect to find such a perfect satisfaction in Him? … Anything less than a perfect peace … and a perfect alignment with God’s will does not meet our expectation in Christ, nor satisfy what we feel is Christ’s expectation of us.”[2]

Thirdly, “The Bible does unmistakably present such a Perfection” as man’s mind demands and his heart craves.[3]

In passing, it ought to be recognized, and always remembered, that in those human realms in which men raise an ideal or standard of perfection “there is a distinct limit as to what it is that is perfect.” In addition, outside of that which they label as perfect, men usually allow a wide margin for many imperfections. For example, the student who scores 100 percent—makes a perfect grade —in his mathematics “may still be a physical cripple, unable to walk.”[4]

This paper has a number of basic presuppositions, among them that the Bible is “the word of God written, and therefore inerrant in its autographs.” A second presupposition is that in the first three chapters of Genesis we have an authoritative account of man’s creation, original state, and fall into sin. Since the Genesis account of man’s beginning is so brief it becomes necessary to read it in the light of the rest of the Holy Bible, which recognizes man’s forfeit of God’s favor and likeness, and is permeated with the promises of reconciliation and renewal. We have to see that to which fallen man can be restored in order to fully grasp what Adam possessed as he first came from the creative hand of God.

Human Perfection

It is the common view among conservative theologians that in the beginning God created Adam in His own image. That divine image must be viewed as having at least a natural and a moral aspect. The natural image, essential to man’s nature as a person, constituted him an intelligent, immortal spirit. The moral aspect included an original knowledge of God, an original righteousness before God, and an original holiness of nature derived from and sustained in union with God (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). Adam’s capacities at the natural-image level were amoral; it was the moral image that constituted him qualitatively holy and spiritually pure. Having pronounced His own work of creating the first man as “very good” (Gen. 1:31), God placed Adam the First in an earthly existence on a plane of human perfection, with no defect in either his nature, his worship, or his works.

Adam’s human perfection was fully compatible with finiteness, with a limited freedom, with a susceptibility to temptation, with a forfeitable perfection of character, and with the materiality of his own physical nature and temporal environment. Such a position at once counters any objections to perfection on the basis of the Kierke-gaardian philosophy of the “infinite qualitative difference between time and eternity, alike in its negative and positive meaning. God is in heaven, you are on earth.”[5]

In summary, Adam’s perfection was one derived from his Creator, dependent upon his continued union with God through right moral choices, and limited to his particular order of created existence. Adam was “a perfect man, equipped with powers and capacities to remain holy and perfect but also with the power of choice to forfeit his first estate and corrupt his nature.”[6]

Human Sin

According to Genesis, chapter 3, moral evil is presented as a reality that antedated the fall of Adam, and as an intruder into his Edenic environment from an order of existence outside the human family.

It is the conclusion of some noted scholars that we cannot come to a sound and satisfactory grasp of the biblical concept of perfection if we do not rightly understand its antithesis—the biblical concept of sin.[7] As Dr. Leo Cox has written, “A theologian’s doctrine of sin is basic for all and is related to all of the other articles of faith.”[8]

The problem of human sin is undoubtedly the “underlying truth” of the whole Bible. Had it not been for human sin it is questionable whether we would ever have had a written revelation from God. But if, as unfallen beings, we had ever had a written revelation from Him, it would not have been presented the same as is the one we have, especially after Gen. 3:6. For from Gen. 3:6 to the close of Revelation 22, all that is therein recorded has been inspired in the light of, and most if not all of it because of, Adam’s fall.

The “crowning truth” of God’s Word is its teaching on salvation. Whatever sin has been represented as doing to ruin the human family, God’s great salvation is offered as its perfect antidote, as God’s means of recovery for men. But while sin is the underlying truth and salvation the crowning truth of Scripture, the “central teaching” of these sixty-six books in our Bible is the Saviour. This, in capsule form, is the gist of God’s Word — sin, salvation, Saviour. To be sure, these are tremendously loaded terms, but they give us the epitome of the message of the Book Supreme.[9]

“Sin seems to have arisen in Adam by a self-chosen separation from God, producing guilt in his conscience, moral corruption in his spiritual nature, and deterioration and death eventually in his body.”[10] It is further believed by many Bible students that “Adam’s posterity received from him this moral corruption” with which he had contaminated his own nature. However, let it be immediately added that for the Wesleyan-minded student of Scripture, “if there be any of Adam’s guilt (for this self-originated depravity) imputed to his posterity, it is cancelled by Christ’s atoning work.”[11]

In Adam, as in all his posterity, except one, Jesus Christ, sin took on a threefold aspect: sins, sin, scars. Sins are “self-chosen behaviour”; and the “sin,” singular number, is a sinful bent; and the “scars” are the mental and physical consequences of “sins” and “sin.”

There is this fundamental difference between Adam’s sin-problem and that of his descendants: whereas Adam began his life in this world with a pure nature and his voluntary wrong act produced a wrong state or condition, every other human (save one) begins with a wrong state, a depraved nature, and then acts wrongully when he follows his corrupted nature.[12]

In the Fall the natural image of God in man was severely damaged but not destroyed; whereas the moral image of God, constituted by original holiness, was completely lost. While the moral quality of man’s nature was wholly changed from total holiness to total depravity (extensively conceived), man’s capacity for the renewal of the moral image was not destroyed.[13] Capacity itself is amoral; it is the content which fills that capacity that determines its moral quality—its holiness or its moral uncleanness.

Careful distinctions must be made between sin. as a corruption of man’s moral nature and the consequences of sin which scar the rational and bodily aspects of man’s being. Diseases and the scars they leave upon the human body are carefully distinguished by medical science; likewise to be distinguished are sin’s existence in the heart and its lingering effect even after the heart has been cleansed.[14]

In the Old Testament there is a very careful distinction made between sins of ignorance and wilful transgression, between good and evil intentions, as instanced by ‘the cities of refuge.’ For wilful transgression of the decalogue, the generally recommended treatment was the death sentence (Exodus 21), whereas for the sins of ignorance, the sin offering and the trespass offerings were made (Leviticus 3—5).[15]

In carefully examining the New Testament doctrine of sin, Wesleyan scholars have found “that Jesus, Paul and John clearly sustain the distinction between sin as a soul-current toward evil and as conduct into which men enter either by thought, word, or deed.”[16] In spite of the lingering infirmities of body and mind, the New Testament believer is looked upon as fulfilling all the demands of the law here and now when he loves God supremely (Matt. 22:36-40) and his neighbor unselfishly (Rom. 13:8-10).

Pre-Christian Perfection

Upon investigating the perfection for men which is presented in the Old Testament, J. Baines Atkinson discovered three aspects concerning it. First, it was a “relative normal condition and not an absolute condition.” Gen. 6:9 affirms that “Noah was a righteous man, and perfect in his generations” (ASV). In brief, Noah’s perfection was in keeping with the light and privileges of his generation, yet inferior to that perfection to come in the Christian dispensation.[17]

Atkinson discovered a second major truth concerning pre-Christian perfection, that it was “a condition of the heart in relation to God. Both parts of that description are to be emphasized. It is a condition of the heart, and it is a relation to God.”[18] Listen to Moses’ exhortation to the nation Israel: “When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee … thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God” (Deut. 18:9, 13). And of Abijam it was written: “… he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father” (I Kings 15:3). But of Abijam’s son we read: “… Asa’s heart was perfect with the Lord all his days” (I Kings 15:14).

A third important aspect of the perfection realizable under Old Testament privileges centers around the word “walking,” “And … the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect” (Gen. 17:1). And Hezekiah could say to the Lord: “… I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart …” (II Kings 20:3). “This linking of perfection with walking … recalls the words of the New Covenant: ‘If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin’ (I John 1:7)…. This association of perfection with walking indicates that to be perfect, to have a perfect heart, is not a static condition, but one of advance and progress.”[19]

These conclusions just considered are in full accord with the findings of Dr. George A. Turner’s study on Old Testament perfection:

1. The exhortation to moral integrity, wholeness, soundness, sincerity, or perfection is very prominent in the Old Testament, especially in the prophetic literature.

2. Of the some two hundred and thirty occurrences of synonyms for perfection about seventy-two refer to man’s character.

3. A ‘perfect’ man is one characterized by moral integrity, sincerity, and loyalty to Jehovah.

4. Such a perfection is commanded and expected of all the people of God.

5. The concept of perfection emphasizes the possibility of man’s becoming like Jehovah in character.

6. Such a divine-human fellowship is based on the ideas of holiness such as separation unto God and cleansing from all defilement whether ceremonial or moral.[20]

In the Old Testament record, observes Dr. Turner, “relatively little interest is shown in the origin or motives for sin, in the degree of perfection, or in the method of attaining this status. “Writers are content to describe the contrasts. The objective is not so much the ‘sinless perfection’ of a few individuals as the relative perfection of a large proportion of the nation.”[21]

Christ’s Perfection

No careful biblical student has been able to escape the fact that the New Testament presents to us One who “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (I Pet. 2:22). That One could stand before others and say, “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me” (John 14:30), as well as, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” (John 8:46) The author of Hebrews in giving a full-orbed picture of Christ declared Him to be “holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens” (Heb. 7:26, ASV).

Paul tells us that He is the Last Adam, but the Second Man (I Cor. 15:45, 47). Does that Pauline distinction arrest you? Christ Jesus is the Second Man ever to walk on this earth. The First Adam was the first man, but when he fell from his original estate of sinlessness, something went out of the human family that has reappeared only once since, and that was in “the man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 2:5). The human perfection, the sinlessness, of Adam before his fall in Eden reappeared under a very different environment. Whereas the First Adam had an ideal setting in which to work out his probation, the Last Adam faced a most hostile environment in which to achieve His mission. Despite this fact, that human perfection, that sinlessness of character and conduct of the Lord Jesus, was fully retained.

Let us look again at this One whom we rightly call the God-Man, the Sinless One. While He was perfectly human and lived a perfect human life, “though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation” (Heb. 5:8-9, ASV). How shall we reconcile these two emphases: (1) perfect, yet (2) being made perfect? “Surely it is not difficult,” wrote W. R. Matthews.

At every stage of his life Jesus met the demands of his circumstances without failure. He was perfect as a boy, as a youth, as a man. The Gospels, however, make it clear that he developed: ‘He grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man.’ His full perfection, or completion, required that he should experience the suffering of the Cross. So it can be said that he who had no imperfection in any stage of his life’s journey, yet was made perfect at the end of it.[22]

Perhaps a fuller explanation from the pen of the late Dr. H. Orton Wiley will help us here. It was not Christ’s moral character or relationship with the Father that needed perfecting. Both of these had been “inherently and eternally perfect” with Him. Having, through love to us, assumed our human nature and “entered into our conditions of life, the way to glory for Him as well as for us lay through sufferings, death and resurrection.”[23] To be officially qualified to be our perfect Redeemer, it was

necessary for Him as the Son of Man to offer up to God the sacrifice of a perfect humanity. Let this be clearly understood, that Christ as the God-Man bought back for us, by His positive perfections and His personal excellence, all that the first Adam had lost in the Fall—and more. Throughout all the days of His flesh He met day by day the cross-currents of a sinful world, suffered from them, and by His active obedience triumphed over them. He … became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross … and ‘offered himself without spot to God’ (9:14) … These three things—the perfected human nature as a vicarious sacrifice; the authority conferred upon Him to administer this salvation as a reward for His voluntary and perfect offering; and the sympathy, or capacity to understand by actual human experience those whom He would save—all these had to be acquired by the God-Man … as the ground of His mediatorial and priestly work.[24]

In the area of His service He progressed toward a perfection which came to Him in heaven, at the Father’s right hand.

And further, “He was the First Fruits of our humanity, perfected, exalted, and glorified. In Him our human nature passed from under the curse; in Him. it was exalted to the throne of God.”[25]

However, recall once more “the days of His flesh.” He lived “a perfect life in an imperfect world.” W. E. Sangster has pointed out that

Christ only lived a perfect life in the sense that He always acted with a perfect motive. He did not always do what a perfect man would do in a perfect world. In the latter, for instance, there would have been no whip for the Temple traders, no ‘woes’ for the Pharisees, no tribute money for the foreign conqueror. Nor would He have gone to the Cross.[26]

In one sense even Christ’s perfection was relative to His time and purpose for being on earth.

In summary, Christ’s perfection, on the divine side, was absolute and eternal; but on the human side it had both a completeness and a progressiveness. It was both sinless and temptable; flawless, yet relative; a present possession, yet a goal that was to be attained.

Christian Perfection

Thus far we have considered (1) the perfection of unfallen Adam, (2) the perfection of men after the Fall but before Christ, and (3) also the perfection of Christ himself. Now let us consider (4) “Christian perfection” itself.

Few words need more careful and constant definition than do the words perfection and sin. Words first of all are tools for thought, the instruments with which we carve out ideas in our minds. Then we use them as messengers of meaning, as carriers of content, sending them on their way to others, speaking our sentiments. But John Locke observed that generally

men take the words they find in use amongst their neighbors; and, that they may not seem ignorant what they stand for, use them confidently, without much troubling their heads about a certain fixed meaning … it being all one to go about to draw those men out of their mistakes who have no settled notions, as to dispossess a vagrant of his habitation who has no settled abode.”

When we take up the expression “Christian perfection,” Locke’s words become especially meaningful.

For a succinct summary of the New Testament’s teaching on perfection, I have found none more adequate than that given by Dr. Turner in his book The More Excellent Way. After a careful vocabulary study of the perfection concept, with special attention given to the two terms: téleios (completion) and katartídzein (to make whole; integrate), Turner makes it evident that the Old Testament ideal of perfection reaches its culmination in the New Testament.[27] Synthesizing what the various New Testament authors have to say, Turner shows that

the goal of the Christian in this present life is the fulfilling of Law by love to God and one’s neighbors (Mt. 5: 45; I John 3:14ff.). This necessitates a cleansing of the ‘heart’ from selfish traits (II Cor. 7:1), or ‘works of the flesh’ (Gal. 5:19), so that the sinful element in life is vanquished. This is a gift of grace rather than a reward of self-effort, received by faith (Acts 15:9; 26:18) in Jesus as the sin-bearer (I John 1:2 [sic, I John 2:2]), and is effected by the Holy Spirit, resulting in a complete integration of the personality in Christ and unity within the church (Gal. 2:21 {sic, 2:20]; Eph. 4:1-16). It is expressed in effective service (Rom. 12) and culminates in perfect love (I Cor. 13) and union with the divine (John 17).

On the whole the New Testament ideal of perfection, while more implicit than explicit, envisions the complete redemption of man from sin. It emerges from the following beliefs: (1) sin is not only an act but a principle; (2) this remains in believers; (3) believers have the alternative of either (a) maintaining the ‘status quo,’ or (b) going on to perfection—purification and maturity in love and grace; (4) God is holy and heaven a holy place, hence sin must be dealt with either in the next life, at death, or in this life; (5) it is during this life that God promises to ‘save his people from their sins’ and to perfect them in love. Unlike Gnosticism it is not the emancipation of man from matter, unlike philosophy it is not deliverance from ignorance; it is rather deliverance from sin and this assurance is voiced without qualifying reservations.[29]

While perfection is most assuredly a present possibility, according to the New Testament, it is not a term to be wholly restricted to a certain area or stage of Christian experience, nor is it fully reached in all its aspects at a single bound.

Just as man’s basic sin-problem is threefold, so God’s great solution to man’s problem must never be viewed as less than threefold. Man’s sin-problem has already been presented under three heads: sins, sin, and scars. Sins cover those individual choices, those personal disobediences, those voluntary wrongdoings for which each person of accountable years in inescapably responsible. When God for Christ’s sake forgives the penitent, believing sinner of all his past sins, justifies him freely, regenerates him truly, adopts him into His family, and initially sanctifies him, perfection has begun. From the divine side, God perfectly forgives all past sins. Not one is held against him or kept in reserve to be dragged out at some later day for his condemnation. In a word, the forgiveness is perfect. Concurrently with that canceling of sins’ penalty and the lifting of condemnation, the trusting soul is regenerated. That too is a. perfect work from God’s side. No matter how weak or how strong the faith of the seeker, when God truly regenerates a soul, each grace of the Spirit is planted within for further development; and the qualitatively perfect life of God activates the soul of the individual and starts him out on his spiritual pilgrimage, perfectly cleansed from all the acquired uncleannesses that his own past sinning has brought into his life; and he is given a perfect right, as an adopted son of God, to press his claims for all that the Father in heaven has placed in His will for that soul. From the divine side this is perfection begun.

On the human side that born-again individual who retains that relationship to God is so far perfect, said John Wesley, as not to commit sin.[30] In I John 3:9, the apostle declared that the born-again believer does not live in the practice of sinning, when sin is defined in the light of I John 3:4. Voluntary disobedience goes when one genuinely repents; for whatever else repentance may include, this much is true of it: Repentance is a return to obedience (Acts 22:10; 26:19; II Cor. 7:10-11). The newborn babe in Christ sets out to do the will of God as perfectly as he knows it. To the degree in which he knowingly and responsibly falls short, to that extent he is backslidden. For the “new life” of the converted one is built upon the Pauline spirit, “What shall I do, Lord?” (Acts 22:10)

Sin as an inherited corruption, is properly termed racial depravity, and indicates a wrong disposition, a soul tendency for which we are not responsible until we are made aware of its presence and true character, and learn of the divine remedy for its full elimination. Although there are the possibilities of growth after the new birth, yet this deep-down perversity in human nature is not removed until the believer by faith perfectly trusts the blood of Christ for cleansing from all sin (I John 1:9; I Thess. 3:10-13). When the consecrating believer receives the baptism with the Holy Spirit in response to faith, at that moment the heart is entirely cleansed … and another phase of perfection has been reached (Acts 15:8-9).

From the divine side, as fully as God knows the heart, just so completely does He purify it. Observe that it is the heart-knowing God (ho kardiognostas—Acts 15: 8-9) who does the purifying. This passage along with others would seem clearly to negate the view that the Christian can only be “sanctified up to his light,” or according to his knowledge of himself, which really turns out to be a never-ending process which Daniel Steele likened to bathing a “mud dummy.” No matter how well he is washed today, he will still be mud tomorrow.

Coupled with this cleansing is the Spirit’s work of perfecting the believer’s heart in love to God and to his neighbor. This is a perfection of quality, not of strength, or of intensity, or of ability to manifest perfectly that love. This is a perfection produced within the deepest ranges of human personality where the springs of affection, of ambition, of motivation take their rise. This is an elimination of all that God would call sin in the moral and spiritual nature of the appropriating believer. This properly is Christian perfection as it was heralded by the Wesleys and since proclaimed by a host of witnesses. Wesley defined many times the perfection that He taught. On one occasion he wrote:

By Christian perfection I mean:

1. Loving God with all our heart.—Do you object to this?

2. A heart and life all devoted to God.—Do you desire less?

3. Regaining the whole image of God.—What objection is there to this?

4. Having all the mind that was in Christ.—Is this going too far?

5. Walking uniformly as Christ walked.—And to this surely no Christian will object.

If anyone means anything more or anything less by perfection, I have no concern about it.[31]

Anyone acquainted with the carnal mind cannot hold that the foregoing level of divine grace is livable unless he is liberated from that indwelling bent to evil. Continued Wesley, “A person may be sincere who has all his natural tempers, pride, wrath, self-will in some degree; but he is not perfect in love till his heart is cleansed from these and all other corruptions.”[32]

A careful study of the New Testament brought Rev. Joseph H. Smith to see that the Christian perfection that is held out for us to enjoy now is not “a perfection of physical or mental state, not of temporal circumstances or conditions, but rather a perfect acceptance of an adaptation to the probation that is involved in the imperfection of our lot … in a word, Christian Perfection limited to the perfection of that which Christianity contemplates for man while on earth and in the body.”[33]

While perfection is begun in the regenerated believer, amid many, many imperfections, it is most assuredly advanced to a new dimension in the believer’s heart and life when he is entirely sanctified. But the imperfections of body and mind and temporal environment are not thereby eliminated. While these human imperfections, which the Bible and Wesley called infirmities, may hinder the expression of holiness, they need not hinder holiness itself. In fact, they drive the purified soul to trust the Lord the more and, in this manner, can make gain out of seeming losses; the sanctified can even glory in their infirmities if because of them the power of Christ will rest the more gloriously upon their lives (II Cor. 12:9-10).

In speaking of the human imperfections that remain after the heart has been made perfect before God, Wesley said:

But even those souls dwell in a shattered body, and are so pressed down thereby, that they cannot always exert themselves as they would, by thinking, speaking, and acting precisely right. For want of better bodily organs, they must at times think, speak, or act wrong; not indeed through a defect of love, but through a defect of knowledge. And while this is the case, notwithstanding that defect, and its consequences, they fulfill the law of love.[34]

This much is certain: they that love God with all their heart, and all men as themselves, are scripturally perfect . , . but then remember, on the other hand, you have this treasure in an earthen vessel; you dwell in a poor, shattered house of clay, which presses down the immortal spirit. Hence all your thoughts, words, and actions are so imperfect; so far from coming up to the standard …[35]

It was because of these involuntary shortcomings that Wesley refused to use the term “sinless perfection.”[36]

Perfect love, then, is compatible with “many deficiencies if not defects.” For illustration consider the young bride who may have a perfect devotion to her husband in that all other suitors or admirers are excluded and all her abilities and affections devoted to him. “Yet her inexperience and lack of knowledge and skill in housekeeping may cost him many discomforts and delays and possibly some damages and expenses. While struggling to overcome her deficiencies as a house-keeper, she may have as perfect a love toward her husband as … after her imperfections have been overcome.”[37]

Perhaps one of the classical texts in the New Testament treating the truth before us is II Cor. 7:1. Therein we have the “instantaneousness of cleansing” (indicated by the aorist tense of the verb), but the “progressiveness of holiness” (indicated by the present tense of the participle) , that is, the perfecting process that follows the crisis of perfect purity. Many have failed to understand where progress can have any place in Christian perfection, once one is perfected in love. Joseph H. Smith also had this difficulty for a time, until a friend of his took him through a great orchard and showed him how “‘an apple could be perfect, though it was still little and green and hard.’ Progress in the maturing of the disease-free apple, its enlargement, its ripening and its flavoring, illustrated for Smith the difference between purity and maturity, between perfection as a quality of nature and an unfolding development of that nature.”[38]

Along what lines does Christian perfection move; what are the areas for progression in it?

In the realm of spiritual life there are unnumbered and indescribable degrees of advancement to be made in knowledge, in courage, in prayer, in persuasiveness, in meekness, in patience and in the every-day, every-way reflection about us of the life that is within us.

In holiness there are establishments, intensifications, both of the earnestness of our consecration and the ardor of our love, and increased wisdom, too in our testimony and in our ways and means of spreading the truth, and an ever-growing force in impressing holiness upon others, together with a constant replenishing of our being with fresh supplies of the Spirit of Christ.

Then, in the way of the cross, there are ever-widening and deepening conceptions of humanity’s needs, an inflamed passion for man’s salvation, improvement, development and increase of gifts - . . but withal a growing facility in the greatest of all arts—the art of self-denial … for the glory of God.[39]

Sinless Perfection

While men’s sins can be perfectly forgiven, their souls regenerated and lifted to the plane of victory over the practice of known sinning, and their hearts perfectly cleansed from that inherited sinward-bias and filled with perfect love to God and men, nevertheless the remaining imperfections, which must be striven against and overcome as far as possible, will not be entirely removed until the resurrection of the body in glorification. These lingering scars are not of the nature of either sins or sin, but they often produce as serious losses and sufferings of various kinds, both to ourselves and to others, as if they had been evilly intended. These need the atoning merits of Christ’s blood because they are beneath the righteous standard which man in the First Adam was created to meet.[40] These involuntary wrongs need to be confessed and forgiveness sought; while not guilt-producing in themselves, they need to be corrected where possible, and covered by the blood of Christ.[41]

These scars are either inherited consequences of the Fall and/or acquired by the race and individuals, and therefore are to be fully removed when Christ’s redemptive work in us is completed. But that glad day has not dawned for us as yet. It was this perfection of “the resurrection of the just” for which Paul was reaching in Phil. 3:12, but had not yet attained, even though he did profess a perfection of the inner man at that very moment (3:15).

It is only when sin is so defined as to include every flaw and frailty, every deficiency or deviation from the standard of the perfect Christ or of unfallen Adam, as already studied, that men can deny that there is a perfection for us in this life. But to fail to recognize those areas and degrees of imperfection, even after the crisis of entire sanctification, is equally false.

“Sinless perfection” can be rightly used when applied in these three directions: (1) To Adam before the Fall. That Edenic perfection under which Adam lived required both outward and inward conformity to God’s perfect law of works, under which Adam then lived. But that perfection was forfeited. (2) “Sinless perfection” can rightly be applied to Christ during His earthly life when He lived and died among fallen men; His perfection was sinless then and will ever continue to be. (3) A third correct use of this term is the application of it to those who have finished their earthly probation and are glorified in heaven. The perfection of Eden is behind us, forever out of our reach. The perfection of eternity is ahead of us and within our future grasp. But we as Wesleyan-minded Christians do not claim either of those two perfections now; we profess only an evangelical perfection in which “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:8, 10). For in this life we are not held to an absolute outward conformity to the law of works. It is in the ages to come that that will be the attainment of all the redeemed. We will then have reached “sinless perfection,” from which we will not deviate forever. But, even there and then, progression in that perfection will doubtless go on forever.

The phrase “sinless perfection” is wrongly used if people attribute it to the following persons:

1. To one who thinks it is impossible to commit sin after his conversion and/or after his entire sanctification.

2. To one who thinks he is free from the scars of the Fall and therefore cannot make a mistake in either judgment or practice.

3. To one who thinks that the crisis of entire sanctification is the attainment of all perfection for this life, instead of regarding that crisis as the completeness of his deliverance from heart-sin and “of his equipment in order to his lifelong ascent into God.”[42]

4. To those who say they have no further need of Christ’s atoning merits after having been forgiven and fully cleansed.

5. To those who feel they have attained a state in which they no longer need to watch and pray, and live under the holy disciplines of sainthood.

But perhaps one of the most popular misuses of this expression “sinless perfection” is to label those as claiming it who profess to be divinely kept above the practice of voluntary sinning and to have received the purifying baptism with the Holy Spirit, perfecting them in divine love, but who yet know and declare that they make many involuntary mistakes, and are compassed about with numberless infirmities, for which they still need the mediatorial merits of Christ. It is often used in derision of this class of believers.

While some think the term perfection an unfortunate one for this gracious relationship with God through Christ by the Holy Spirit, nevertheless it is a scriptural one which cannot be honestly evaded. In the light of the foregoing emphases the author agrees with Wesley in not seeing in the Scriptures a “sinless perfection” for this life, especially as these two words are generally interpreted.[43] But a Wesley hymn sums up beautifully the stages and degrees of perfection that we can know here and the “sinless perfection” awaiting us in heaven above:

Jesus, the First and Last, On Thee my soul is cast. Thou didst Thy work begin By blotting out my sin; Thou wilt the root remove, And perfect me in love.

Yet when the work is done The work is but begun. Partaker of Thy grace, I long to see Thy face. The first I prove below; The last I die to know.

Ward M. Shantz

Minister, United. Missionary church; district superintendent of the Ontario, Canada, District of the United Missionary church; B.A., M.A., B.D. Has served as pastor, president of Emmanuel Bible College, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada. Coauthor of Mastering the English Bible.

John Wesley’s Teaching on Christian Perfection

by WARD M. SHANTZ

From early childhood, John Wesley was inclined toward a serious concern for living a holy life. His parents, particularly his mother, were interested, not simply in theology, in which field both showed considerable ability, but in devout worship of Almighty God. The well-ordered, methodical discipline and religious instruction of the Epworth rectory left its imprint upon Wesley and started him on his way toward a great passion for holy living which culminated in his formation of the doctrine of perfect love.

Four books that fell into Wesley’s hands between the years 1725 and 1729 had a profound influence upon his thinking. They were Bishop Taylor’s Rule and Exercise of Holy Living and Holy Dying, Thomas a Kempis’ Christian Pattern, and William Law’s two books, Christian Perfection and Serious Call. “These convinced me more than ever,” wrote Wesley, “of the absolute impossibility of being half a Christian: and I determined through His grace, (the absolute necessity of which I was deeply sensible) to be all devoted to God, to give Him all my soul, my body, and my substance.”[1]

In the year 1729, Wesley turned his attention to the Bible as the sole standard of truth and the only model of pure religion. Throughout his life he was not much concerned with the intellectual discussions of the day; his concern was to preach the Word of God, It alone held for him all that was essential to man’s salvation and to his duty to his Maker. Throughout this intensified study of the Bible, Wesley came to see more clearly his obligation to live a holy life. Said he:

I saw in a clearer and clearer light the indispensable necessity of having “the mind which was in Christ” and of “walking as Christ also walked”; even of having, not some part only, but all the mind which was in Him; and of walking as He walked, not only in many, or in most respects, but in all things. And this was the light, wherein at this time I generally considered religion as a uniform following of Christ, an entire inward and outward conformity to our Master. Nor was I afraid of anything more, than of bending this rule to the experience of myself or of other men; of allowing myself in any the least disconformity to our grand Exemplar.[2]

Wesley’s constant claim was that he was teaching nothing but what the Word of God contained. To the charge that perfection was Mr. Wesley’s doctrine he replied:

This is not his doctrine any more than it is yours, or any one’s else that is a minister of Christ. For it is Christ’s doctrine, peculiarly, emphatically His, it is the doctrine of Jesus Christ. … It is the doctrine of St. Paul, the doctrine of St. James and St. John; and no otherwise Mr. Wesley’s than as it is the doctrine of everyone who preaches the pure and whole Gospel. I tell you, as plain as I can speak, when and where I found this. I found it in the oracles of God, in the Old and the New Testament; when I read them with no other view or desire, but to save my own soul.[3]

Wesley’s first line of argument to support his views was drawn from the promises of God. The fact that God had promised to deliver His people from all sin was an indication to Wesley that such a deliverance is possible in this life. A few of these promises are: “He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities” (Ps. 130:8); “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. I will also save you from all your uncleannesses” (Ezek. 36:25, 29); “The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul” (Deut. 30:6). From the New Testament he drew in support of his position such passages as “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-27); and, “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil” (I John 3:8), to which he appended the comment, “The work of the devil, without any limitation or restriction; but all sin is the work of the devil.”[4]

His next line of argument was drawn from the prayers of the New Testament. In this connection he wrote:

Prayers for entire sanctification; which, were there no such thing, would be mere mockery of God. Such in particular are (1) “Deliver us from evil.” Now when this is done, when we are delivered from all evil, there can be no sin remaining. (2) “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us; I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.” John 17:20-23. (3) “I bow the knee unto the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that He would grant you, that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend, with all saints, what is the breadth and depth and length and height, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge.” Eph. 3:14f. (4) “The very God of peace sanctify you wholly, And I pray God, your whole spirit, soul, and body may be preserved blameless unto the coining of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I Thess. 5:23.[5]

To these he added the commands to the same effect. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48); “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37). He pointed out further that John speaks of those whose love is made perfect and Paul says, “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded.” Here are scriptural testimonies to the possibility of attaining perfection in this life.

As we inquire into the content of Wesley’s doctrine of perfection, it should first of all be noted that the perfection of which Wesley spoke was qualified by the word “Christian.” By this Wesley meant that it was a perfection within a certain sphere only, and was adapted to the factors within that sphere. He pointed out that it is not an absolute perfection, for this belongs to God alone; it is not the perfection of angels, who are not clothed with humanity; it is not the perfection of Adam before the curse of sin impaired man’s faculties; but it is Christian perfection, a perfection commanded, promised, and attainable by the Christian in this life and suited to his limited possibilities. It does not, therefore, exclude the possibility of mistakes in knowledge, judgment, and even tempers.

To show this qualification of his use of the term, we shall quote:

The highest perfection which man can attain, while the soul dwells in the body, does not exclude ignorance, and error, and a thousand other infirmities. Now from wrong judgments, wrong words and actions will follow, and in some cases wrong affections also may spring from the same source. I may judge wrong of you; I may think more or less highly of you than I ought to think; and this mistake in my judgment, may not only occasion something wrong in my behaviour, but it may have a still deeper effect; it may occasion something wrong in my affection. From a wrong apprehension, I may love and esteem you either more or less than I ought. Nor can I be freed from a liableness to such mistake, while I remain in a corruptible body. A thousand infirmities, in consequence of this, will attend my spirit, till it returns to God who gave it. And in numberless instances, it comes short of doing the will of God, as Adam did in paradise. Hence the best of men may say from the heart:

“Every moment, Lord, I need The merit of Thy death,”

for innumerable violations of the Adamic as well as the angelic law. It is well, therefore, for us, that we are not now under these, but under the law of love. “Love is (now) the fulfilling of the law.” But even against this, through the present weakness of our understanding, we are continually liable to transgress. Therefore every man living needs the blood of atonement, or he could not stand before God.[6]

Some may be inclined to say, “How can this be perfection?” Wesley would say that it can still be called Christian perfection, because God has commanded that Christians be perfect, the great apostle has prayed that the believers might be perfected, and also speaks of “as many as are perfect.”

The essential characteristic of Christian perfection is love. The heart must be undivided in its affection to God. There can be no divided allegiance, no halfheartedness, but the soul must be wholly yielded to God. All service is prompted by the singleness of desire to please God, and though through human frailty it may come short of absolute perfection, it nevertheless is acceptable to God because of the purity of intention; it springs from a heart of pure love.

It is the “loving the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind.” This is the sum of Christian perfection: it is all comprised in that one word, love. The first branch of it is the love of God: and as he that loves God loves his brother also, it is inseparably connected with the second: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”: thou shalt love every man as thy own soul, as Christ loved us. “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets: these contain the whole of Christian perfection.”[7]

This emphasis on love was Wesley’s predominating emphasis. Christian perfection was something positive that manifested itself in a putting “on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness”; but there was also a negative side to the experience, the cleansing of the nature from inbred sin. This he called entire sanctification, and by this cleansing the heart was purified and set free from all carnal traits. In this respect Wesley declared that “even babes in Christ are in such a sense perfect or born of God … as first, not to commit sin.”[8] A long justification of this point is given by appealing to many New Testament scriptures to show that it is God’s intent and the believer’s privilege to be delivered from the committing of sin. It should be remembered here that Wesley’s definition of sin made a distinction between what he called “sin, properly so called (that is, a voluntary transgression of a known law) and sin, improperly so called (that is, an involuntary transgression of a Divine law, known or unknown).”[9] When Wesley spoke of being perfect so as not to commit sin, he used the term in what he designated its proper sense. As to the second sense he wrote, “I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent upon the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. Therefore, sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself.”[10] This degree of perfection so as not to commit sin is expected in all believers. Beyond this experience there is a further perfection which marks, not the babes, but those who are strong in the Lord. They are in such a sense perfect as to be freed from evil thoughts and evil tempers. “Every one that is perfect shall be as his master” (Luke 6:40), and hence can have no evil thoughts, since He had none. Wesley further argued that evil thoughts proceed out of the heart of man, but the servant who is as his Master has a pure heart. From whence, then, could evil thoughts arise in him who is perfect? The argument in support of the deliverance from evil tempers runs along the same line: “For everyone that is perfect shall be as his Master, but his Master was free from all evil tempers, so, therefore, is his disciple, even every real Christian.”[11] For an elaboration of the implications of this aspect of perfection, reference should be made to the tract The Character of a Methodist and to the preface to the second volume of hymns.[12]

This perfection is an attainment which comes subsequent to the justification of the believer. Wesley very definitely rejected the position of Count Zinzendorf in which it is declared that “all true believers are not only saved from the dominion of sin, but from the being of inward sin, as well as outward sin, so that it no longer remains in them.” This Wesley described as a strange, new doctrine. He took his place in the tradition of the Church, pointing out that from early times the Church has believed that sin remains in the believer. His sermons entitled “Sin in Believers” and “The Repentance of Believers” clearly show that according to scripture and experience sin still remains in the believer. He concludes this discussion by saying, “The sum. of all this: there are in every person, even after he is justified, two contrary principles, nature and grace, termed by St. Paul, the flesh and the spirit. Hence, although even babes in Christ are sanctified, yet it is only in part. In a degree, according to the measure of their faith, they are spiritual, yet in a degree they are carnal.”[13]

This condition of duality of nature does not necessarily continue while life lasts. Through the grace offered in Christ, it is possible to be delivered from this indwelling sin. When the believer becomes aware of the sin that yet remains in him, through repentance he longs for cleansing that nothing may remain that is unlike God. He desires that his whole being may be devoted to God alone. It is to such a one that the promises of the Word come offering cleansing from all sin. Faith lays hold upon these promises and what has been promised, now, through faith, becomes the experience of him who believes. This interworking of repentance and faith in the believer is expressed by Wesley thus:

By repentance, we feel the sin remaining in our hearts, and cleaving to our words and actions; by faith we receive the power of God in Christ purifying our hearts and cleansing our hands. By repentance we are still sensible that we deserve punishment for all our tempers and words and actions; by faith we are conscious, that our Advocate with the Father is continually pleading for us, and thereby continually turning aside all condemnation and punishment from us. By repentance we have an abiding conviction that there is no help in us; by faith we receive not only mercy, but “grace to help in every time of need.” Repentance disclaims the very possibility of any other help; faith accepts all the help we stand in need of, from him that hath all power in heaven and earth. Repentance says “Without Him I can do nothing”; faith says “I can do all things through Christ strengthening me.” Through Him I can not only overcome, but expel, all the enemies of my soul. Through Him I can “love the Lord my God with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength”; yea, and “walk in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of my life.”[14]

Such victory over indwelling sin is the fruit of faith, even as justification becomes the experience of him who believes; and as he who has been justified continues in that state so long as he believes, so also he who is entirely sanctified remains free from indwelling sin as he continues to believe.

When we go on “from faith to faith,” when we have faith to be cleansed from indwelling sin, to be saved from all our uncleannesses, we are likewise saved from all that guilt, that desert of punishment, which we felt before. So that then we may say, not only,

“Every moment, Lord, I want The merit of thy death;”

but, likewise, in the full assurance of faith,

“Every moment, Lord, I have The merit of thy death.”

For by that faith in his life, death, and intercession for us, renewed from moment to moment, we are every white clean, and there is not only now no condemnation for us, but no such desert of punishment as was before, the Lord cleansing both our hearts and our lives.[15]

One point in Wesley’s teaching that has been largely obscured, or overlooked, is the emphasis that he gave to the moment-by-moment aspect of perfection. Through the use of the term “eradicate” (which by some is felt to be an essential of Wesleyan teaching, but which I have not found in Wesley’s writings) the idea is suggested that a condition of heart purity is brought about which can remain in a static state of purity like the garden from which every weed has been plucked and no more weed seeds remain. This was not Wesley’s conception. He realized that apart from the presence of the Spirit in the life there could be no purity. Man left to himself is nothing but sin. Unless there is sanctifying faith every moment, the cleansing would be gone.

The holiest of men still need Christ, as their prophet, as “the Light of the world.” For He does not give them light, but from moment to moment; the instant He withdraws, all is darkness. They still need Christ as their King; for God does not give them a stock of holiness. But unless they receive a supply every moment, nothing but unholiness would remain.[16]

By the same faith we feel the power of Christ every moment resting upon us, whereby alone we are what we are; whereby we are enabled to continue in spiritual life, and without which, notwithstanding all our present holiness, we should be devils the next moment.[17]

It is evident from the foregoing that the perfection Wesley preached is an attainment in grace. In no sense is it man’s accomplishment through his native abilities. It is the work of the Spirit of God, received by the believer through faith and made possible by the mediatorial work of Christ. Every barrier to serving God with the whole heart is removed through faith which appropriates the promises of the Word to this effect. Hodge correctly states the Wesleyan position when he says:

This perfection is not due to the native ability, or free will of man, but to the grace of God, or supernatural influence of the Spirit. Perfection is a matter of grace (1) because it is solely on account of the work of Christ that God lowers the demands of the law and accepts as perfect the obedience which the milder law of the Gospel demands; (2) because the ability to render this obedience is due to the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit; (3) because believers constantly need the intercession of Christ as our High Priest to secure them from condemnation for involuntary transgressions, which, judged by the law, would incur its penalty.[18]

One further aspect of Wesley’s conception of perfection should be noted. This perfection does not preclude further development. Rather, it removes the hindrances so that growth is more rapid. Wesley said:

All experience, as well as Scripture shows this salvation to be both instantaneous and gradual. It begins the moment we are justified, in the holy, humble, gentle, patient love of God and man. It gradually increases from that moment as “a grain of mustard seed, which, at first, is the least of all seeds,” but afterwards puts forth large branches and becomes a great tree, till, in another instant, the heart is cleansed from all sin, and filled with pure love to God and man. But even that love increases more and more till we “grow up in all things into Him that is our head;” till we “attain the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.”[19]

Again he said:

There is no perfection of degrees, as it is termed; none which does not admit of a continual increase, so that how much soever any man has attained, or in how high a degree soever he is perfect, he hath still need to “grow in grace” and daily advance in the knowledge and love of God his Saviour.[20]

This then, is the measure of Wesley’s doctrine of Christian perfection: This experience is subsequent to justification; it is attainable in this life; it is the gift of God’s grace through faith; it makes possible the loving of God with all the heart, mind, soul, and strength, and one’s neighbor as one’s self; it is the cleansing of the heart from those qualities that are not Christlike, such as evil thoughts and unholy tempers; it does not preclude the possibility of mistake and involuntary violations of the absolute law of God through the infirmities attendant upon the human body; it demands that spiritual growth shall follow the attainment of this state of grace.

Roy S. Nicholson

Minister, Wesleyan Methodist church; theological teacher and chairman, Division of Religion, at Central Wesleyan College, Central, South Carolina; D.D., Houghton College. Has served as pastor, superintendent of Wesleyan Youth, editor of Sunday school literature, secretary of Home Missions, editor of the Wesleyan Methodist, president of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America, evangelist and camp meeting speaker in the United States, Canada, and several foreign countries. Author of Wesleyan Methodism in the South, History of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in America, Notes on True Holiness. Presently serving as secretary of the National Holiness Association.

Holiness and the Human Element

by ROY S. NICHOLSON

This study is an effort to seek help in understanding “the intimate relation existing between the physical, the mental, and the spiritual natures with which we are endowed.” The failure to understand that relationship causes much of the perplexity and confusion which disturb many. The real problem facing us is to show “how grace does co-exist with human frailties.”[1]

The “grace” with which this paper deals primarily is that experience commonly referred to as “full salvation,” “entire sanctification,” “Christian perfection,” and “holiness.” There are differences in the descriptive terms used, and in the emphases, but the holiness which concerns us is that which is preached by those groups which “take the doctrine seriously enough to be classed as holiness bodies,” to use the words of Dr. Elmer T. Clarke.[2] Clarke gives three points which characterize the teaching of such churches on holiness. “ (1) It is a work of grace which purges the heart of inbred or original sin; (2) It is a distinct experience separate from and subsequent to justification or forgiveness, hence the term ‘second blessing’; (3) It is an instantaneous blessing though there may be growth previous and subsequent thereto.”

That description states the essential points quite explicitly. They are corroborated by responsible authors within the holiness bodies themselves, as evidenced by Dr. Stephen White’s Five Cardinal Elements in the Doctrine of Entire Sanctification, which he stated as: “(1) A Second Work of Grace; (2) Received Instantaneously; (3) Frees from Sin; (4) Is Attainable in This Life; and (5) Simultaneous with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.”

Such an experience, which we believe and teach, is for this life but is more than initial salvation, or holiness begun. It is less than absolute perfection, for only God possesses natural and moral attributes which admit of no enlargment. Only God possesses underived holiness. Man never has been and never will be absolutely holy. It is less than angelic perfection, for angels possess capabilities “far greater than ever fall to the lot of man.” Insofar as we know, they are perfectly free from all moral taint and “excel in strength” (Ps. 103:20). Also this is less than Adamic perfection, for prior to the Fall all Adam’s physical, mental, and moral powers were without impairment, and “perfect harmony reigned throughout the whole.” And it is indisputable that it is less than final salvation, or glorification. Instead, it is “fitness” rather than “finality,” for it prepares man’s soul for the transition from this state of probation to that state where probation is no more, and where this mortal shall have put on immortality and every human limitation associated with our sojourn on earth, which has been an arena of trial for us, will have been removed forever.[3]

The real test of holiness is “deliverance from sin” and not deliverance from personal dispositions and peculiar manifestations, which may be as numerous and as diverse as the persons involved. These manifestations have to do with our own “peculiar temperament” and not with our hearts’ moral condition. But it is at this very point that complications set in. It is this relation of the human element to holiness which complicates the preaching and teaching of holiness. Nevertheless, by rightly interpreting Scripture teaching and credible personal experience, and by properly blending doctrine, experience, and life, we should produce scriptural “saints. That is the antidote to formalism, Pharisaism, and legalism.

It is obvious that this paper cannot be developed as fully as might be desired; but we shall endeavor to show not only that sin is no essential part of our humanity but also that human nature, as God constituted it, is no barrier to holiness. In this connection we shall consider the things which we believe are amply supported by Scripture and reason:

1. Man possessed a human nature before he possessed a carnal nature.

2. Man, while possessing a human nature, became possessed of a carnal nature which is no part of his original nature.

3. Christ, in order to deliver man from this carnal nature, became man, possessing a very real human nature, bearing those weaknesses and infirmities, which while not sins, were the sad issues of sin, and labored under them, yet was “without sin.”

4. Man may by Christ’s atoning death be delivered or purged or cleansed from the carnal nature, yet retain his human nature.

5. The entirely sanctified man’s human nature, as a consequence of the Fall, is subject to human limitations and infirmities during his entire earthly probation.

6. Man’s infirmities and natural human weaknesses are not, strictly speaking, sins; therefore they are no effective barrier to holiness of heart and life.

In order for this study to be complete, it involves one in a serious consideration of the concept of “sin” as well as of “holiness”; but we shall have to content ourself in this paper with the brief statement of our belief that “conscience always finds the essence of sin to be in the realm of intent and motive,” and that sin is “fundamentally a matter of choice, of intention, and of purpose.”[4]

Human Nature Before the Fall

One factor which complicates the study of holiness and the human element is a distorted conception of human nature before the Fall. The doctrine of man’s original state has been dominated by groundless fancy rather than by Bible facts. Wild fancy and unlimited imagination have been resorted to more often than the Scriptures. Some have spoken of man as if he were a “god” or “the product of an eternal Nature.” He is neither, but is “the crown of a series of creative acts.” He is a morally responsible creature with a human nature which is vitally related to the material universe. There is nothing in the Old or the New Testament to support the view that man is a fallen god or that his human nature, as such, is sinful. Man’s human nature is without “moral overtones, and is not in any sense evil.”[5]

Careful attention to the Genesis account of man’s creation will assist us in keeping our philosophy in touch with reality. Man’s creation was purposeful. He was adapted to his place of residence and his occupation. His constitution was so wisely planned, the work was so well executed, and the different parts so properly arranged that his Creator pronounced it “superlatively, or only good, as good as they could be” (Adam Clarke).

Fancy and imagination, without scriptural warrant, have spoken as if man in his original state glided among bowers of beauty with “a perfect ecstasy of life, without care or trouble.” The divine record, however, reveals otherwise. Man was “made for this world; for work and toil and care; and for everyday existence, and not for parade.” He “needed forethought as we do; had to collect and cook the three-times-a-day meal or go hungry…. That which the history warrants is just this and no more: A man and a woman, one to be father and one to be mother were put upon their feet in a place called a garden, where the means of subsistence were abundant, and were commanded to dress it, and keep it, and get their living out of it. That is the record, nothing more. It is a simple … story.”[6]

If we are to perpetuate “ideas which are true and worthy of respect, the attempt at defending … mere fables must be abandoned” (ibid.). Of this we may be certain: Man was made for an earthly life. He had work to do, and his employment contributed to his happiness. He was responsible to his Creator, whom he was commanded to obey. But man was susceptible to exterior appeals, and had the freedom of choosing whether or not he would obey his Maker.

Confronted with the solicitation to gratify his desire for that which God had forbidden to him, but which Satan presented as a “good” which God had unjustly withheld from him, man yielded to Satan’s suggestion.

The consequences were tragic. He lost the moral image of God but retained his human nature. Despite the forgiveness of man’s actual sins, and the cleansing of his heart from all sin, he is left with what Dr. Delbert Rose refers to as “the scars,” or the mental and physical consequences of “sins” and “sin.”[7]

Human Nature Since the Fall

As a consequence of the Fall, the whole man is seriously impaired. His knowledge is limited, his intelligence is small, his will is weak, his conscience is often warped by error, and his ethical ideas are confused. So great are the consequences of the Fall and so extensive its effects that these things “cannot fail to affect and color” the regenerated man’s future existence. All was well as God constituted man, but by abusing his will to frustrate the will of God, man became sinful.

Bishop Randolph S. Foster, who in his day was called “the greatest metaphysician in Methodism,” said that when God’s salvation came to man’s soul, nothing was “added to its prior self-essence” and nothing was “removed from its prior self-essence…. All its old faculties and susceptibilities remain and no new ones have been added. In these respects it does not differ from its former self …”[8]

After the soul has experienced the saving grace of God, it “is left to reside in its old body unchanged. There is not a particle of change effected in the body by the regeneration of the soul. All the change is wrought in the soul itself. No ethical quality is predicable of the body or anything that the body does or feels. The ethic is in the soul, but the ethic of the soul is in many ways affected by its relation to the body. The body must be taken into account in explaining spiritual experiences…. The state of the body affects the state of the soul.”[9]

Subsequent to its cleansing the soul is not only left in the old, unchanged body, but it is also left in the same world in which it lived before, “It is not separated, and cannot be, from the men and institutions and pursuits which pertain to earth, or from the contact and natural power of association, example, prevalent ideas and practices of its fellows. It is left here to live the life of common humanity … It must go down into the arena and fight with the beasts. Not even the devils are kept aloof from it.”[10]

Bishop Stephen Neill of the Anglican church recently expressed the identical sentiment: “Holiness without which no man shall see the Lord (Heb. 12:14), is to be attained only under conditions of conflict, temptation and danger…. Christian holiness … has to be maintained amid conflicts and perils that are renewed day by day.”[11] The reason for this conflict is that God and man are cooperating in the greatest undertaking in which humanity can engage: character building, the perfecting of the moral nature that was damaged by the Fall. Since Satan seduced man into sin by frustrating the will of God through the abuse of the human will, man encounters “the difficulty of reconstructing character” not only under the adverse influences which “spring from the physical nature in which the soul is incarcerated” but also from “the current of the world … [and] organized powers of evil combined against all righteousness …”[12]

The intricacy of the complications of the relation of holiness and the human element are suggested by W. Earl Biddle, M.D,. in The Integration of Religion and Psychiatry. In the chapter entitled “The Search for Truth” he warns against “placing so much credence in our own theories that we cease to be curious, or in becoming so overawed by the theories of others that the light of our own common sense becomes dimmed.”

When we seek to understand human nature, the sources of information are so vast and manifold and the data so enormous that the as-yet-unexplored areas of human personality tend to “overawe” if not overwhelm one. Biddle warns one making such a study that “man is an obstinate creature” who “conforms to a pattern up to a point, but refuses to fit it completely. The study of man is inadequate without the inclusion of the spiritual aspect which cannot be circumscribed or delineated. To know man requires an understanding of the ethical standards and ultimate goals which motivate behavior, as well as a knowledge of the potentially infinite structure of the mind and the mechanics of its operation.”[13]

That declaration by a modern psychiatrist confirms the statement that the inclusion of the human element in the experience of holiness makes the situation “so exceedingly complex, that at times we almost despair of clearing up the fog with which, even by well-meaning people, the doctrine is surrounded.”[14] Since, however, those who advocate the Wesleyan Arminian theology teach that holiness is a personal experience to be received in this life, a Bible doctrine to be given intellectual assent, and a practical life which outwardly expresses the inward experience of holiness, we are obligated to endeavor to explore the relation between holiness and the human element, lest we be found to have raised a standard higher than the Bible places it, or to have lowered the standard to a point where God is grieved and men are disappointed. Despite the complexity and the difficulty of the undertaking, we must seriously ponder the issues involved. This will engage us in the definition of our terms, the making of distinctions between sins and infirmities, and valid deductions from those definitions and distinctions. May the Holy Spirit guide us into all truth as we proceed.

A Look at Definitions

Since definitions are of vital importance, let us turn to some standard theologians, lexicographers, psychologists, and psychiatrists for their explanation of the principal terms in our subject.

Since holiness is the first word in the subject, let us consider it. The new Webster’s Third International Dictionary, Unabridged, 1961 edition, is the one to which the references to Webster are directed. Webster defines “holiness” as: “1: The quality or state of being holy … 2: A state of moral and spiritual perfection: complete sanctification: sinlessness; specif.: A state of sinlessness that according to some small religious groups is bestowed as a blessing on a Christian believer following conversion and is often a prerequisite of salvation.” The same authority defines “holy” as: “2. a (1): Perfect in righteousness and divine love…. b: Spiritually whole, sound, or perfect … pure in heart….”

Another has defined holiness as “moral purity, freedom from all stain of sin, … Purification of the heart from sin and its renewal in the image of God.” It is also characterized by “single-mindedness of devotion to God —John 17:17-19; Eph. 5:26; I Thess. 5:33; Jas. 4:8b”[15]

Dr. Asbury Lowrey spoke of “entire holiness” as “the extermination of sin from the soul.”[16] Thomas Cook said that New Testament holiness as it related to man means a state of blamelessness rather than faultlessness; for “God looks less at results than intentions…. Perfect love is not always successful achievement: it is … a sincere aim in all that we do to please God.”[17]

Human Element comes next, so we shall take those terms in their order. Webster says that human means:

3: Characteristic of or relating to man in his essential nature: as a: of, relating to, or resembling man in his attributes in distinction from the lower animals … b: of or relating to man as distinguished from the superhuman, from the divine, or from nature: belonging to finite intelligence and powers….c: susceptible to, representative of, or exemplifying the range of feelings, strengths, or weaknesses of which man is capable…. d: having to do with, portraying, or arising from the small or large joys, sorrows, passions, struggles, or other interest-provoking experiences or situations of individual persons….

Element is defined by Webster as:

2: one of the constituent parts, principles, materials, or traits of anything: one of the relatively simple forms or units that enter variously into a complex substance or thing … one of the simplest parts or principles of which anything consists or into which it may be analyzed….

Perhaps we would not be far from the truth if we consider that the “human element” is that part of a being who is more than an animal and less than divine, using the word divine as a synonym for Deity. Man is a personality. There is that about man which constitutes distinction of person, which gives distinctive personal character, or individuality. In fact, one has described personality as “individuality expressing itself.” Therefore, let us take a look at the meaning of that term.

Personality, according to Webster, is:

1 a: the quality or state of being a person and not an abstraction, thing, or lower being: the fact of being an individual person: personal existence or entity: capacity for the choices, experiences, and liabilities of an individual person. … 5 a: the complex of characteristics that distinguishes a particular individual or individualizes or characterizes him in his relationships with others . . , d (2): the organization of the individual’s distinguishing character traits, attitudes, or habits …

Another word which is frequently encountered in the study of holiness and the human element is temperament, which has been defined by Webster as: 2b: characteristic or habitual inclinations, frame of mind, or mode of emotional response …” Another has spoken of it as “the characteristic of an individual which is revealed in his proneness to certain feelings, moods, and desires.” This is closely associated with disposition, which Webster defines as: “2a: the prevailing tendency, aspect, mood, or inclination of one’s spirits … the complex of attitudes, proclivities, and responses conditioning conduct … temperamental makeup.”

Clifford T. Morgan says that temperament is regarded as “a basic ingredient of personality, though not identical with it.” And he defines temperament as “the aspects of personality pertaining to mood, and activity, general levels of energy, interest in food, exercise and intellectual activity.”[18]

English and English define temperament as “the susceptibility of the person to emotive situations; the tendency to experience changes in mood.”[19] This matter of temperament cannot be brushed aside as of no significance because of the broad differences which are revealed in the several types of personality, differences which range from “the greater susceptibility of some … the greater excitability of some … to the insusceptibility of others.”[20]

Despite their other differences, authorities in psychology seem to agree on this: Temperament is “less under individual control than either cognition or will.”[21] Also that it is an individual’s “general, apparently innate, characteristic mode of responding.”[22] The temperament, whatever its ultimate characteristics, whether mental or physical, “exercise [s] a decisive influence on the whole life of the individual.” Though many psychologists “have dropped the doctrine of the temperaments altogether,” that does not dispose of those broad and deep differences “for which some names, and a scientific analysis must be found.”

While the scientists search for the answer to the dilemma regarding man’s temperament, the trusting child of God is consoled by the truth expressed by the Psalmist long ago: “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him. For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust” (Ps. 103: 13-14). Of this, man is certain: Since God requires nothing impossible, unnecessary, or unreasonable of His child, the divine command, “Be ye holy,” is compatible with the human nature possessed by the man to whom the command is given.

Infirmity is one word, however, which we shall meet most often in a study such as this. Webster defines “infirmity” as: “Character or state of being infirm; feebleness; frailty … an unsound, unhealthy, or debilitated state … a personal frailty or failing; foible, defect.”

Thayer describes the meaning of the Greek words translated “infirmity” thus: “want of strength, weakness, infirmity; of Body: Its native weakness and frailty (I Cor. 15:43; II Cor. 13:4); Feebleness of health, sickness … of Soul: want of the strength and capacity requisite a. to understand a thing (Rom. 6:19), the weakness of human nature, b. to do things great and glorious, as want of human wisdom, of skill in speaking, in the management of men (II Cor. 2:3) … c. to bear trials and troubles (Rom. 8:26) …” Speaking of the word translated “infirmities”[23] in Rom. 15:1, Thayer says it refers to “errors arising from weakness of mind.” Vine says that the word in Rom. 15:1 means “those scruples which arise through weakness of faith. The strong must support the infirmities of the weak by submitting to selfrestraint.”[24] Arndt and Gingrich treat the word for infirmity in Rom. 6:19 as “weakness in judgment,” and in Rom. 8:26 as “the lack of religious insight.”[25]

With these definitions in mind perhaps we are ready to proceed to another point. Since Christ was incarnated in a very real human body, and while subject to human limitations, “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52), we believe that it is both credible and possible that He will indwell a believer’s heart (I Cor. 6:19; Eph. 2:22), and despite that person’s human limitations accept his blameless love as he grows in grace, “perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (II Cor. 6:16—7:1).

It seems unreasonable to suppose that God should demand of men who have been “propagated according to the Divine arrangement in the stupendous provisions of grace, yet under the maledictions of death and all its associate frailties and physical disabilities … a perfection of service that must necessarily displace the very feebleness and mortality which his own decree has made inseparable from their present state.”[26]

It will assist us if we bear in mind, as Richard Taylor has so vividly set forth, that “God’s quarrel is not with our humanity, but with our disposition to set our will against His … God would rather live with a bungling, stupid, illiterate peasant who loved Him with a complete love, and obeyed Him implicitly, than with a perfect Adam who never made a mistake until the day he chose his own will in opposition to that of his Creator. God could chasten the peasant and polish him, and take away his illiteracy and stupidity and much of his bungling, but He could do nothing with a perfect man whose only fault was his determination to have his own way.”[27] That bears out what another has said: “God’s eternal purpose for His people in Christ is a holiness which means blamelessness of love.”[28]

A Look at Some Infirmities

Any attempt to list or classify all the infirmities to which Christians are heirs would be both tedious and impossible, but let us consider some which have been mentioned by responsible authors of holiness literature from the days of Wesley and Fletcher to the present. Mr. Wesley specified a number of things as infirmities, and then referred to “a thousand nameless defects.” His list of specific items included “involuntary failings,” “hurting our neighbors without knowing it or designing it … ,” “anything whatever which it is not in their power to help … of an inward or an outward nature … doing something or leaving something undone.” He also included “ignorance,” “mistakes,” “bodily infirmities,” and “all those inward or outward imperfections which are not of a moral nature … weakness and slowness of understanding, dullness or confusedness of apprehension, incoherency of thought, irregular quickness or heaviness of imagination … want of a ready or retentive memory … slowness of speech, impropriety of language, ungracefulness of pronunciation …” John Wesley’s criterion for determining what might be considered an infirmity and what a sin was that there was no guilt where there was no choice nor any “concurrence of the will.”

Your indulgence is asked as we go through the list of other “infirmities” which have been gleaned from the works of those listed in the bibliography used in connection with this study. Without tediously identifying their sources here, they are listed as collected: “Errors of discernment, inexact appraisals of situations, lack of balance between excitability and apathy, cheerfulness or despondency, courage or timidity, firmness or yieldingness, impatience and indolence, cheerfulness or frivolousness and melancholy.” They are “lapses of memory, errors of judgment, imperfections of behavior caused by

human infirmities.” “Warped minds, deformed bodies, frayed nerves, and the consequences which arise out of these inescapable human imperfections” are also included, as well as “mistakes of judgment, deficiencies of knowledge, faulty reasoning, faulty perceptive faculties, physical deformities, abnormalities, and peculiarities of temperament, disease, pain, and decay.”

The saintly and scholarly Daniel Steele listed “ignorance, forgetfulness, misjudgment, error, inadvertence, failure and a large family by the name of Infirmity.” Speaking of “Temptation,” Steele wrote: “He makes an occasional incursion, but he acts as if he feels that he is an outlaw.”[29]

Others which have been listed include weariness, exhaustion, nervousness, drowsiness, overindulgence of food and sex, bad dreams, flighty emotions, imaginations, wandering thoughts, forgetfulness, suspecting others’ real motives, vacillation of moods, weak memory, temperamental unsteadiness, thoughts of evil, fearfulness of the future, susceptibility to Satan’s suggestions, tendency to fluctuate in faith because of unsteady emotions, failure to properly reflect one’s inward feelings, righteous indignation, sense of inferiority or superiority over the light one possesses, inability to accomplish things undertaken for the Lord, etc.

“Also there are irregularities and mistakes in conduct for which one is often grieved” because “the discrimination is affected by the motive, and the motive is affected by training and moral perception.” There is ignorance of how to properly perform duties that are expected of us, deficiency in practical experience, a sense of personal worthlessness, rashness and impulsiveness, and distrust of others whose motives are sincere.

In an effort to be firm and zealous for the right, one may seem to be cruel; in his endeavor to be benevolent, one may be considered indulgent and weak; and in trying to do good, harm may come of one’s efforts. To the eyes of men, these things seem inconsistent with grace, but not to God.

Should Infirmities Be Considered Sins?

This is the question which lies at the heart of the problem of relating the human element to holiness. There are two answers which may be given immediately: “yes” and “no”; and each requires explanation and defense. The controversy has been long and sometimes bitter, but we seek the truth. The answer will depend in a large part upon one’s conception of sin. This is not the place for an extended consideration of that subject. We repeat our acceptance of the fact that where there is no concurrence of the will there is no sin, “strictly-speaking.”

There is no disputing the fact that these infirmities are caused by sin, but not necessarily by the sin of the infirm one himself. They are associated with the race of which he is a part. Though they be the effects of sin, they may be in themselves sinless. Our Lord had experiential knowledge of human infirmities, yet was sinless. Silcox wrote: “There is a wide difference between an infirmity and a sin. Sin is the deliberate choice of a wrong…. Failure may arise from an inherent weakness or ignorance.”[30]

In his sermon on “Christian Perfection,” which is one of the standards of Methodism, Mr. Wesley, who under God was the leader of the movement which gave renewed emphasis to the doctrine, experience, and life of holiness, said:

No one, then, is so perfect in this life, as to be free from ignorance. Nor … from mistake … Christians. … are not so perfect as to be free from infirmities. Only let us take care to understand this word aright: only let us not give that soft title to known sins, as the manner of some is. … I mean hereby, not only those which are properly termed bodily infirmities, but all those inward or outward imperfections which are not of a moral nature…. These are the infirmities which are found in the best of men, in a larger or smaller proportion. And from these none can hope to be perfectly freed, till the spirit return to God that gave it.[31]

John Fletcher, one of Mr. Wesley’s coadjutors, whose irenic spirit marked him as an example of holiness, in his Last Check to Antinomianism cites Old and New Testament passages to show that Moses, David, Christ, and Paul “made a distinction between sins and infirmities,” drawing the distinction between willful sins and involuntary infirmities. Infirmities he likened to “spots on God’s children” and sins to the perversity of a crooked generation. He also shows that “judicious Calvinists have seen the propriety of the distinction” between sins and infirmities.[32] Daniel Steele, who conducted a “Question Box” in the Christian Witness for many years, later collected his replies to many questions in a book called Steele’s Answers. On page 134 he quotes Fletcher as saying: “An infirmity has its foundation in an involuntary want of power; and a sin is a wilful use of the present light and power we have.”

The need for making a proper distinction between sin and infirmity was pointed out by the late Dr. H. Orton Wiley: The Epistle to the Hebrews: “To call innocent mistakes in judgment, lapses of memory, and a lack of understanding due to weakened human powers sin is to open the floodgates to all kinds of actual sin.” An old writer has said: “The passions, because an organic element of our nature, are not destroyed but subdued by grace, restrained within the limits of Scripture sobriety, and exercise their functions under the dominion of love . . ,”[33] Thus the carnal nature is “destroyed” but the human nature is “directed.”

Among American advocates of holiness the name of Joseph H. Smith stands at the top of the list with a select few who balanced Scripture and reason in their treatment of the question of holiness and the human element. Smith said that Paul’s “experience and prayer and subsequent testimony” in II Cor. 12:2, 10 reveal “a perfection of will that is infinitely better than perfection of physical or temporal circumstances and joyously practical without either of these.”[34]

Smith was also quoted by D. F. Brooks as making this distinction between weakness and depravity:

This is the distinction between propensity and susceptibility. Free moral agency, of course, gives man a capability of sinning. Indwelling sin gives him a propensity to sin. Habits of personal transgression and perhaps a family history of sin, gives him a special vulnerability or susceptibility at the point of particular sin. Hence, a sanctified man differs from Adam in this, that he not only has the natural capability of sinning, but he has also individual liability … and this is moral weakness as distinguished from depravity. But what is the provision of grace? “Where sin abounded grace does much more abound.” See? There is divine wisdom in the permission of these retained weaknesses. Else we would not wholly and always trust in Christ.[35]

On this matter of the distinction between infirmities and sin, Samuel Chadwick, president of Cliff College, had this to say:

Christian perfection is not infallibility. It does not deify man. It does not dehumanize humanity; it sanctifies it. A clean heart does not imply a perfect head. As long as we are in this world there will be unavoidable errors and imperfections in judgment. The mistake is in regarding such errors and imperfections as sins…. There is no scriptural warrant regarding either physical infirmities or mental weaknesses, or any of their proper consequences as sins. They are not sins. Such imperfections are utterly destitute of moral character. They require no repentance. No man can repent of an act which is the result of pure ignorance; or of something which was unavoidable. He may regret these things, but regret and repentance are by no means the same…. Deliverance from mistakes is not by the blood of the Cross but by the discipline of experience. This is a perfection that is by suffering, and not by faith.[36]

There is a practical value in properly discriminating between infirmities and sins. The failure to make such a justifiable distinction has resulted in the unwarranted requirement of a type of perfection of conduct by professors of holiness that is not only ungracious but unscriptural. The harm has been great. Some have raised up a standard that is higher than God’s Word raises it. That has caused some to despair of obtaining the goal set forth as the ideal of the Christian life on earth. Others have reacted in an altogether different way. One who is so misinformed that he considers that holiness practically “dehumanizes” man, to use Chadwick’s expression, may conclude that he is not sanctified “when he perceives within himself impulses which could lead to evil when not properly directed and controlled, although those impulses on examination may prove to be perfectly legitimate and natural in themselves.” On the other hand, a “Christian who knows that he is sanctified … may conclude that all his impulses are right, and adopt the deadly and destructive dictum … ‘love the Lord, and do as you please.’“[37]

There are some suggestions which will help in the determination of whether a thing is a sin or an infirmity, and the principal key, to repeat what was said earlier, lies in this: “sin is always voluntary” while infirmities are “involuntary and flow from our imperfect … organization.” Infirmities are failures to keep the “law of perfect obedience given to Adam…. Sins are offenses against the law of love, the law of Christ…. Refusal to love with the whole heart is the ground of condemnation, and not the inevitable failures in keeping the law of Adamic perfection…. Infirmities have their ground in our physical nature, and they are aggravated by intellectual deficiencies. But sin roots itself in our moral nature…. Infirmities entail regret and humiliation. Sin always produces guilt…. Infirmities in well-instructed souls do not interrupt communion with God. Sin cuts the telegraphic communion with heaven. The infirmities of unenlightened believers, being regarded as sins, may produce condemnation and sunder communion by destroying confidence in God. Thousands are in this sad condition.”[38]

But is there any consolation for those who are humiliated by infirmities over which Satan accuses them, and which are inescapable so long as we inhabit this mortal frame?

Infirmities hidden from ourselves (Psa. 19:12) are covered by the blood of Christ without a definite act of faith, in the case of a soul vitally united with Him.… Sins demand a special resort to the blood of sprinkling and an act of reliance on Christ … Sins, by the keeping power of Christ, are avoidable through every hour of our regenerate life…. Infirmities are without remedy so long as we are in the body. A thousand infirmities are consistent with perfect love, but not one sin.

This must be borne in mind, despite the fact that we recognize a valid distinction between infirmities and sins: “they both need the Atonement.” Daniel Steele has such a pertinent paragraph on this, that it is offered for your consideration:

Though a well-meant mistake does not defile the conscience and bring it into condemnation, nevertheless, when discovered it demands a penitent confession and a presentation of the great sin-offering unto the God of absolute holiness. The refusal to do this after the sin-offering has been provided involves positive guilt. Says John Wesley: “Not only sin, properly so-called, that is, a voluntary transgression of a known law; but sin, improperly so-called, that is, an involuntary transgression of a divine law, known or unknown, needs the atoning blood. … I believe a person filled with the love of God is still liable to involuntary transgressions.” Hence Charles Wesley sings:—”Every moment, Lord, I want the merit of Thy death.” In view of this truth it is eminently appropriate for the holiest soul on earth to say daily, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.”[39]

Although such an attitude recognizes that infirmities are innocent in themselves and sinless because they are involuntary, it also recognizes that they “are from sin, in that they are the effects of sin,” and sin—voluntary or involuntary—in the light of God’s absolute holiness requires the atoning blood of Christ.

After we have been unconsciously influenced by factors which caused us to decide something without sound judgment, mature reflection, additional information, correct instruction, and a tetter environment may cause us to see our error and its ill consequences, and “cease what we thought was the proper thing to do.” But what about that which we have done that humiliates and embarrasses us? The spirit of holiness demands that “we confess our faults.” An infirmity becomes sin “when we detect our error and choose to continue in it. No condemnation can exist until we see our fault and are capable of correcting it. As long as the will is not involved in a wrong choice, there can be no blameworthiness….”[40] See also John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, pp. 55-57.

The border between infirmities and sins may be difficult to define to the satisfaction of all, and it may defy delineation that is acceptable to others, but this we must recognize: Each soul has a personal relationship to God and must give account for its own attitudes and actions to God (Rom. 14:13). There is no reason to feel that an honest soul who seeks the truth will be denied the needed light to keep adjusted with God. But it will assist that soul to study carefully the true nature of sin and holiness. Ask if the thing brought guilt or humiliation, if it was voluntary or involuntary, if it was avoidable or unavoidable. Be honest with God! Study the Word of God. Examine your own motives. Ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to your heart as God knows it to be. Then “whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.”

Diversity Among Christians

One of the problems confronting those who seriously study the relation of the human element to holiness is the diversity among those who seem to be true Christians. There are many factors which need to be taken into account in this connection. As we have seen, there are differences of temperament, differences of intelligence, and differences of personal habits. Many of them, if not all, were there before one experienced the grace of God, and they will remain throughout life. They affect the soul all along its career, even after holiness has been experienced in the heart. These differences inevitably result in different types of character and expressions; and sometimes in the spiritual realm as in the natural realm one encounters “monstrosities”—either as giants or dwarfs, neither of which is normal, but shows what can be done in exceptional cases.

In the Merrick Lectures at Ohio Wesleyan University, Bishop Foster gave some attention to the matter of accounting for divergencies between Christians. He declared:

Circumstances are influential, also peculiarities of the people with whom the new-born soul finds itself associated; peculiarities of the sect notions and habits where its lot is cast; peculiarities of the pablum on which it is fed; peculiarities of the ministry under which it is trained, the ideals set before it, and other things…. But under all these types and diversities there is a family likeness, and the general and cardinal facts of experience are identical.[41]

Remembering then the cardinal elements of entire sanctification: (1) a heart-cleansing work of grace, (2) distinct from and subsequent to justification or forgiveness, and (3) instantaneously received by faith, and (4) wrought by the baptism with the Holy Spirit, those are the things for which we contend—not uniformity in temperament, intelligence, personal habits of life, and those innocent items which are associated with individual personality expressions and dispositions.

Why the Sanctified Have Infirmities

The section now engaging our attention can be little more than suggestive. Finite man cannot enter into the wisdom of the infinite God whose ways are past our finding out (Rom. 11:33). Everything He has done for us is “according to the good pleasure of his will,” and is to the end that we should be “to the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1; 5, 12, 14). He has given us this treasure in an earthen vessel (II Cor. 4:7) for the divine purpose: “that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.” The grace of God is rich and exceedingly precious and unspeakable. But divine wisdom has left man with something which reminds him moment by moment that he must live “in Christ” and through Him find his “life a constant pageant of triumph” (II Cor. 2:14, Moffatt).

The discovery of our own infirmities produces a sympathy with and tolerant attitude toward others whose infirmities may not be as numerous and as grievous as our own; or which may—by reason of our own infirmities—appear to us to be greater and more vexatious to us than our own infirmities.

Of this we may be certain: the humiliation which comes from our own weakness and inability to do what we intend to do, for reasons that are beyond our control, keeps us from self-satisfaction and pride over our achievements in the service of the Lord. Our love, motives, and intentions are good, but the gap between what we set as our ideal and the goal we realized is so great that we are humbled. Our Lord deserves better than our human limitations permit us to render unto Him for all His benefits unto us.

Finally, our infirmities, which reveal to us that we are just as human as other people and that our weaknesses may test them as severely as theirs test us, teach us to watch lest Satan get an advantage over us through these things (II Cor. 2:11). If we tend to chafe under the weight of our infirmities, we should remember that Christ was experientially acquainted with our infirmities, that He labored under them and knows how to pity and sympathize effectually with those that are under them. He kept without sin, while bearing the weight of human infirmities; and so may we if we avail ourselves of the privilege extended to us of coming to our High Priest, who is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities” and who bids us to “come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:15-16). Anything which can lead us to find the promised treasure in Him is a blessing and leads to the discovery that His “grace is sufficient” because His strength is made perfect in our weakness. If, therefore, we see these things as He would have us to see them, we, like the Apostle Paul, by the grace of God, can “glory” in our infirmities, and we too shall find that the power of Christ is resting upon us. The victory is in Him, and His identification with us is so complete that our victory over self, sin, and Satan is a victory for Him.

Summarizing Our Position

To an unknown author we are indebted for the gist of this summary of our position.

Entire sanctification makes us morally pure from our inbred depravity … The subject is perfect as to the kind of his Christianity or religion, yet not in such a way that the measure of it cannot be increased. He is holy in the sense that he is morally pure. He is sinless in the sense that his past sinful acts have all been pardoned and his corrupt nature cleansed. He is blameless in the sense that God sees in his pardoned and cleansed soul nothing condemned by the Gospel law. As to his love it is perfect in kind, and perfect in the sense that he loves with all the heart, mind, soul, and strength; and in the sense that “love is the ful-filling of the law,” and “the bond of perfectness.” As to progress, he is growing in it. The measure, power, and intensity of his life is on continual increase. His soul made in kind heavenly, now matures in degree, and ripens for glorification. The imperfection that needs perfecting is the measure of that grace, not its kind.

Thus, brethren, we trust that we have helped to shed some light on the statement that the human element is not a barrier to holiness!

Jesse F. Lady

Minister, Brethren in Christ church; associate professor, Upland College, Upland, California; A.B., John Fletcher College; S.T.B., Biblical Seminary in New York; Th.M., Princeton Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Los Angeles Bible Theological Seminary; graduate study, Drew Theological Seminary and New York University. Has served as pastor, president of Upland College, college Bible teacher; missionary to Israel and Africa, principal of Wanezi Bible Institute in Africa. Author of Preaching the Gospel.

The Holy Spirit in the New Testament

by JESSE F. LADY

INTRODUCTION

Holy Spirit, faithful Guide, Ever near the Christian's side, (MARCUS M. WELLS)

It is in the spirit of this hymn writer that we undertake to give consideration to the important subject “The Holy Spirit in the New Testament.” Christian leaders of every generation, some more than others, have given thought and expression to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

Because of the fact that this is such a large subject we are limiting our study primarily to the New Testament. Even in this area we can touch only the salient points.

A. The importance of the subject

One reason for the timeliness of this subject is the fact of the general neglect of the place of the Holy Spirit in the life and teaching of the Church today. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones ventures to say, “No aspect of the Christian faith has been so tragically neglected and perhaps misunderstood.” Another recent writer puts it like this: “The Holy Spirit is to many the forgotten Helper, the ignored Comforter, and the misrepresented Power.”[1] This fact ought to force us to examine ourselves.

A second reason for giving attention to this subject is the fact that some doctrines are absolutely vital to the whole plan of salvation. The work of redemption could not possibly be realized or completed without the executive work of the Holy Spirit in appropriating the work of redemption wrought by Jesus Christ.

Then again the importance of the subject is heard in the cry of many for the note of authority to be restored to the Christian ministry. Let us hear again the “Thus saith the Lord.” Is there any quicker way to restore the lost note in the Church than to give the Holy Spirit His rightful place?

Possibly the greatest reason for giving thought to this subject is the high recognition given to the Holy Spirit in the first-century Church as recorded in the Scriptures. A safe rule is to emphasize what the Bible emphasizes. Let us see then what the New Testament has to say on this subject.

B. The method of procedure

The study is approached by presenting the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the larger background in order to show the relation of this subject in both the Old and New Testament. The main body of our discussion is focused on three general areas of concern. First, we consider the Holy Spirit in the New Testament before Pentecost; then, the Holy Spirit and Pentecost; followed by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament after Pentecost. Finally, we endeavor to summarize our findings, and give further suggestions for study on this subject.

I. The Holy Spirit in the Larger Background

A. As seen in the preprophetic period

In the early pages of the Old Testament the idea of the Spirit is present in Hebrew thought. However, we cannot trace a formulated doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. At some periods the Spirit played a more active part in the personal and national life of the Hebrews than in others. In the first chapter of Genesis we find the Spirit was operative in both creation and providence.

Baker’s Dictionary of Theology points out that it is the activity, not the nature, of the Holy Spirit that is here emphasized. Some of the early activities of the Spirit are those associated with Moses, Joshua, and the Judges (Num. 11:17, 25-26). In his book The Holy Spirit, T, Rees states that the Spirit of Yahweh or of God is generally designated as the Spirit in the Old Testament.

B. As seen in the prophetic period

While there were many allusions to the Spirit in the Old Testament period, it was during the golden age of prophecy (the eighth and seventh centuries) that a loftier conception of the Spirit was evidenced. Prior to this time the Spirit’s operation produced more of a state of excitement, frenzy, and abnormal emotions. But in the great reforming prophets, such as Elijah, Isaiah, and Amos, the Spirit awakened in them not so much the mood of frenzy, but a conscience which put the emphasis on the moral, ethical, and religious levels of life. It was also during this period that the Spirit became the inspiration of new hope focused on the Messiah.

C. The postexilic period

We mention the postexilic period briefly because it does have a bearing on New Testament thought. After the Exile, Jewish thought was divided into two distinct types. One was the Palestinian idea, centered around the Temple worship and Jersualem. The other developed in the area of Alexandria, Egypt, where the language and thought of the Greeks predominated in the Hebrew mind. Neither of these lines of truth had a great bearing on the development of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, but formed a link in its development. It was the Palestinian thought that had the greater influence on this New Testament doctrine. This period is marked by the poverty of the experiences of the Spirit.

We shall now turn to the New Testament and see how some of these Old Testament ideas are developed regarding the doctrine of the Spirit.

II. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament Before Pentecost

With the exception of the Second and Third Epistles of John, each book in the New Testament makes some reference to the Holy Spirit. Consequently, with the beginning of this new era there are ample references to indicate a new development of the nature, work, and experiences of the Spirit.

A. As seen in the life of Jesus

The Gospel narratives are clear that the Spirit attended the developing stages of Christ’s history. The Holy Spirit “over-shadowed” His mother in the miraculous conception of Jesus (Luke 1:35). In Jesus’ baptism (Matt. 3:16) and temptation (Luke 4:1) the Spirit was also active. Light thrown on the nature of the Spirit is seen in the narrative of Jesus’ temptation. The Holy Spirit sends or divinely constrains Jesus to go into the wilderness (Mark 1:12). In these early references we have the unveiling of the Holy Spirit as a distinct Personal Agent as never before.

B. As seen in the ministry of Jesus

Not only was the Spirit present in the early life of Jesus, but Jesus claimed the possession of the Spirit as the power and inspiration of His ministry. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel” (Luke 4:18). The content of all the Gospels implies that Jesus ministered in the power of the Spirit. Otherwise, what would have been the purpose of Jesus’ warning the Jews concerning the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? For they attributed. Jesus’ miracles to collusion with the prince of demons (Matt. 12:24). One thing seems clear at this point about Jesus: He was effecting His miracles in the power of the Spirit. “And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee” (Luke 4:14).

C. As seen in the teaching of Jesus

The idea of the Spirit grows stronger and more explicit in the teachings of Jesus. The fourth Gospel gives more emphasis to the teachings of Jesus regarding the Holy Spirit than does any other. While the Synoptics record the promised blessing of the Spirit, John speaks definitely of the nature of the Spirit and His functions. In John 3:3-8, Jesus teaches that the Holy Spirit is the life-giving Agent, who effects the spiritual birth in man, by which man may gain entrance into the kingdom of God. Jesus speaks of this new life of the Spirit in man as a well of water springing up within. In looking forward to Pentecost, Jesus predicts that the Holy Spirit will flow out from the believers as rivers of living water (John 4:14; 7:37-39).

It is interesting to note that Jesus does not say much about the Spirit until Passion Week. There was probably a good reason for this. In Jesus’ farewell discourses as recorded in John, chapters 14—16, He was preparing the disciples for His impending departure. He was careful to assure them that He would not leave them “orphans,” but would continue to comfort and sustain them by another Comforter who would come to them after He went away.

In these farewell addresses Jesus uses three significant names to reveal further the Spirit’s nature and function. First, we have the word “Comforter” (Counselor, Helper, Intercessor, Advocate, Strengthener, and Standby—Tant.) in John 14:16. Two other words in this verse associated with “Comforter” should not be overlooked, namely, “another” and “for ever.” The first speaks of Jesus himself, who had until then fulfilled the idea of Comforter. The second word speaks of the permanency and abiding presence of the Holy Spirit. The word “Comforter” as applied to the Holy Spirit is mentioned four times, and in each case it was used by Jesus and recorded by John (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7).

The other two names for the Spirit are the “Spirit of truth” (14:17, 26; 16:13) and the “Holy Spirit” (14: 26). The Spirit is the Spirit of truth because He bears witness of Him who said, “I am the truth.” The Holy Spirit does not teach independently, but will glorify Christ and will bring to remembrance all things that Jesus said (John 14:26).

Another phase of Jesus’ teaching is the Spirit’s work in relation to the world. In John 16: 8-11 we have a good summary of the Spirit’s function, and method in dealing with the non-Christian. “And when he is come, he will convict the world.” This word convict is a good legal term which suggests the work of a judge who apprehends the wrongdoer. Jesus goes on to list the things about which the Spirit will convict and the reasons why the unbeliever is condemned. One could also speak of the logic of the Spirit’s procedure in dealing with lost man in the above verses. He not only shows man what he ought not to be, but what he should be, and what he can be by believing in Jesus Christ.

These farewell addresses of Jesus, therefore, bring to a fitting conclusion the revelation of the nature, activities, and methods of the Spirit prior to Pentecost.

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND PENTECOST

A. The meaning of Pentecost

Thus far we have traced the developing idea of the Spirit in a general way from creation to Christ and from Christ to Pentecost. While the Holy Spirit has always been present in the world in some form, yet in a very real way Pentecost marks a new dispensation of the economy of the Spirit. The word Pentecost comes from the Greek Pentecostos, meaning “fiftieth” (day), which was associated with the fiftieth day after Passion. To the Christian Church, Pentecost was the inauguration day of the coming of the Holy Spirit. It might well be said that Pentecost was the installation day of the Holy Spirit as the Administrator of the Church, the body of Christ.

B. The Holy Spirit in relation to the Trinity

Although the word Trinity is not a biblical term, yet the trinitarian evidence is overwhelming. Three clear references will suffice at this point. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were present at Jesus’ baptism (Matt. 3:16); and are mentioned in the Great Commission, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew (28:19-20), and in Paul’s benediction found in II Cor. 13:14. Thus we are not to think of the Trinity as three Gods or three parts of God, for God is not divisible; but the three are coequal and coeternal Divine Persons. “The Father is the basic fact, the Unbegotten; the Son is begotten of the Father; and from the Father proceeds the Holy Spirit. They are all of one and the same substance, and neither alone is God, but God consists of the three persons in their eternal corporate life.”[2]

C. The gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit

The Gospels, the Acts, and the Pauline Epistles, all make reference to the gift of the Spirit. The Acts and the Epistles of Paul make special mention of the gifts of the Spirit. So the Holy Spirit is both the Gift and the Giver. It is interesting to note the relation of the Trinity to the gifts as recorded in I Corinthians 12. The comment of Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, in their Commentary, is as follows: “In I Cor. 12:7-11 is to be found the treatment of the Spirit, with his gifts; in verses 12-27, the Lord with his manifestations; and in verses 28-31, God in his operations.”

The gifts of the Spirit as summarized by Paul in I Cor. 12:4-11, 28 (cf. also Eph. 4:11; Rom. 12:6-8) are the unusual manifestations of God’s grace to enable His Church to properly perform its task here on earth. These gifts are determined by the nature of the ministry to be accomplished. Paul makes clear that there is diversity of gifts, which would indicate that not all members of the body of Christ have the same gifts. Members receive these supernatural endowments according to their function in the Church. This is as it should be—to promote the wholesome spiritual progress of the Church.

It should be pointed out that St. Paul recognized the dangers of the misuse of these spiritual gifts. Thus the apostle warned regarding fitful and unbridled emotions and emphasized the necessity of self-control and discipline along with the liberty of the Spirit. He taught that the genuine action of the Spirit is not spasmodic or eccentric: that it is a power that produces moral, ethical, and spiritual conduct.

Whatever we may think and however we may interpret these gifts and offices of the Spirit, this fact should be remembered: they are bestowed and distributed as the Spirit wills.

The apostle speaks not only of the gifts of the Spirit but also of the graces of the Spirit. He catalogues nine graces in Gal. 5:22-25 which are known as the fruit of the Spirit. They stand in striking contrast to the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-23). Wiley and Culbertson in their Introduction to Christian Theology make this interesting classification of the nine gifts: “There are three relating to God—love, joy, and peace; three that relate to others—long-suffering, gentleness, and goodness; and three that relate to ourselves—faithfulness, meekness, and temperance or self-control.” In the light of the context of these verses, we believe the fruit of the Spirit is for the purpose of imparting the divine grace of God to the believer, which will in turn issue in strength and maturity of character rather than special qualifications for service as seen in the unusual gifts of the Spirit. This leads us to a further consideration of the gifts and fruit of the Spirit as seen in the lives of the apostles after Pentecost.

IV. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament After Pentecost

A. As seen in the Book of Acts

In the preface of the Book of Acts, St. Luke, the author, refers to his former treatise, in which he speaks “of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach.” That being true, we might well conclude that the Book of Acts is a record of the things which Jesus continued to do and to teach through the power of the Spirit working through the apostles after Pentecost. Consequently, the emphasis one is apt to find in the Acts concerning the Holy Spirit is not Christian doctrine but Christian experience. We concur with James Denney’s remark: “To the men who wrote the New Testament, and for those to whom they wrote, the Spirit was not a doctrine but an experience. Their watchword was not, believe in the Holy Ghost, but receive ye the Holy Ghost.”[3]

Someone has analyzed the Book of Acts thus: Chapter 1, Jesus went up; Chapter 2, the Holy Spirit came down; Chapters 3—28, the disciples went out. They went out transformed personalities. Their lives were marked by boldness, power, unity, spiritual discernment, joy, and liberality. A new power for victorious living was the first result of Pentecost. The second result of the outpouring of the Spirit was a new power for effective service.

As one studies the preaching of the disciples after Pentecost, one finds evidence that the Holy Spirit is not only their Inspiration but their Interpreter of Scripture. In St. Peter’s first sermon on the Day of Pentecost, the Spirit enabled Peter to read from the prophet Joel and apply the passage in a Christian sense. Then too, these Christians went everywhere preaching the gospel, where they were wanted and where they were not wanted. As a result of their preaching thousands were added to the Church in a short time. The Spirit gave them such success in their preaching and teaching that their enemies said to them, “Behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine” (Acts 5: 28).

In the Book of Acts we see the fulfillment of the Spirit’s mission among the Christians and non-Christians as promised by our Lord in the Gospels. As to the Christians, the Spirit is comforting and sustaining them in all their sufferings and difficulties. In the missionary ventures of the Church the Spirit is active in guiding them in their travels, in organization of their work, and in presiding over their deliberative council meetings. In their revival meetings as recorded in chapters 2, 8, 10, and 19 the Spirit’s ministry among the non-Christians is well illustrated.

Then, too, in the Book of Acts we observe that the Holy Spirit and Christian missions, or the spread of the gospel, are inseparably related. The program of missions is focused in three chief centers. The Church is established at Jerusalem, the home base, as recorded in the first part of the book. In the middle part of the book the missionary movement is centered in Antioch, Syria. It was here that the Holy Spirit said unto the church, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work where-unto I have called them” (Acts 13:2). From here the movement spread as far as Rome, as we are told in the latter part of the book. Jerusalem represents the Jewish center, Antioch the gentile center, and Rome the world center. Is not this a direct fulfillment of Acts 1:8? What the Spirit can do to an obedient, fearless, witnessing church! Truly this book may well be called the “Acts of the Holy Spirit.”

B. As seen in the teachings of Paul

When we turn to the teachings of the Pauline Epistles we are faced with an abundant teaching concerning the Spirit. One Bible student states that the Holy Spirit is mentioned 120 times in St. Paul’s Epistles. Only the high points can be outlined here.

Paul felt his whole ministry was under the direction of the Spirit. He told the Corinthians, “My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (I Cor. 2:4). Again, to the Thessalonians he wrote, “For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost” (I Thess. 1:5).

The apostle shared the belief of the early Christians that one becomes a Christian by receiving the Holy Spirit. “Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:2-3) This leads us directly to another phase of his teaching—the Spirit in relation to the believer. According to Paul, the Holy Spirit enables the believer to put to death the flesh. “I am crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20). “Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16). “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Rom. 8:13). The life of the believer is a life lived in the power of the Spirit, bearing the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:23-25).

In Paul’s teaching, “the Spirit of Christ” and “the Spirit of God” are used interchangeably with the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9). This does not weaken Paul’s clear teaching about the Trinity, but it does point to the unity of the Trinity in Paul’s thinking. Lewis aptly summarizes Paul’s teaching of the Spirit at this point. “The presence of the Spirit was the presence of Christ; that all that the Spirit was said to do, Christ himself did; that to be filled with the Spirit was to be filled with Christ; and that to live the life of the Spirit was to live a life hid with Christ in God.”[4]

The other books of the New Testament, including the Book of Revelation, would yield fruitful research in the study of the Spirit, but time will not permit. The concluding study of our main discussion is the Holy Spirit and Christian experience.

C. As seen in Christian experience

Often we hear such questions as: Who was the Holy Spirit? When do we receive the Holy Spirit? How do we receive the Holy Spirit? What is the difference between the birth of the Spirit and the baptism of the Spirit? There are many and diverse opinions by earnest and devout Christians regarding the above questions.

The New Testament clearly teaches that believers were expected not only to receive the Holy Spirit, but to be filled or empowered with the Holy Spirit. Paul said to the disciples at Ephesus, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” (Acts 19:2) Paul not only made personal investigation, but made sure they received the Holy Spirit.

The work of the Spirit in regard to man’s salvation may be classified by general divisions—the birth of the Spirit, imparting divine life to the soul, and the baptism of the Spirit, or the Holy Spirit as “a sanctifying Presence,” making the believer holy and empowering him for life and service. What are the New Testament facts concerning these two specific works of the Spirit in Christian experience?

God gave two gifts to the world for the salvation of mankind. He gave His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, as Redeemer and Saviour, and the Holy Spirit for special empowerment for service. “Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me” (Acts 1:8). It is also necessary to notice the difference between the person of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Holy Spirit. He is both the Gift and Giver. He is the Gift of divine life— “born of the Spirit,” and the Giver of divine power— “ye shall receive power.” In Acts 2:38, Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In the last message of Jesus to the disciples, He urged the disciples to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high (Luke 24:49).

In the Gospel of John, chapter four, Jesus speaks of the “gift of God” as a well of water springing up into everlasting life. A little later, in John 7:37-39, He speaks of the rivers of living water in relation to the work of the Spirit in the believer. Again in John 10:10 we have the words of Jesus, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” Thus we see in these references the twofold emphases regarding the work of the Spirit in salvation. What shall we say more?

It could be stated like this: When we receive the gift of the Spirit, we receive all of Him, for He is not divisible, but He does not receive all of us. While the child of God possesses the life of the Spirit, Paul says there is in him also the carnal mind. “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” (Rom. 8:6). Thus the believer experiences the baptism of the Spirit, which in a more restricted sense refers to the act of purifying or making holy; then the Holy Spirit receives all of us.

We shall now give attention to the conditions for receiving the empowerment of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is given to them who believe out of a pure heart. “God … bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; … purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:8-9). Acts 5:32 states that God gives the Holy Spirit to them who obey Him. Acts, chapter one, describes the preparation of the disciples for the empowerment of the Spirit. They were praying in one accord. They were searching the Scriptures for further light. They were in a state of expectancy. They believed the promise of the Father.

Finally, let us summarize some of the evidences of the Spirit-filled life. Great grace to live victoriously and great power to witness were among the first evidences of the Spirit’s power in the Early Church. “And with great power gave the apostles witness … and great grace was upon them all” (Acts 4:33). Great praying was another evidence. Twice in the Book of Acts it is said, “When they had prayed, the place was shaken” (Acts 4:31). They had great unity in the Church. “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul” (Acts 4:32). It was also evident that they had great joy. “And they continued daily … with gladness and singleness of heart” (Acts 2:46). “These things write we unto you, that your joy may be full” (I John 1:4).

As one studies through the Book of Acts, the full meaning of Pentecost to the Early Church becomes increasingly apparent. The disciples believed and claimed the promise of the Spirit; they experienced Him with His accompanying power and gifts, and they went everywhere living and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom. However this blessed experience of the fullness of the Holy Spirit may be explained, this fact is clear: the disciples of the first-century Church were filled with mighty power, and great results followed their ministry.

There remains for us the task of stating briefly a summary of what has evolved from this study. We have endeavored in this paper to trace the developing idea of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, especially as revealed in the New Testament.

In order to assist us in understanding the doctrine of the Spirit in the New Testament, we dipped back into the Old Testament to show in a general way the contrast between the New and the Old. In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit is generally spoken of as the Spirit of God. His ministry was limited to certain individuals and for special occasions. The idea of Spirit reached its highest level in the golden age of prophecy with the great reforming prophets. The operation of the Spirit was also seen to be active in creation and providence.

In the New Testament, we noted a sharp contrast in the development of this doctrine. The Spirit was not given only to certain individuals or a nation, but universally, to whosoever will. He is not given spasmodically, but permanently, as an abiding Comforter forever. While it is true the titles “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Jesus” are sometimes used interchangeably with the “Holy Spirit” in the New Testament, nevertheless we see in the New Testament the personality and work of the Holy Spirit coming into clear focus as the Executive of the Godhead, the Third Person of the Trinity.

The main discussion of our paper was a study of the Holy Spirit in light of Pentecost, before and after Pentecost. The Synoptic Gospels reveal the activity of the Spirit in the personal history and ministry of Jesus. The fourth Gospel gives more emphasis to the teachings of Jesus regarding the nature and function of the Holy Spirit. In Jesus’ farewell addresses He gives three significant names for the Spirit—Comforter, Spirit of truth, and Holy Spirit. Most of Jesus’ teaching about the Holy Spirit was done during Passion Week.

We observed the outworking of the Spirit in the lives of the Christians following Pentecost. These personalities were marked with vibrant power. They had overwhelming results from their preaching and many were added to the Church. The first-century Church could be characterized as a Spirit-filled, Spirit-guided, Spirit-taught, Spirit-organized, Spirit-financed, and Spirit-witnessing Church. They went everywhere preaching the gospel, beginning at Jerusalem and spreading even unto Rome.

We next gave attention to the doctrine of the Spirit in the teachings of Paul. We found that Paul not only professed to be filled with the Spirit, but preached with the conviction that his ministry was under the approval of the Spirit. His Epistles yield abundant material on this subject of the Spirit. He taught that we become Christians by receiving the Spirit. The Holy Spirit, in turn, enables the Christian to put to death the flesh (sinful nature), conditioning the heart for the full reception of the Spirit.

The apostle speaks freely concerning the gifts and graces or fruit of the Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit issues in character. The purpose of the gifts is for unusual service. He recognizes the place of the gifts in the Church, but warns concerning their misuse. There are diverse gifts; hence not all members have the same gifts. They are bestowed and distributed by the Spirit according to the need for service in the Church.

Paul is clear in his teaching concerning the distinct Persons of the Trinity, but he freely uses interchangeably the titles—”Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Jesus,” and “Holy Spirit.”

As a practical approach to this entire subject, we concluded with the thought of the Holy Spirit and Christian experience. We summarized this area of thought around two main concerns: the gift of the Spirit and the baptism of the Spirit. The gift of the Spirit is life-giving. The baptism of the Spirit gives purity and power. The conditions for receiving the Spirit are: repentance, faith out of a pure heart, obedience to light, persistent and expectant prayer. Finally, we observed that the apostles gave evidence of this experience by demonstrating in their lives and ministry great power to pray and witness, great grace and joy in the various vicissitudes of life, and a gracious concern for all. This blessed experience of the Spirit had its beginning in a humble prayer meeting in Jerusalem and had its effects unto the uttermost parts of the world.

Claude A. Ries

Minister, Wesleyan Methodist church; chairman, Division of Theology and Christian Education, vice-president of Houghton College, professor Greek and biblical literature; A.M., M.A., B.D. Has served as pastor, camp meeting and Bible conference speaker.

The Holy Spirit and the Converted Man

by CLAUDE A. RIES

A gentleman stopped before a little girl who was making mud pies. Her face and dress were dirty. “My!” he exclaimed, “you’re pretty dirty, aren’t you?” “Yes,” she replied, “but I’m prettier when I’m clean.”

How true, not only physically, but spiritually as well!

We have all kinds of faces—clean faces, dirty faces, thin faces, fat faces, pale faces, freckled faces, yellow faces, and black faces.

With all this great array of faces, the faces of all real Christians are universally alike. They are radiant faces. The Psalmist gives the secret, “They looked unto Him and their faces were radiant.” The Chinese translate the verse: “All who look to the Lord have Light in their faces.” And how true it is that a shining face is always the expression of a shining soul! For the most expressive part of one’s personality is his face.

As Moses came down from the mountain where God had been communing with him, the Scripture says, “Moses knew not that the skin of his face shone by reason of God speaking with him.” The glory of God which saturated his spirit shone from his face. This Hebrew word translated “shone” is used to describe a sunrise. It depicts the shooting up of the rays from the eastern sky. It is a glorious token of another shining day. Moses’ face shone by reason of God speaking with him. Moses’ face shone, that is, his face portrayed a sunrise, with its promise, expectancy, freshness. The lives of multitudes partake only of the humdrum, the stale, the sordid. God designs that the very face of His people be as a breath of a cool morning zephyr on a hot, unbearable day, and that the faces of God’s people should glow with expectancy of new mercies, blessings, and victories. He designs that the glowing faces of His dear people should betoken the vigor and zest of their daily Christian living.

Moses’ face had become so imbued with God’s revelation to his own heart that God irradiated the whole countenance of Moses. Moses’ spirit had entered a new and larger fellowship with God. Alone there with the great sovereign God of the universe, he fathomed to a new depth the awful majesty and holiness of the Eternal God, and his spirit was mastered and captured and illuminated by the experience. He so passed into the presence and person of God himself that he became unconscious of himself. His soul rose in full dignity of a redeemed son of God. The light and glory of that spiritual encounter changed the very fashion of his countenance.

The young man, Stephen, the martyr in that dreadful stoning ordeal, became so absorbed with God that his very face shone as an angel’s. The light of spiritual joy so transfigured the physical countenance that his face shone with the light of another world.

Faces of men and women the world over are downcast, shadowed, despairing. How the world needs faces that radiate, that radiate the strength of God, the love of God, the holiness of God, the joy of God!

A mistress said to her Negro slave, “Sybil, when I heard you singing on the housetop, I thought you were fanatical, but when I saw your shining face, I saw how different you are from me.” The old woman replied, “Missus, the light you saw in my face wasn’t mine, but was ’fleeted from the Cross, and there is heaps more for every sinner who will come near enough to catch it.”

A glowing face is always the expression of a glowing soul. When the spirit of man is strong in God, the face exhibits that strength. When the soul finds supreme confidence in God, that confidence beams forth from the eyes. Where the heart has been washed by the blood of Jesus, that purity is portrayed in the countenance. When the soul is sensitive to human sorrow and joy, then sweet sympathy is manifested all over the face.

No amount of man-made concoctions can put that on the face! But with the glory of the Lord shed forth by the Holy Spirit shining in the soul, the most homely woman becomes beautiful and the most unattractive man becomes transformed in visage. It is that plus of life so needed in our humdrum world! Artificial, man-made means can never produce a radiant face.

A theological professor who had been teaching for many years without a vital relation to God became converted when he was past middle age. About himself he said, “I got starched and ironed before I got washed.”

The question is then, How can the faces and lives of men and women be changed from the drab and sordid to the glowing and joyful?

To have a radiant Christian personality, there must be heart contact with God. The majority of men and women today are not radiant. They do not glow with an inner light. Their lives are distorted, confused, chaotic, spiritually dead. Unless a powerful outside agency acts upon them they will remain forever in this undone condition.

Man’s chaotic condition is so much like the condition of the world as recorded in Gen. 1:2: “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” And now the outside agency: “And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The word “moved” means to “brood,” “to impart motion.” In the Syraic it means to “warm,” to “cherish.” Over this chaotic state of our world the Spirit brooded; He imparted motion, motion that brought order out of chaos. And so Gen. 1:3 says, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” So the Apostle Paul under inspiration wrote, “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness [meaning the darkness recorded in Gen. 1:2], hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Cor. 4:6).

The Holy Spirit, the great formative Power in creation, in nature, in the theocracy, and in the lives of men and women, is constantly active in His transforming power.

Man in his natural state is without God. He is “dead in trespasses and sins.” To become Godlike he must have the God nature imparted to him. Just as the mother will produce a new body in her babe, so the birth into the kingdom of God will produce a new person.

“Verily, verily,” said Jesus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God…. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit [the Holy Spirit] is spirit” (i.e., the spirit of man) (John 3:3, 5-6).

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5).

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (II Cor. 5:17).

“Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature” (II Pet. 1:4).

God’s great Gift to the world is Jesus (John 3:16). Jesus’ great Gift to the world is the Holy Spirit, who Jesus said was with the disciples there. For He, the Holy Spirit, was in Jesus as the Son of Man— “He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” Jesus as the Son of Man (verily also as the Son of God) was conceived of the Holy Spirit. He was filled with the Holy Spirit at the river Jordan. God gave Him the Spirit without measure (John 3:34). He was anointed of the Spirit for His preaching and ministry. He found His joy in the Spirit. He was led of the Spirit. He gave up His earthly life through the eternal Spirit; through the Holy Spirit His dead body was raised; and finally He told His disciples to tarry till they were endued with the same Spirit. Hence, said Jesus, “It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you.” And when He is come to you, He will do for you what He has done for me as the Son of Man.

In Jesus’ message in the Upper Room at the Last Supper, the Holy Spirit’s part in the new Church was emphasized by Jesus twenty times.

Wonderfully significant is the Holy Spirit’s coming as ushered in at Pentecost. In all the other comings of Deity—that in Eden’s Garden, in the Tabernacle, in the Temple, and even in Jesus on earth—it was that Deity might live among men. But from Pentecost on, due to the promise of the Father and the ascension of our Lord, Deity in the person of the Holy Spirit was to indwell every child of God. He “shall be IN you.” The Holy Spirit will then be a veritable part of man, the power within man to enable him to stop the sin business as a habit in his life and live righteously through the power of the indwelling God.

So after all, it is not so much what we give to God when He saves us as it is what God gives to us that makes the difference in our lives.

Mark Guy Pearse imagines a brier telling its life’s story, describing how one day a gardener came and dug it up—a worthless brier. Then he planted it in the midst of beautiful and fragrant flowers. Later he came and, opening its stem, grafted into it a shoot from a cultivated rose, binding the two closely and lovingly together. Summer came and the brier bore roses fit to compare with any in the garden. The gardener whispered to the once worthless brier, “It was not what you had to give; it was what I put into you that made the difference.”

Oh, yes,

Hail to the Spirit, the Spirit of God; Heaven’s high majesty lined to the sod; Heaven’s dear beauty reborn on the earth; All things renewed with an infinite birth.

The sinner must be regenerated, i.e., come into a new birth, be born again as Jesus said. The act of regeneration is accomplished by God through the Holy Spirit in the heart and life of the sinner whereby he becomes righteous. “Born of the Spirit” occurs three times in John 3:5, 6, 8.

“There are three outstanding texts on regeneration: John 3:5, Titus 3:5 and John 1:12, 13. There are three great regeneration chapters: John 3, Romans 6, and Ephesians 2, and one great regeneration book: I John” (Miller).

In chapters three and four of Galatians, which have much to do with one becoming a believer, seven times the apostle emphasizes the Holy Spirit. The verbs used are interesting and vital: (1) receiving the Spirit, 3:2; (2) beginning in the Spirit, 3:3; (3) perfected by the Spirit, 3:3; (4) supplieth the Spirit, 3:5; (5) the promised Spirit, 3:14; (6) Spirit in our “hearts, crying, Abba, Father,” 4:6; (7) born after the Spirit, 4:29.

God speaking to Israel and to us through Ezekiel said, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall he clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them” (Ezek. 36: 25-27). Here we see a promise that God would put His Holy Spirit into the heart of the man who had turned to Him.

And likewise the Apostle Paul says that the regenerated man is a temple of God; the Holy Spirit takes up His abode in him.

“Know ye not that ye are the temples of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (I Cor. 3:16)

“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” (I Cor. 6:19)

The regenerated man stops acting like men of the world. The Apostle John says, “For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith” (I John 5:4). And the Apostle Paul says, “For they that are after the flesh [the worldlings] do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:5); i.e., “he directs his mind toward the things of the Spirit; sets his thoughts, affections and purposes upon them” (Torrey).

The regenerated or converted man stops practicing willful sin as a habit of his life. The Apostle John makes this clear: “Everyone who has been born of God commits no sin, for a sperm divine remains within him; having been born of God, he cannot practice sinning” (I John 3:9, Berkeley)!

The sin here mentioned is something done, defined in verse 4 as “transgression of the law” or “lawlessness.” Sin is here a conscious, intentional violation of the law of God. Compare verse 6. So a literal translation in keeping with the context would be, “Everyone begotten of God is not practicing deliberate sin [present tense, continued action] because the divine seed remains in him, he cannot be a sinner, because he is God’s child” (the latter part from The New English Bible). Compare I John 5:18: “We know that everyone who has been born of God practices no sinning: instead, he whose birth is from God retains hold on him and the wicked one does not get a grip on him” (Berkeley).

On the other hand, the converted man practices righteousness. The Apostle John clearly states: “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are distinguished: Anyone who does not practice righteousness, or who does not love his brother, is not from God” (Berkeley).

If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him” (I John 2: 29).

The converted man through the power of the Holy Spirit receives Jesus as the Christ and new Lord of his life, dethroning Satan, the old lord. John writes: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (I John 5:1). And the Apostle Paul tells us, “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. 10: 9).

Without the Holy Spirit within, we are unable to call God our Father. “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son [i.e., the Holy Spirit] into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6). It is the Holy Spirit within the converted man that enables him to really call God his Father, for it is the Spirit that says it.

In Romans, chapter 8, we have a beautiful depiction of a converted man, In verse 1: condemnation is gone; he is “in Christ Jesus”; he walks not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Verse 2: “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me [him] free from the law of sin and death.” He has been made free through the law of the Spirit. Verse 5: They “that are after the Spirit [mind] the things of the Spirit.”

Verse 9, “Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” Another name for the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. And now the clear statement: “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ [the Holy Spirit], he is none of his.” We become God’s when we are born again and at that time receive the Holy Spirit as a personality into our lives. Verse 11: “If then the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead, dwells in you, then the Resurrector of Christ Jesus from the dead will through the Spirit that dwells in you make also your mortal bodies live” (Berkeley). The converted man has the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit enabling him to make his physical body to live.

Verse 13: The Holy Spirit within enables the converted to deaden the practices of the body and so live spiritually.

Verse 14: As the converted are led by the Holy Spirit, they show themselves to be the sons of God.

Verse 15: The converted, having received the Spirit of adoption, cry, “Abba, Father.”

Verse 16: It is this Holy Spirit within that gives witness to our individual spirits that we are the children of God, and also to our heirship with God and joint heir-ship with Christ and our being glorified together (verse 17).

Verse 26: The Spirit within “joins in to help us in our weakness” and also becomes within us the Intercessor for us as we pray. Compare Eph. 6:18.

Verse 27: “The Searcher of hearts [the Lord Jesus] knows what the Spirit has in mind, for He [the Searcher] pleads with God [at the right hand of the Father] on behalf of saints” (Berkeley).

Verse 28: And as the converted man through the enabling power of the indwelling Holy Spirit continues to love God and do His will, he finds that “all things work together for good.”

Regarding the necessity of the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, Dr. Samuel Chadwick writes:

The blunders and disasters of the church are largely, if not entirely accounted for by the neglect of the Spirit’s ministry and mission. The morass of speculation about the Bible takes no account of the Holy Spirit. It regards inspiration as negligible, and insists upon interpreting revealed truth by no standards save those of history and literature. Miracles are condemned without trial. Prophecy is dismissed without inquiry. Revelation is ignored without reason. Under the plea of breadth, all truth is thrust into uniform ruts.[1]

Jesus said, “The Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 74:26). And Paul wrote: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth” (I Cor. 2:12-13).

Jesus also said, “When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth … he shall testify of me” (John 15:26).

In our Lord’s outstanding discussion on the Holy Spirit in the life of the converted man (John 16) He first takes up the relation of the Holy Spirit in the believer to the world, verse 8: “He will convict the world regarding sin and righteousness and judgment” (Berkeley). Verse 13: “He will guide you into all truth” (not guide truth into you). “He will shew you things to come.” The original here has the definite article with things, “the things.” The definite article in Greek signifies individual identification. Here the identification is the Lord Jesus. The Holy Spirit in the believer will show that believer the things to come about Jesus (verse 14). This same Holy Spirit will enable the one whom He indwells to glorify the Lord Jesus by his life.

Here in John 16:7-15 the Holy Spirit is referred to as a Person thirteen times; in verse 13, seven times. Notice the prepositional phrase “unto you,” a pivotal key point in this whole discussion. Verse 7: “If I go not away, the Comforter will not come UNTO YOU.” Verse 13: “When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you … he will shew you things to come.” Verse 14: “He shall glorify me … and shall shew it unto you.” Verse 15: “He shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.”

Without the Holy Spirit’s indicting our testimony for Christ, our testimony is in word only and not in power. Without the Holy Spirit within we can know much about the person of Christ, but know nothing of Christ himself, as our crucified, risen, and glorified Lord.

The Holy Spirit cleanses preparatory to entire sanc-tification and in the act of entire sanctification. “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word … that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-27, ASV). The Greek word for “washing” is lutron and is found only here and in Titus 3:5. In Titus 3:5 it is definitely associated with “the washing of regeneration.” Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as “water” in John 7:38-39. The Word of God becomes the instrument used. Compare John 15:3, “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.” Also John 17:17, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”

To the converted man who has received the Holy Spirit into his life when converted, God calls, “Let the Holy Spirit fill you.” It is a wonderful experience for one to become converted and have God the Holy Spirit come into his heart and life so that he actually has the Holy Spirit in him. The next sublime fact is that the Holy Spirit actually has the believer.

The Scriptures give many aorist imperatives (aorist denoting a crisis issue) that God makes upon converted people to enter into “the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ,” as the Apostle Paul so beautifully entitles such an experience. Since it is not the prerogative in this chapter to deal with this phase we refrain from further discussion on this point.

Thus we see that the prophecy given by Ezekiel (36:25-27) that God would give to sinful man a new heart and a new spirit and that He would put His Holy Spirit within, who would cause such to walk in His “statutes” and cause them to “keep” His “judgments, and do them,” has been literally fulfilled.

In our perusal of the New Testament concerning the relation of the Holy Spirit to the converted man, we have seen that the converted man is

1. Born of the Holy Spirit.

2. The Holy Spirit within the converted man establishes the son-Father relationship wherein the Holy Spirit himself cries, “Abba, Father.”

3. The Holy Spirit within enables the converted man to stop acting like men of the world, for He overcomes the world.

4. The Holy Spirit in the converted man enables him to stop practicing sin as a habit in his life.

5. The Holy Spirit in the converted man enables him to practice righteousness.

6. The Holy Spirit in the converted man enables him to receive Jesus as the Christ and the new Master of his life.

7. The Holy Spirit in the converted man gives the seal of his sonship “unto the day of redemption.”

8. The Holy Spirit in the converted man “quickens,” i.e., gives life to his physical, mortal body.

9. The Holy Spirit in the converted man gives to him guidance, especially into “all truth.”

10. The Holy Spirit in the converted man enables him to really pray.

11. The Holy Spirit in the converted man brings conviction to men and women of the world in reference to sin, righteousness, and judgment.

12. The Holy Spirit in the converted man enables him to glorify Jesus.

13. The Holy Spirit in the converted man indwells the body of the converted man, which becomes the Spirit’s temple.

14. The Holy Spirit in the converted man assures the converted man that he is a child of God; for “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ [a designation for the Holy Spirit], he is none of his.”

15. The Holy Spirit indwelling the converted man becomes the earnest of the Spirit-filled life, and the Spirit-filled life becomes the earnest of his complete redemption (Eph. 1:13-14).

We have been dealing with the relation of the Holy Spirit to the converted man as our assignment. In closing we desire to point out the reason for the Spirit’s activities in and through the converted man. The exaltation of the Holy Spirit is not the divine design, but rather it is the exaltation of the Lord Jesus. Jesus himself said, “He, the Spirit of truth … will guide you into all [the] truth [i.e., all the truth now about Me]; for he shall not speak of himself … he will shew you [the] things to come” (i.e., the things to come about Me). “He shall glorify me,” the Lord Jesus.

The great purpose for the gift of God the Holy Spirit in the life, the great end for being filled with God the Holy Spirit, is that Christ shall be in totality preeminent in the believer’s life. “That in all things he might have the preeminence” (Col. 1:18).

No doubt the greatest recorded prayer that the Apostle Paul prayed is given in Eph. 3:14-21. It is a threefold petition as seen in the hinas, i.e., the purpose clauses. First, he prays (verse 16) that for their weakness they might have strength. Second, (verses 17-19) that for their ignorance they might have knowledge from above. Third, (verse 19) that for their human emptiness they might have God’s fullness. Hence he prays for three things for these Ephesian converts: for strength, for knowledge, and for fullness. The key to the prayer is found in the first petition. The Ephesians had an essential inner weakness. This inner weakness needed a definite strengthening by God. And what for? “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith” (verse 17). The Greek word “dwell” is a compound word, katoikeo. The verb is “to dwell.” The prefix kata is known as the perfective prefix. It intensifes the meaning of the verb. Kata means “down,” and as a prefix it carries the idea of clear down through or thoroughly. So putting these two together the apostle prays for an inner strengthening of these Ephesian converts so that Christ may thoroughly indwell their hearts by faith. Weymouth translates the passage, “Grant you … to be strengthened by His Spirit with power permeating your inmost being. I pray that Christ may make His home in your hearts through your faith.”

The last petition dovetails into the first petition. His third request is “that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.”

In Col. 1:19 we read, “For it pleased the Father that in him [Christ] should all fulness dwell.” And in Col. 2:9-10, “For in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power”; or, as the Berkeley version has it: “For in Him all the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily, and in Him, who is the head of all princedom and authority, you are enjoying fulness of life.” In Christ all the fullness of God dwells. Christ dwelling supreme in the heart gives “fulness of life.”

The third petition, that they may be filled unto all the fullness of God, is an enlargement of the first petition, to be so strengthened in the inner man that Christ may thoroughly indwell their hearts by faith. If Christ thoroughly indwells our hearts by faith and is permitted to carry on His work unhindered by a selfish heart, without any rivals, then we are filled unto all the fullness of God, for Christ is just that.

Christ is our Fullness. Christ is our Holiness. Christ, “who of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and [complete] redemption.”

“Take away the sun and the earth is enveloped in primeval darkness; take away Christ from the saint, and sainthood is gone.” “Ye are complete”—not in an “it” or in some past experience, glorious as it is, but “ye are complete in HIM.”

He is our Sufficiency—the constant, abiding, life-giving, life-sustaining, all-conquering Christ. He causes the face and life to shine with the light of another world; Christ supreme! That is what the Scriptures mean by being “filled with all the fulness of God”—the climactic petition of the apostle’s prayer, not only for the Ephesian Christians, but for the Church of God everywhere, that “in all things he might have the preeminence.” To this end does the Holy Spirit in the converted man and woman ever call and seek to make a reality in the life.

COME, HOLY GHOST

Come, Holy Ghost, God and Lord! Be all Thy graces now out-poured On each believer’s mind and heart; Thy fervent love to them impart. Lord, by the brightness of Thy light, Thou in the faith dost men unite Of ev’ry land and ev’ry tongue; This is Thy praise, O Lord, our God, be sung. Hallelujah!

Thou holy Light, Guide Divine, Oh, cause the Word of Life to shine! Teach us to know our God aright And call Him Father with delight. From ev’ry error keep us free; Let none but Christ our Master be, That we in living faith abide In Him, our Lord, with all our might confide. Hallelujah!

(JOHN WALTHER, 1496-1570)

Donald E. Demaray

Minister, Free Methodist church. B.A., Los Angeles Pacific College; B.D., Asbury Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Edinburgh; Litt.D., Los Angeles Pacific College; also attended University of Southern California, the Biblical Seminary in New York, and University of Zurich in Zurich, Switzerland. He has served as supply pastor, Church of Scotland; minister of youth, Seattle Pacific College Church. Author of several books, including: Basic Beliefs, Loyalty to Christ, Amazing Grace, The Book of Acts. Presently serving as dean of the School of Religion, Seattle Pacific College, Seattle, Washington.

The Spirit-filled Life

by DONALD E. DEMARAY

“The Cinderella of Theology: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit” is the title of an article by Professor G. J. Sirks of Leyden, Holland. That is not just an intriguing title; the article symbolizes a landmark in the history of modern theological thought. The article was significant enough to appear twice, both times in scholarly journals: the Congregational Quarterly and the Harvard Theological Review. In conclusion of his article, Professor Sirks says, “The first half of the twentieth century was a time of Christology: the second half will have to be a time of Pneumatology, the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.”[1] He adds that this will “entail hard work in the fields of Biblical Theology, Psychology, and the Philosophy of Religion, and equally hard work in the domain of Dogmatics.”[2]

Now it is quite true that the first half of our century was involved primarily in working out a Christology, a theology about Christ. In the early years of the century, the cold, albeit forceful, winds of German rationalism were felt and resulted in an emphasis on the human Jesus of history almost to the exclusion of the divine Christ of faith. Albert Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus captivated the scholarly mind; and later, in America, Harry Emerson Fosdick preached a liberal Christology from his Riverside pulpit.

But this humanistic Christ was not destined to meet the real needs of real people in real situations.

On the Continent there was a young pastor, educated in the liberal tradition, who during World War I “heard” the cannons in the distance even as he persisted in the preaching of his optimistic, watered-down theology. He was compelled to confess the contradictory character of that whole situation—optimism, yet cannons. Like Luther and Wesley, he went to the Book of Romans for help. And after long thought, work, and writing, he set down his new, if emerging, theology in a commentary on Romans—the Romerbrief—the book that ushered in the Neo-Orthodox Reformation. That book was first published in 1918 and the author, of course, was Karl Barth.

Karl Barth and his Neo-Orthodox colleagues, notably Emil Brunner, have insisted upon the fact of Revelation; i.e., a divine breakthrough into the human arena. This supernatural breaking into history is seen in the Bible and preaching, but especially in the person of Jesus the Christ. The God-Man is to theology what the hub is to the wheel; He is the Center from which the spokes of doctrine radiate.

Essentially that is the place—the centrality of Christ —where we landed at the middle of this present century. But in the last few years a new dimension in theology has clamored for attention. This new dimension is the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.

Now it would be absurd to say that no serious scholarship had been done on the Holy Spirit prior to 1950 or thereabouts. But the point is just this: that currently the Holy Spirit is being studied and talked about in a wider circle and more intensely than for a very long time. One of the most recent evidences of the new emphasis is Bernard Ramm’s book, The Witness of the Spirit, in which he discusses the classic doctrine of the testimonium,[3] what John Wesley called the witness of the Spirit. There are many books and articles coming out on pneumatology.

This new interest in the Holy Spirit is the natural outgrowth of the earlier work in Christology, for where there is serious discussion of Christ, there will emerge, sooner or later, study of the Spirit of Christ, which is the Holy Spirit.[4] Barth and colleagues did not always treat Christ accurately, but the fact that Christ is central in their theology is significant for what is now happening.

The new emphasis on the Holy Spirit is the cause of the evangelical awakening of our time. It was just eleven years ago in the city of Los Angeles that the real beginning of the Billy Graham movement took place. As a young university student, I attended some of those early meetings held in a great tent in the southerly part of the city. It was at that meeting that Dr. Graham decided to put full faith in the Bible, and that particular decision issued in a Spirit-filled evangelism by a Spirit-filled man. The secret of Billy’s ministry, as he said at Seattle Pacific College, on the occasion of the award of an honorary degree, is that he steps aside and lets the Holy Spirit take over. He said something like this: “Sometimes I have quite literally stepped back to let the Holy Spirit rush by, and it has seemed on these occasions that I could almost hear and feel the rushing of the mighty wind as in Acts 2.”

Billy Graham is one example; there are others: Paul Rees, Oswald J. Smith, Edwin Orr—all Spirit-filled and therefore Spirit-dominated men. And in addition to these better-known names, God’s Spirit is breathing into and brooding over seeking Christians the world around. In small but crowded Baptist churches in Russia, in concealed worship centers in Spain, among the persecuted evangelicals of Colombia, here at home in our churches and colleges—in all these places God’s Spirit is moving and we are now just beginning to see the outpouring of God’s Spirit in religious awakening as we have not in the past.

The spiritual awakening of our time is coming and will come through Spirit-filled people. The reason is very simple: Spirit-filled people are powerful people, but those who have not experienced Pentecost are working in the energy of the flesh and are not divinely empowered.

In this paper I want to note with you the Scriptural Basis of Spirit-filling which leads to revival, the Historical Basis, and the Personal or Experiential Basis.

I. The Scriptural Basis of the Spirit-filled Life

A chief difference between the content of the Epistles and the content of the Gospels is Pentecost. Much of the epistolary literature cannot be properly or fully understood except through the eyes of the Pentecost believer. (“Believer” here is used in the sense of experience—one must have experienced the infilling of the Spirit before he can comprehend much of what is said in the Epistles.) This is also true of those prophetic sayings of Jesus (in the Gospels) which look forward to Pentecost (John 14; 15; 16, e.g.).

The literary unit I Corinthians 12; 13; 14 is a notable example. It is not enough to say that this unit constitutes a statement about the doctrine of the “gifts of the Spirit.” This three-chapter unit is more than that; it is in reality a study of the Spirit-filled life and the gifts that issue from and validate that life. In 12:3 (RSV) Paul says that no man can say, “Jesus is Lord”—i.e., really say it from his heart—except by the Spirit of God. Then Paul goes on to say that gifts, service, works are all born of the Spirit of God. In 12:13, true baptism is Spirit baptism (note our common synonym for Spirit-filling, “the baptism of the Holy Spirit”). Paul’s next step is to make clear that the various tasks of the Church, though different in character—and some are less dramatic than others—are motivated by the Spirit within people. The final part of chapter 12 makes clear that some are apostles, some preachers, some teachers, some miracle workers, some healers, etc.—but no one necessarily possesses all these gifts.

I Corinthians 13 is a magnificent statement on love. Agape, not philos or eros, is used here; thus we know Paul is speaking of the noblest kind of love. We may all know that, but what is frequently overlooked is the context in which he treats love—it is a gift, the supreme, universal gift—of the Spirit-filled person.

I Corinthians 14 is a statement of clarification on the gifts of the Spirit with special reference to the glossolalia —speaking in tongues.

Time and space do not permit a discussion of John 14; 15; and 16, or of other great prophetic passages on the Spirit-filled life in the Gospels. The Acts is of course, the textbook on the subject of the Spirit-filled life. One is tempted to single out chapters two and ten as the sum and substance of Spirit-filling, but the entire book must be read, reread, and lived with. I am convinced, after eight or nine years of teaching the Acts to college students and laymen, that in our churches and seminaries, as well as in our holiness colleges, we must never tire of teaching this great book that gives us the key to the starting, establishing, and enlivening of churches. Indeed, if I were a pastor, I would cover Acts in one way or another—in sermon, Bible study meeting, etc.—once a year or thereabouts.

In summary, it is perfectly clear that the New Testament teaches the fact of the Spirit-filled life and a close and continued examination of relevant passages is indeed fruitful, provided the passages are read through the eyes of Pentecost.[5]

II. The Historical Basis of the Spirit-filled Life

Ananias said to Saul that he had been sent to lay hands on him for the regaining of his sight and that he might “be filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 9:17). The dynamic results of that Spirit-filling are well known. Though very short of stature, half-blind (from malaria contracted on the island of Cyprus, according to Sir William Ramsay), and unglamorous in public speech, Paul became St. Paul because he was a man tireless in doing good. And by the way, Kagawa once said, “Jesus went about doing good, but most of us are content with just going about.” Paul was not content with just going about. One clear evidence of Spirit-filling is moral, social, and spiritual reform.[6] God give us more reform in our decadent age!

Skip across the centuries to John Wesley. Subsequent to his conversion, which was on May 24, 1738, he was asked to preach to the coal miners in Bristol. Hesitant, he nevertheless went, led I am convinced by God himself. John Wesley rode into Bristol on that first occasion on a Saturday evening at the end of March, 1739. He attended that very evening an open-air meeting at which Whitefield was the preacher. Whitefield could be heard for a mile when he spoke, and two miles when he sang. John Wesley, however, had a weak voice; he was consumptive, quiet, and of scholarly disposition. But something happened to Wesley—or rather, the Holy Spirit happened to him! The next morning Wesley preached on the text, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.” That verse constitutes John Wesley’s own testimony to Spirit-filling. The rest of John Wesley’s story is well known.[7] He continued to preach to the poor— and that several times a day—over a period of many years, and he developed what someone has called “one of the finest pairs of lungs” in England.

What more could be said—of the John Wesleys, the Charles Wesleys, the Adoniram Judsons, the John Newtons, the Charles Simeons, and many another! These preachers, social reformers, hymn writers, letter writers, and lovers of humanity demonstrate the historical basis and glorious fact of Spirit-filling.

III. The Personal or Experiential Basis of the Spirit-filled Life

James S. Stewart of Edinburgh, himself a Spirit-dominated preacher of the gospel, makes this dynamic statement: “It is a verifiable phenomenon of Christian experience that an individual man, laid hold upon by the Spirit of God, can have his whole life lifted to a level of spiritual force and efficiency which previously would have seemed quite impossible …”[8] It is easy to admit the truth of that for the apostles; it is even easy to admit it for John Wesley and others in past history. But the clear fact is just this: Professor Stewart’s statement is every bit as true for us as for Paul or Wesley.

Permit me to speak from personal experience. Five years ago God gave me a friend in a very wonderful Scottish Presbyterian minister. In England he had come into contact with the Methodists and partly through their influence had a crisis experience of Spirit-filling. Samuel Chadwick had especially influenced him. Norman Dunning and W. E. Sangster, among others, had influenced him too. My Scottish friend’s life was radiant and so obviously Spirit-dominated—even during times of personal tragedy—that his very life set me to rethink my religious experience and made me truly God-conscious. Through the years he has kept close contact with me and has put himself in the way of influencing my life. Fifteen months ago he gave me The Testament of Samuel Chadwick, 1860-1932, compiled by D. W. Lambert, principal of Cliff College, “the Asbury of England,” as J. Edwin Orr calls that college. I read that book with the deepest interest, but it was more than mere interest that captivated my attention when I read Chadwick’s statement to the effect that he came to a point, early in his ministry, where he could say that he had his education, was preaching and teaching, and had won a few souls to Christ—in fact, confessed Dr. Chadwick, at that time “I had everything but one thing, power.”

That statement got hold of me as nothing has for perhaps five or six years. I hardly had the courage or objectivity to look into the mirror and ask, Do I—Donald E. Demaray—have the power Samuel Chadwick spoke of? (Chadwick received the power of the Spirit one morning at a prayer meeting when he was praying, not for himself, but for revival. Stanley Jones also experienced Spirit-filling while he was in a prayer meeting giving his attention to someone else.)

For these fifteen months I sought more or less regularly—and frequently with intense earnestness—for the power of the Holy Spirit. But I really did not know that what I needed was to be filled with the Spirit.

(And here let me pause to say that it was an act of God that I should be given the topic “The Spirit-filled Life” for this holiness seminar several weeks before my Spirit-filling. My heart was hungry—subconsciously perhaps—to study this most necessary of all experiences. But to continue with my testimony.)

The last full week of August of this year (1961) saw me in Winona Lake, Indiana, as a youth worker and Bible teacher. Three weeks before that I had gone to hear an Episcopalian minister tell the story of his Spirit-filling. I was at first skeptical, but soon recognized that he was possessed of the same power Samuel Chadwick had referred to. I left that meeting under deep conviction, and from that moment on I entered a period of my life that I could accurately call “desperate,” for I vowed that I would not cease seeking the Spirit until I found Him. Actually, in all this He was seeking me and was trying to get through my pride and stubbornness to my heart.

On the Tuesday night of the youth conference, Rev. Dale Crydeman preached a sermon on the Spirit-filled life. In that sermon he told the story of a Rev. Moran who had been filled with the Spirit seven or eight years before his death; and he said that Mr. Koran’s ministry was astonishingly different after that. This story stuck with me.

The next night—Wednesday night—was “Crusade Night” at the Winona Lake conference. Young folks who had gone to Ireland and Mexican-speaking areas told of their experiences. A young lady—the daughter of the late Rev. Moran—had gone to Ireland. She said, “I went an evangelical Christian; I returned an evangelistic Christian.” That statement struck me with great force. Mr. Russell, general director of Free Methodist Youth, gave the major message of the evening, and a very impressive message it was. In it he told how he had led a gospel meeting in Mexico City on the steps of a Catholic cathedral. Now at that point—knowing Catholics and their willingness to use tongue and force against Protestants—I was forced to confess to myself that I did not have courage or power to hold a meeting on the steps of a Roman cathedral.

At the end of the service I left that Winona Lake auditorium, not knowing where I was going, but praying that if possible the gigantic hunger for God which had developed within me would be satisfied.

The Spirit of God led me so definitely that, as I look back upon it, I am quite convinced that He walked by my side. I was led across the convention grounds to the Billy Sunday Tabernacle. There Torrey Johnson, a good friend of mine—and especially a good friend of the Holy Spirit—had just finished preaching. I asked Dr. Johnson to pray with me. He seemed to know almost immediately what my need was, and for the first time I myself saw clearly what my own need was—it was to be filled with the Spirit. (Up to this time I had prayed for things or gifts rather than for God.) Dr. Johnson prayed a very perfect prayer for me, referring to the pride of intellect, the folly of working in the energy of the flesh, and the naturalness of wanting to be filled with the Spirit. Then, at my request, he laid his hands upon my head and prayed that I be filled with the Spirit.

Now at first I did not recognize that the Spirit had filled me. Frankly, I thought He had not and that I was destined to go on with the same grawing hunger for God and that I must resume my old life without power. But Dr. Johnson looked into my face and said, “Were you converted by faith?” “Yes,” I said. “Then,” he replied, “take Spirit-filling by faith.” I did. And I had not walked thirty paces outside the hotel until the Spirit of God bore witness with my spirit that He had in fact done the work.

The evidence that I had been filled with the Spirit was not confined to inward assurance. It had its almost immediate outworking in my ministry. With great courage I bore witness to what had happened to me to a friend who was home on furlough from Egypt, where he is a missionary. It was almost amazing how he responded to my testimony. He said that he himself needed to be filled with the Spirit and we prayed together and he was. That was one of the earliest evidences that I was now a channel, an instrument for God to use in helping other people. My work with the high school young people at the conference was another evidence of my changed ministry. Immediately they responded to the gospel. And I shall never forget when one young lady, who was an Episcopalian by background but converted in a little Free Methodist church in her town, announced to me on my way into class on the Saturday morning, “I and two other girls experienced Pentecost last night.” Her eagerness to get back to her work as president of her youth group and the obvious and complete sincerity with which she spoke made it perfectly clear that she had in fact been filled with the Spirit of God.

On the Sunday morning of the youth conference I had planned to complete a series of lectures I had been doing for the young marrieds on the Christian home. But the Spirit of God spoke to my heart and made it clear that I must change my subject, that I must tell simply and straightforwardly what had happened to me. I began with the fact that I had been born into a Christian home, went on to my conversion at nine years of age, and my sanctification at eleven. Then I related how I was not satisfied with my experience of sanctification and after earnest search I was Spirit-filled, August 24, 1961. At the end of that meeting I asked a minister friend of mine to close in prayer, but upon the completion of his prayer, to my amazement, the service was not finished. It had only begun. The very man who had prayed was filled with the Spirit, stood to his feet and bore witness to his newfound experience of God. Another minister arose and said that for twenty-five years he had been seeking to be filled with the Spirit and that that morning he had been filled. I have received a letter from him under date September 11, 1961, in which he bears witness to a radical change in his pastoral work and he says, “The Spirit-filled life is the only way to live.” How many people were filled with the Spirit that morning I do not know. A youth minister from Los Angeles, a college quartet singer, a varsity athletic player, a high school musician, a minister of the gospel who had been ordained elder only a few weeks before, and others, were filled with the Spirit of God. Since that Sunday morning God has confirmed in my own heart His permanent work, and a minister and a ministerial candidate were recently filled with the Spirit in my office in Seattle.

Conclusions on the Spirit-filled Life:

(1) One cannot be filled with the Spirit as long as he seeks an experience or a particular gift or somebody else’s experience. There is only one way a person may be filled with the Spirit and that is to seek earnestly after God himself.

(2) If God requires it, have the courage to bear witness to your own experience of Spirit-filling. E. Stanley Jones, after eight years on the mission field, was a man broken in health. He could not do his work. One day in a prayer service God spoke to his heart and asked him if he would let go and let God do his work for him. In Jones’s beautifully direct language he says, “I closed the deal right then and there.” God filled him with His Spirit. At first Stanley Jones hesitated to bear witness to what had happened to him, but he felt he must and he did. The results are still coming in with many people being brought under conviction by reading or hearing his story.[9] My own pastor was filled with the Spirit as a result of reading about Stanley Jones’s experience.

(3) Religious awakening will come through Spirit-filled, Spirit-empowered people. Paul’s ministry came after he was filled with the Spirit. John Wesley was a tired, cloistered scholar until after his Spirit-filling. Billy Graham was unheard of until Los Angeles, 1950. A high school pianist did not make her evangelical faith evangelistic until something happened to her in Ireland. Religious awakening comes through people who are empowered instruments of God.

(4) This fourth conclusion is directed to the preachers in the group. With a renewed emphasis preach on the Spirit-filled life. Our people may be quite ignorant of Spirit-filling, at least on the level of experience. Indeed they may not have teen awakened to the fact that God can dominate their lives. The Early Church was built primarily by laymen who were filled with the Spirit.

(5) Let there be a renewed emphasis upon a study of the Spirit-filled life in our colleges and seminaries. Study should be within the framework of Bible and experience. Students should go to the Bible first, last, and always, to the classic passages on the Spirit-filled life. And they should also be directed to biographical study, so that they can see that there actually are individuals who have been filled with the Spirit. Let the students read the lives of George Muller, John and Charles Wesley, John Newton, and others.

Jared F. Gerig

Minister, Missionary Church Association; Th.B., Malone College; A.B., Fenn College; M.A., Arizona State University; D.D., Wheaton College. Has served as pastor, president of Missionary Church Association; dean, Fort Wayne Bible College; dean, Azusa College. Coauthor of The Missionary Church Association, Its Origin and Development. Presently serving as president of Fort Wayne Bible College, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

The Gifts of the Spirit

by JARED F. GERIG

A clear understanding of “the gifts of the Spirit” is vital to the doctrines of the Church and of the Holy Spirit. Paul began his great discourse on this subject by declaring, “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant” (I Cor. 12:1). Ignorance concerning this important subject has brought not only much misunderstanding but total denial of the existence of the gifts for our day. Any consideration of this theme must take into account the three passages of scripture which deal with it, namely, I Corinthians 12—14; Eph. 4:8-11; and Rom. 12:5-8.

The fact that all teaching on this subject is found in the Church Epistles should lay a strong foundation for believing that they are for the Church age, therefore for our day. Since the individual functions of the gifts are compared to the individual functions of the members of the body, we destroy the body by denying the rights and powers of its members. No one denies the existence nor the functions of the members of the physical body, to which the Church is compared. Those who deny the present existence of the gifts not only deny the nature of the body but they also deny the need of the functions and services which these gifts make possible.

We must acknowledge that the various gifts are needed today, and they are in existence to meet that need. Where the Holy Spirit is allowed to have His way, an examination of a cross section of the Church will find all of these gifts in operation. In fact, the Church is effective only as the various gifts are recognized and given opportunity for manifestation. Probably the most fatal of conclusions growing out of a denial of the gifts is one most Christians would not quickly admit, a denial of the authority of the Head. To refuse the analogy between the body and the Church, and to deny the gifts and the functions of the individual members, is also to deny the Head, which is Christ, and the authority which He exercises over the body.

Barclay has summarized:

The whole idea of Paul in this section (I Cor. 12) is to stress the essential unity of the Church. The Church is the body of Christ and the characteristic of a healthy body is that every part in it performs its own function for the good of the whole. But unity does not mean uniformity, and therefore within the Church, there are differing gifts and differing functions but every one of them is a gift of the same Spirit, and every one of them is designed, not for the glory of the individual member of the Church, but for the good of the whole.[1]

For further introdutcory clarification some important distinctions might be noted. There is a difference between the Spirit’s gifts and the gift of the Spirit. God gives to the Christian His Spirit, but it is the Spirit who divides the gifts to each Christian as He wills. There is also a distinction to be made between the gifts of the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). The fruits are the evidence of experience (Matt. 7:15-20), but the gifts are the means of service. Some have also failed to distinguish between fruit and “fish”—the winning of souls and the reaching of men for Christ. Fruit has to do with life; fish, with labor. The first grows out of sanctification; the second results from service.

Christians should contantly be warned concerning the possible counterfeiting of the gifts of the Spirit. In a day when good works abound and when so-called miracle workers are legion, one must test both the doctrines and the deeds of men, to see whether they be of God. Jesus prophesied, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:22-23).

For many years and in many quarters holiness teaching was subjective rather than objective, theoretical rather than practical, self-centered rather than service-aimed. Much of this failure to balance experience with expression, doctrine with duty, and the great crisis of sanctification with the great commission of service resulted from an ignoring of the gifts of the Spirit. These gifts, divinely originated and sovereignly distributed, make the Church functional and practical, profitable both to the world and to itself. It is still of utmost importance that the Church be not ignorant concerning these supernatural gifts.

Much of the revelation concerning spiritual gifts will systematize itself around three considerations, the first of which is

The Diversity of the Gifts

Before considering the various and sundry gifts of the Spirit, there is a basic and fundamental truth to be intelligently weighed. The Corinthians were gentiles, pagan and heathen, and as such were led away to and were worshipers of dumb idols. As Christians they were to understand that no man could say a word against Christ and attribute that word to the influence of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary no man could acclaim Jesus as Lord except by the Holy Spirit. When a man could say earnestly and sincerely, “Jesus is Lord,” it meant that he had come under the dominating power of the Holy Spirit, and that through that Spirit he was giving to Jesus “the supreme loyalty of his life and the supreme worship of his heart.”[2] The lordship of Jesus was not a creed of the head but a condition of the heart. It was not discovered by the mind, but revealed by the Holy Spirit. The realization of the gifts of the Spirit rests upon the lordship of Jesus Christ and His subsequent control over their operation.

God’s differing gifts are classified for us in four separate passages of scripture: I Cor. 12:8-11; 12:28-30; Rom. 12: 5-8; Eph. 4:8-11.

The diversities of gifts and operations and the differences of ministries (I Cor. 12:4-6) form a composite service which the Church as a whole renders for its own good and for the good of the world. There is “the word of wisdom” and there is the “word of knowledge.” On the surface these two sound very much alike, but on the contrary, there is a word spoken which rises from the sophia, a knowledge of God which comes from communion with God. John wrote unto the fathers because they had known Him—that is, God—from the beginning (I John 2:13). Paul pointed it up earlier in this same Epistle: “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory …” (I Cor. 2:7). This is the highest wisdom, “which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (I Cor. 2:13). This is the wisdom which knows God and which God the Holy Spirit imparts. It is His highest gift. “The word of knowledge” (gnosis) is not so heavenly but more earthly. It is a much more practical thing, characterized by the ability to advise rightly what to do in any given situation. Many people are wise, but not practically wise. It has been said that some Christians have a sixth sense for knowing what to do. This could well be the gift of knowledge embracing the practical application of wisdom to human life and affairs. Whichever it may be, both are by the same Spirit.

The gift of faith, the gifts of healing, and the gift for working miracles present a triad of special manifestations also originating in and through the same Spirit. The gift of faith is more than the general faith which saves, but a special faith which is heroic, daring, and fearless. It “steels the will and nerves the sinew of a man into action.” It is a special faith aimed at great exploits and all by the same Spirit. “Gifts of healings” were imparted, the miraculous ability to effect a supernatural cure of all manner of sicknesses. James gives instruction “that if a man is ill he must come to the elders and they will anoint him with oil. It is the simple historical fact that until the ninth century the Sacrament of Unction was for healing; and only then did it become the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, and a preparation for death. The Church never altogether lost this gift of healing; and one of the biggest things that is happening today is that the Church is rediscovering it.”[3]

The gift for working miracles is aimed at other miracles besides healings. Wonderful deeds of power were constantly displayed in the Church, and the energy of the Holy Spirit was released through men endowed for this very purpose.

Paul proceeds to list the gift of prophecy, more literally the ability to preach. Such a gift involves the ability to know God’s mind and to transmit that mind to men through the vehicle of speech. The counterpart to the gift of prophecy was the gift of the discerning of spirits. Counterfeit miracle workers and false prophets called for a correlative gift, that of the discerning of spirits. One endowed with such a gift was able to determine whether other gifts were genuine, diabolical, or just natural and human.

Lastly Paul lists the gifts of tongues and the gift of the interpretation of tongues. The Corinthaians “prided themselves chiefly on this gift which had become a source of confusion and disorder. There were varieties (kinds, gene) in this gift, but the gift was essentially an ecstatic utterance of highly wrought emotion that edified the speaker (14:4) and was intelligible to God (14:2, 28). It was not always true that the speaker in tongues could make clear what he had said to those who did not know the tongue (14:13) … In case there was no one present who understood the particular tongue it required a special gift of the Spirit to someone to interpret it if anyone was to receive benefit from it.”[4]

Moving to the end of the chapter (I Cor. 12:28-31), we discover that Paul adds four gifts which he does not previously mention. In this second listing he also numbers them in the order of their value and importance. Such terminology as “first,” “secondarily,” “thirdly,” “after that,” “then,” all prove the point; and furthermore, the purpose of such order is given so that the Christians might “covet earnestly the best gifts.”

The first of the four added is the gift of apostleship. The essential qualification of an apostle was that he had been with Jesus during His earthly life, and that he had been a witness of the Resurrection (Acts 1:22). Although Jesus chose twelve men for this honor, only eleven of them qualified, Judas having committed suicide before the Resurrection. Paul claimed to be an apostle in terms of the highest qualifications and it is believed by some that he was chosen of God to round out the twelve and take the place of Judas. “Apart from the twelve (Luke 6:13) and Paul and Barnabas, the name was in a lower sense extended to leading and eminent Christians, especially to those who had taken part in founding or ruling churches (Romans 16: 7).”[5]

The Greek word apostolous as used here and translated apostles means literally ones sent and is translated by A. T. Robertson missionaries.[6] Would it be going too far to believe that a missionary must have special gifts of the Spirit for his work and ministry wherever his call might take him? I dare say that mission executives who deny it would wish it were true.

Following the prophetic gift, Paul proceeds to list the teaching gift. Blessed is the man who has both the preaching and the teaching gifts, or a combination of the two, but this is not always the case. A teacher who is a master in the classroom, knowing content, methodologies, and techniques, and having powers of transmittance, is not always a success in the pulpit; and the opposite is certainly true.

The gifts of helps might well attract our attention and investigation. It has been said that “a man may be a poor speaker and may have no gift of teaching; but it is open to everyone to help.”[7] The gift of helps is simply the disposition and willingness to always be of help. What a choice gift this is!

The gift of governments is the ability to govern. The Greek word picture projects the idea of a ship’s pilot who steers the ship through the rocks and shoals to harbor. Preachers and pastors need to realize that such a gift may not always rest upon them but upon a layman. Many a church might be the better off if the pastor would step aside and let gifted laymen handle the business affairs, and control and give leadership in the ruling of the church. Church administration, while not gaining the recognition of the preaching and the teaching or many other gifts, yet is a vitally important function to the ongoing of the Church of Jesus Christ, whether locally or universally.

To the thirteen gifts of I Corinthians 12 we must add two additional as listed in Eph. 4:8, 11. This passage would seem to indicate that the gifts of the Spirit were inaugurated on the Day of Pentecost, for we are told that when Christ “ascended up on high, he … gave gifts unto men.” What these gifts were we discover outlined in terms of their spiritual offices and ministries in the body of Christ, namely, apostles, prophets, evangelists, and shepherd-teachers. The gift of the evangelist must be noted apart from others already considered.

An evangelist is one peculiarly equipped and sovereignly endowed for itinerant preaching of the gospel for the primary purpose of winning men to Christ. Evangelists are seldom teachers and offtimes do not make good pastors. Pastors and teachers were also mentioned as gifts of our ascended Lord. The words thus translated do not refer to two classes of workers, but to two functions of a single office. The pastor-teacher or more literally the shepherd-teacher had the oversight of the local church, caring for and feeding the flock of God. It is a rare combination of gifts, but occasionally a church will find a leader in the providence of God who is a shepherd-teacher-evangelist. More often, however, a local church in the selection of a pastor will have to settle for something less, recognizing that no one man has all or even several of the gifts of the Spirit.

To the fifteen gifts already noted, we must add four more enumerated for us in Romans 12. Again writes Paul, “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us,” whether prophecy, or ministry, or teaching, or exhorting, or giving, or ruling, or showing mercy, there is a proper diligence and faithfulness to be exercised in the use of these gifts. The word ministry is translated from the Greek diakonian, from which we get our word deacon. It has reference to a temporal and material ministry to relieve the poor and the suffering. The first deacons were well-qualified men chosen to minister in a “daily ministration” of relief and welfare. Paul comments later, “For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 3:13). In the light of the Scriptures, both the appointment and the administration of the deaconship have been taken too lightly in the modern Church.

The old-time Methodist class leader often had the gift of exhorting. He was usually a layman, untrained and unordained, not a teacher or a preacher, but one who under the anointing of the Spirit shouted loud, prayed much, and encouraged the people to press on. He was an exhorter and he had a gift for that sort of thing. Some people have a gift for the opposite, and the origin of it might be questioned.

According to Paul there is a gift of giving which implies of course that there is something to give. Giving becomes the responsibility of those who have money, and it is God that gives the power or the gift to get wealth (Deut. 8:18).

The gift of showing mercy belongs to “one who is moved by the Spirit to devote himself especially to works of mercy, such as visiting the sick and succoring the distressed. Such a one is to allow no austerity or gloominess … to mar the sweetness of his charity.”[8]

Allowing for duplications, Paul lists nineteen different gifts, and it is hardly necessary to believe that he has exhausted the possibilities. To mention a few others, there is the gift of music, of writing, of children’s work, etc. With such a diversity of gifts and differences of ministries possible, let us give our attention to

The Distribution of the Gifts

To be considered first is the sovereignty of this distribution. The gifts, though varied, are all by the same Spirit. There are “diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all [of the gifts] in all [of the Christians]” (I Cor. 12:6). All of the gifts are the work of “that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will” (I Cor. 12:11). It is God that hath “set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him” (12:18). “And God hath set some in the church …” (12:28).

It is clearly apparent that the Spirit of God divides the gifts and distributes them to every man individually as He wills. We may desire the best gifts and earnestly seek them, but we must always recognize the sovereign right of the Spirit to give us that gift in keeping with His own will and purpose. The gift of the Spirit lies within the redemptive will of God and is for all. The gifts of the Spirit are within the sovereign will of God and distributed as He sees fit.

The scope of this distribution is quite startling. Without question it is the will of the Spirit that every

Christian should possess a divinely bestowed gift. Many Christians are quite amazed when they are confronted with this great possibility that they have a spiritual gift which should be recognized and put to work. It is God which worketh all of the gifts in all of the saints, and the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man, meaning every Christian (12: 6-7). It is the Spirit who divides to every man individually as He wills (12:11).

It is inescapable that every Christian by the sovereign distribution of the Spirit of God has some spiritual gift. It may be hidden and covered, dulled and deadened for various reasons. It is highly probable that a mighty enduement of the Spirit would bring the gifts into bold outline and relief once again. The gifts constitute a “manifestation of the Spirit” (12:7), and if the Spirit of God were allowed to have His way, the gifts would once again become operative in the Church. Christians without a good reason for existence would suddenly find themselves of some account. Leaders in the Church are not looking so much for healers and miracle workers and those who possess the more spectacular gifts as they are for those who will be constant and faithful “helpers” in the great work of the Church. This great and practical gift of “helps” might in the will of God be given to many, and what a boon it would be to the Church!

We must not overlook the significance of this distribution. The manifestation of the Spirit in the gift “is given to every man to profit withal” (12: 7). Each gift is given to each Christian for the general profit of all others. Each member must serve the interests of the whole body. The gifts as described in Eph. 4:11-13 were expressly given “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” What a transformation would come over the body of Christ if this truth were realized and practiced! The whole body would be “fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part,” making “increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love” (Eph. 4:16). Think of that gift and the use of it in terms of how it will bless and benefit and increase the Church as a whole. No member of the physical body exists by itself or for itself, and so it is with each member of the body of Christ.

To illustrate let us look at three of the gifts in terms of this principle of dedication to the common good. The gift of governments or administration is a gift, not to lift up or exalt one member above another, but to be exercised in terms of humbly guiding and controlling the affairs of the Church so that the Church will be saved from confusion and disorder. The gift of making money, the business acumen which results in wealth, is to be devoted, not to the acquiring of an earthly estate, not to the building up of investments and securities, but to the upbuilding of the kingdom of God. This gift and what results from it must be dedicated so that the entire Church will profit from it. What a lesson wealthy Christians must learn at this point, but how few do! How contrary to all of this is the fact that wealth often breeds greed and selfishness, even in the Church! Take the gift of the pastor-teacher. How subtle is the temptation for the pastor to lose the passion and sense of mission in his work! How easy to look for a nice church, a modern parsonage, a good salary, a reputation in the community, a life of semi-leisure, and to forget that his gift makes him a debtor and he must pay this debt in ministry, in service, in shepherdizing, in teaching and preaching! Someday every Christian will be summoned to give an account of how he has used the gift divinely bestowed upon him.

The Danger of the Gifts

Within the total teaching on this important subject we must follow Paul in giving consideration to the dangers related to the gifts. There are several perils which Paul wants every Christian to face, and which are to be shunned constantly.

The first peril is rebellion because of jealousy (I Cor. 12:15-20). “If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?”

Paul proceeds to show that the church is a living organism, as is the human body. There are many members but each one is necessary to the life and well-being of all. The loss of any one member would be a mutilation of the body.

It should be remembered that the apostle is addressing himself to a particular problem. The Corinthian Christians were exaggerating the importance of certain spiritual gifts, particularly that of speaking with tongues. Those who did not possess these more coveted gifts were tempted to be discontented and to deprive the church of the less surprising but no less necessary services which they could render.[9]

Envy and jealousy had crept in, and those with less important offices and functions were refusing to serve, and in addition were coveting the better gifts and the higher places. Paul attacks this problem with his analogy to the physical body, reminding them that “God hath set the members, every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.” In a bit of sanctified humor, Paul questions, “If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?” How tragic to come to church on a Sunday morning and find everyone “an eye” like me, or “an ear” like you, or “a nose” like someone else! Let us remember that the Church is one body, but composed of many members, each important in its place and function. There must be no rebellion because of envy and jealousy.

There is furthermore the danger of independence because of self-sufficiency (I Cor. 12:21-24), “The eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.” In the light of this warning the word “independent” in relation to an individual member or group of members is not only false but foolish. To sever is to suffer; to depart is to die. There can be no music and harmony where the little finger suddenly rebels, then separates itself and runs to the end of the keyboard and pounds out a little ditty all its own. That little finger, small member that it is, needs four other fingers, and more, to play the full chords which make for consonance and harmony. Let it be said further that the head, as important as it is, cannot play the harmonious chord without the hand and the finger, even the little one.

Paul proceeds to point out that “rather indeed those parts of the body which seem to be weaker are all the more essential; and to those parts of the body which seem to be rather without honor we apportion a very special honor; and the uncomely parts of the body have a special comeliness, while the comely parts need no special consideration.”[10] There are feeble and weaker members, less beautiful, and even repulsive, upon which has been bestowed special honor. We can in a crippled fashion get along without a hand, that member made beautiful by attention and so much in the public eye, but we cannot get along without the heart, unseen, and protected behind walls of rib, and absolutely essential to life itself. We can limp along without a leg, but we cannot exist without the lungs, silently ministering to the body, but totally unobserved and without praise. The brain has no beauty and is encased in a bony skull, but the whole body functions normally in keeping with the health and skill of that member. For our self-humbling as preachers and teachers, as healers and miracle workers, or as gifted by God for any public or headline ministries, let us remember that somewhere unseen and unsung there beats the heart and breathe the lungs of the body which is Christ’s. God hath tempered this body together so that every member is needed by every other member, and every member has been given the honor, the place, and the protection which it needs.

There is finally the danger of vindictiveness through lack of love. It is a basic principle that all “the members should have the same care one for another” (12:25). When one member suffers, all the members suffer with it. This is true in the physical body. Chrysostom wrote, “When a thorn enters the heel the whole body feels it and is concerned. The back bends, the abdomen and thigh contract themselves, the hands come forward and draw out the thorn, the head stoops and the eyes regard the affected member with intense gaze” and even with tears. But it is not always so in the body of Christ. The lack of love causes one to condemn and judge another. When one member stumbles, he is criticized and berated. “He had it coming; he should have known better. He made his bed; now let him lie in it.” In this attitude the salt of perfect love which we profess has lost its savor.

Take the opposite: If one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. This is the practical side of holiness. Do we know anything about it? Take that honored member-— “What does he have that I don’t have? What strings did he pull to get that position in the church? He’s a religious politician, compromising and standing for nothing.” So we speak without love.

We are encouraged to “covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet,” says Paul, “I shew unto you a more excellent way.” The more excellent way is not another gift, or the fruit of the Spirit which is love, but rather the gifts of the Spirit manifested, exercised, and lubricated by divine love. I Cor. 13:1-3 emphasizes this in a most graphic way. All the greatest gifts, the most coveted gifts will profit us nothing without this divine love being shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

The smooth operation of the gifts is guaranteed when love possesses and controls us. When love so possesses us, there can be no envy, no jealousy, no selfishness, no vindictiveness, and no criticism. On the contrary, there will be sympathy, understanding, appreciation, rejoicing, kindness, helpfulness, and long-suffering. The more excellent way is the working of the gifts in the Church in the spirit of divine love. Without the love, the gifts add up to nothing.

One final truth: There is what we call power for service, the anointing of the Spirit of God for His work in the world. This power is manifested in our lives at the point of our particular gift. This divine power will not make us gifted like someone else, but it will be focalized in the special gift which the Holy Spirit has willed that we have. To recognize this and to accept the power of the Spirit in this light is to become effective servants of Jesus Christ and functioning members within His body.

Harold B. Kuhn

Professor of philosophy of religion, Asbury Theological Seminary; A.B., John Fletcher College; S.T.B., S.T.M., Ph.D., Harvard University; post-doctoral study, University of Munich. Has served as evangelist, camp meeting and Bible conference speaker, educational consultant, U.S. Air Force, Europe; Chaplain, U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force.

Ethics and the Holiness Movement

by HABOLD B. KUHN

The biblical call to personal sanctity is one which places before us a tremendous obligation both to seek out and to embody in practical living the implications of the emphasis upon Christian holiness for the conduct of the Christian as he takes his place in the life of the world. This is another way of saying that the only objective which justifies the existence of such a cause as denoted by the term “holiness movement” is that by which the qualities which characterize Christian sanctity are brought to personal embodiment in steady and durable Christian living. The fine values which historically marked the lives of the best of the mystics of the Middle Ages are of little value as museum pieces; only as they find expression in the practicalities and activities which mark our common life are they significant in a day in which such emphasis is laid (and rightly so) upon the projection of the Christian evangel into the life of the world.

Historically, the holiness movement emerged in circles in which the Wesleyan heritage tended to encounter official neglect, not to say opposition. As such, it carried over into its theory and practice the basic elements which belonged to primitive Wesleyanism. This stream of elements was indirectly but significantly enriched by such other sources as the perfectionism of seventeenth-century Quakerism and continental Pietism. Thus the holiness movement was never forced to erect a system of ethics as such; she found the general outlines of her ethical emphasis ready-made. This centered in the insistence upon the installation in personal experience through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and into the very center of the personality, of a motive sufficiently strong to bring all of life under its sway.

It goes without saying that ethics does not stand detached as an emphasis in the message of Christian sanctity. That is, ethical living is by no means thought to issue merely from self-knowledge (as Socrates taught), nor to be derived simply from the analysis of any such abstraction as the “Natural Right” or the “Rational Good.” The life which is pleasing to God was held to issue solely from an inner spiritual state in which inner doubleness of purpose and inner chaos of motivation have been resolved and simplified. One is reminded at this point of the dictum of Soren Kierkegaard, “Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing.” Now it is quite clear that this, as the great Danish thinker intended it, is in itself inadequate. It does, however, point to the real heart of the matter: that the sanctified life is one in which inner chaos has been resolved, and in which the heart is free “to will with Him one will.” This is the heart of the message of Christian holiness, and without this strong heart, no emphasis upon the external expression of any supposed “ideal of sanctity” can be sound.

It is projected in this lecture to take for granted that this central core of teaching is compatible with the general thrust of God’s revelation; also that what is to be said with respect to the ethical ideal rests upon the broad basis of the reality of the experience known as entire sanctification, this being understood in terms of the elimination from the regenerate heart of all that is unsound, and the enthronement of Christ, who is the Life, in the very citadel of the personality. It is a commonplace (but what an important commonplace!) that there is no genuine sanctity apart from the installation in the Christian heart of Him who said, “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they may be sanctified …”

Descending from this high theological ground to the arena in which our common life must be lived, it is indicated, I believe, that we note briefly the type or form of ethical theory which is implied in the emphasis of the movement for Christian sanctity. It should be noted that there is seldom an explicit statement made by ministers of the full covenant at this point; certain things are, however, implicit. These may be sharpened by reference to the broader base upon which ethical teaching has historically been made to rest.

In the broadest sense, ethical theories are divisible into two types, the subjectivistic and objectivistic. Among the subjectivistic, the most noteworthy are these: the individualistic-hedonistic and the socio-hedonistic. These have for a common denominator one thing: either pleasure or the absence of pain is made to constitute the ethical objective. An action is adjudged to be good if it brings satisfaction (usually conceived at a relatively low and elementary level) either to the individual or to individuals within the social group. Such a form of ethical theory is, of course ambiguous, in that the very term “pleasure” is a slippery one, resting upon such variables as personal capacity for enjoyment, and upon personal or cultural idosyncrasy. Hedonistic ethics has historically led, almost universally, to a narrow definition of pleasure in terms of sensory pleasure. It is but a short step from this to sensuality.

The major forms of the objectivistic ethic are these: the rationalistic, the metaphysical, and the revelational. The rationalistic ethic rests upon the premise that the good is the rational, and that the rational is the right. It assumes, further, that human reason possesses a competence, not only to recognize the good inerringly, but also to sway the personality in such a manner and to such a degree as to secure the good in day-by-day practice. This has the evident weakness of failing to take into account the degree to which human reason has been affected adversely by the Fall. It is difficult to defend empirically the view that men unfailingly (or even usually) do as a matter of course that which they know to be right.

The metaphysical type of ethic assumes that the principles of right and good are embedded in the universe, and that the cosmos will support only what is good, while it will unerringly designate evil for what it is, and render certain and condign punishment for it. This takes for granted that man can properly and adequately read the moral cipher of the universe—an assumption which is difficult to support by an appeal to human moral history. Roman Catholic religion rests heavily upon a variant of this theory, expressed in terms of natural law. But even in the Roman system, it is taken for granted that natural law can be embodied in human conduct only by the assistance of an infallible Church, which is able to decipher the code in which the moral mandate is embedded in the universe of which we are a part.

The most daring form of ethical theory is the revela-tional. It projects for human thought and human acceptance the proposition that the good and the right are grounded, not merely in the structure of the cosmos, but in the will of a holy and sovereign God. This God, grasping fully and completely our needy and our limited predicament, has taken the initiative in disclosing to mankind, in definitive and final fashion, the major lines and central drive of that will. To some, this view seems to insult man’s intelligence, and to indict him of moral weakness and downright moral perversity. To others, it is the gracious answer to a need which has been felt by sensitive persons from the earliest of human history.

It needs not to be labored that the holiness movement has leaned heavily upon this last form of ethical thought—ethical theory if you will. Out of its orientation in a tradition which holds a high view of the origin and authority of the Holy Scriptures, it logically recognizes the moral mandate as being part of the very core of the message of revealed truth. Further, just as the core of the message of Christian sanctity is that the Divine Spirit does, in the work of entire sanctification, invade the life, sweep away carnal self-centeredness and twisted egocentricity, so also this theological emphasis carries with it the profound assertion that He (the Holy Spirit) simplifies the motivation of the life, bringing all of the currents of the personality into a harmonious flowing in the direction of God’s good will.

At this point it needs to be noted that one of the major problems which confronts the holiness movement is that of making the transition from character to practice —from that which the great and crucial experience of heart cleansing makes to be an inner reality to the outer realities of conduct which Christian sanctity implies. This problem we propose to view, first from the broader and more general point of view, and second from the standpoint of the more particular and specific.

In general, the emphasis which we are considering has taken with deep seriousness the two great commandments, these representing simplifications of the profound requirements of the Decalogue. The first great commandment is a sweeping personal absolute: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy total personality— this is the sum and substance of it! It permits but one absolute; it sweeps away all proximate and limited pretenders to the throne room of the life. The second great commandment is at the same time sweeping and limited: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” It is, we submit, the application of these two, but especially the application of the second, to the concrete situation which poses the crux of the ethical issue for the person determined upon the life of Christian sanctity.

In this connection also it is of the greatest significance that the quality of life implied by Christian sanctity in action is that suggested by the charming term perfect love. It is more than a coincidence that the highest demand in ethical conduct (i.e., to love God perfectly and the neighbor as the self) parallels minutely the quality of inner state which is effected by the Holy Spirit’s cleansing ministry. That is, love as a mandate here meets love as an enactment!

There is a word which historically occurs wherever the application of a general ethical principle to a specific and concrete case is attempted. It is the word casuistry. Casuistry connotes the practice by which one seeks to deal with cases of conscience, and by which one seeks to resolve questions of right and wrong by the application of ethical principles to concrete situations. Now the term casuistry has fallen upon evil times; unprincipled practices have set upon it, beaten it, and left it half dead along the road. One calls to mind, in particular, two groups which have taken seriously the matter of erecting a strategy of general conduct upon the basis of the systematic application of ethical principles to life’s complex and varied situations—in short, who have frankly employed the casuistic method. I refer to the Pharisees and the Jesuits—groups admittedly far apart in general emphasis, but one in their desire to apply divinely revealed principles minutely and according to rule.

Reversing the time sequence, we note first the manner in which the Jesuit type of casuistry has been employed. Embodying the essentially medieval outlook, the Roman Catholic ethicists at the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the modern era sought to maintain the fiction of a society which was essentially informed and motivated by Catholic principles. This led to the reduction of the requirements to a minimum, that even those of imperfect understanding (or of imperfect will to do that which was held to be right) might come within the pale of Christianity, or at least of Christendom. This led to all sorts of expediencies, such as the elaboration of the doctrine of probabilism—perhaps inevitable in view of emerging ambiguities in the life situation for which the old Roman church was not prepared. In any case, the Jesuit casuistry tended to permit everything which was not specifically forbidden.

Coming out of quite different historical circumstances, the Pharisees sought to do two things: first, to modify the seeming harshnesses of the Mosaic law in a day when Judaism was being forced more and more onto the world stage (i.e., during the last three centuries prior to the advent of our Lord); and second, to protect Judaism against the encroachments of a lax Hellenism. The manner in which Pharisaism (which, please be reminded, began as something of a “holiness movement”!) degenerated into a mere ethical splitting of hairs by the time of our Lord is sufficiently well known to us. But it lies before us, not to belabor the Pharisees (and this has been a favorite homiletical sport for a long time!), but to try to discover what we may learn from their mistakes.

Essentially, the Pharisaic casuistry erred at the point of an undiscriminating directness. As Jehovah was beginning the systematic pedagogy of the human race (i.e., at Sinai and by means of the legislation promulgated in the days of Moses), He laid many and intricate demands upon His people-with the evident intent of keeping himself always in their thoughts. Many of these detailed precepts were designed to serve two other purposes: first, to act as legislation during the earlier period of Israel’s history; and second, to encase principles which the enlightened Jewish mind should have extracted from the maze of precepts, and then should have reapplied them in terms of changing situations, notably the postexilic.

What actually happened, however, was that a strategy of conduct was elaborated by the Pharisees which failed to distinguish between a precept and a principle, and which failed to recognize the dynamics of the changed world-position of postexilic Judaism. In consequence, there was an unimaginative, overly direct application of precepts to situations for which they were not designed. This led to an ingrown, “gone-to-seed” type of casuistry, in which, essentially, everything which was not specifically permitted was forbidden.

The relevance of this to the ethic of the holiness movement is immediately apparent. It was no accident, we believe, that the projection of the Wesleyan emphasis upon a complete redemption coincided in time with the spread of the vast and complex historical and social convulsion known as the industrial revolution. This marked the end of the essentially rural and pastoral form of life in the West, and brought with it a rash of new inventions, most of which exerted great ethical pressures upon the society within which the men and women of the holiness movement lived.

It is far from surprising that, as newer social currents impinged upon the lives of these men and women, they tended to react defensively as they saw their value-systems threatened. It is not unfair to say that, in this defensive reaction, there was a strong temptation in the direction of the type of casuistry which did, as we noted shortly ago, characterize the Pharisees. There conjoined with this tendency another (and admirable) trend from within the Wesleyan-impelled movement, namely, Christian sanctity – the trend which emphasized discipline. It was assumed, correctly we are sure, that the embodiment of the inner purity of heart (which was held out as the heritage of every regenerate person) in the outward life must be assisted and guided by discipline of the personal life. Such an admirable form of the Christian administration as the class meeting had for its purpose the cultivation of personal discipline; and there is reason to believe that strong and dedicated class leaders themselves were not remiss in utilizing their opportunity along the same lines.

The temptation was, of course, that discipline itself should be administered along the lines of an inadequate casuistry. Given the constant impinging of practices which seemed to be clearly worldly from the society outside, it was natural that sensitive Christian leaders should seek to lay down lines of conduct for the younger and the less mature which should be of the nature of safe guidelines. Certainly we would not assert that this was always done in terms of an undiscriminating and a naively too-direct form of casuistry.

At the same time, the peril to which the Pharisees too frequently succumbed also threatened the leaders of the holiness movement, particularly in the latter part of the nineteenth century. It must be remembered that in the New Testament, ethical principles are frequently embedded in precepts of a very temporary and local character. It would not be surprising if any movement seeking to preserve the purity of its ranks should occasionally fall into the error of failing to see that the task of the Christian moralist must be essentially this: to abstract from the temporary and local precept the principle which underlies it and which it encases; and then, to reapply the principle in terms of the contemporary situation.

Let us take a case in point. St. Paul, in writing to the church at Corinth, says in one place, “Let your women keep silence in the church.” When something is known of the local situation, involving but a very low percentage of literacy among women, it becomes clear that St. Paul is forbidding the interruption of a service by women’s inquiries concerning the meaning of this or that. In the light of this precept, and within the context of its deliverance, we see that the principle involved is that of order and propriety in the conduct of public worship. Its reapplication will need to be in terms of present-day situations and present-day customs, and will involve due reverence within the house of worship— due decorum upon the part of persons of all ages and of both sexes.

We are not astonished, however, to discover that some, perhaps through personal prejudice, or possibly as a result of the reluctance to do the hardheaded thinking which the process requires, take the super-direct mode of casuistry, and conclude that St. Paul is here pronouncing a definitive and sweeping prohibition with respect to the role of women in the public ministry of the gospel, and that they should leap to make the declaration that the New Testament forbids women to utter any form of religious instruction publicly, at least in the presence of men.

It requires little historical knowledge to help us recall that the “easy answer” has upon occasion tempted the ethical thinker within the holiness movement. This “easy answer” has frequently been facilitated by the evident presence of abuses of factors or elements which may have been morally neutral or innocent in themselves. For example, the use of musical instruments led to twofold snares for Christian persons: outside the Church, they were inseparably connected with the social dance (whether round or square seems to have mattered little to the generally deleterious effect upon society), which all sensitive Christians regarded as an evil. Within the Church, the simple question of the choice of the organist frequently led to dissension within the body of believers. The rather natural (even if not too discriminating) defensive reaction was to deprecate the use of any musical instruments in the Church, in some cases to ban their use entirely, and in yet others to forbid the members of churches which maintained the testimony to Christian sanctity to possess these “instruments of Satan” in their homes.

The same temptation to react defensively rather than discriminatingly has been brought to bear upon segments of the holiness movement with respect to many externals, notable (and perhaps still sensitively so!) examples being the mode and quality of dress, the manner of the wearing of the hair, the use of precious metals as cases for timepieces, etc. Let it be said to the good of the movement of which we are the heirs today that there has at least been a concern to preserve the purity of the group, and to safeguard the young against that which would seduce and destroy! At the same time— and I am now speaking from the standpoint of my own denomination, which has been about as stringent at the point of discipline as any—this very desire to protect one’s group, and the individuals within that group, from contamination as a result of contacts with the world outside has its dangers. First, the “tender plant” may be uprooted and destroyed in the process. Second (and even more dangerous), the ones administering the discipline may themselves become corroded in the doing, and subvert the very love which they insist to be the core of their relation to God and to man.

Honesty demands also that we recognize that at times the casuistry of the holiness movement has tended to be little more than a conservative reaction to social and technological change. Each new social form, and each new invention, has tended to set off a rash of negative mandates. Frequently ministers have gone on record as determined never to use this or that invention; later they have tended to see that the clock cannot he turned back so simply. The usual history of those who rashly resort to such absolutes as “never” and “no child of mine” is that later they become less vehement in their position, finally they become silent, and later they quietly adopt the new device in question. Cases in point here are: the automobile, the radio, the television.

Much that has been said to this point has had to do with the temptations which have confronted the members of the holiness movement whose duty was that of making public statements of a casuistic nature from time to time. This discussion would be incomplete without some positive and constructive statements at the point of the proper function and application of casuistry, in connection with the inner and logical desire of responsible leaders of the holiness movement to preserve her members unspotted from the world.

First of all, there is a place for the sanctified application of the experience of the past, and of today’s common sense, to concrete ethical situations. These will dictate, first of all, a discrimination at the point of what issues are abidingly crucial and which are transitory. They will indicate, in the second place, a wholesome balance between the prohibition and the injunction. Admittedly, emphasizing a series of “thou shalt not’s” does give the minister a superficial resemblance to the ancient prophets, no less than giving him an occasion to release his feelings of inner indignation. At the same time, it may be suggested that the life of sanctity ought to be outgoing and constructive. This indicates, it seems, a great and urgent need for the exploration of the area of a positive casuistry. For the remainder of the chapter it is proposed to develop several suggestions which may guide such an exploration.

1. Any true casuistry must recognize the ambiguous nature of human relationships, and the provisional and temporary nature of many concrete situations to which we must speak.

2. The real problem in casuistry, as an applied discipline, is that of making the transition from love (which is the core of the life of sanctity) to justice. This justice is expressed at both the personal and interpersonal level, with the interpersonal becoming increasingly urgent.

3. The technological dynamics of our civilization are such that there is increasing need for moral and ethical living, as opposed to mere living according to received patterns and traditions.

4. The progressive elaboration of an ethic for those who will live “soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” will demand certain very definite attitudes upon the part of those who undertake it.

If there is to be a true and constructive casuistry there is need in all quarters, including the area providentially given to the care of the holiness movement, for some hardheaded thinking at the point of the recognition of the ambiguous quality of human relationships, and the provisional and temporary nature of many of our concrete empirical situations. It is at this point that we are indebted to the social ethics of the movement known as the dialectical theology (particularly as this is expounded by Reinhold Niebuhr) for some serious prodding. Along with many others, thinkers of our movement have been tempted, at times at least, to suppose that the social mandate of the Christian message might be fulfilled by a simple multiplication of individual embodiments of the virtues belonging to Christian sanctity. Niebuhr has rightly reminded us that human society does not enjoy a simple and innocent goodness, and that in many cases it tends to compound human evil. In his volume, written not long ago, Moral Man and Immoral Society, he tells us that men will do corporately that which they would not stoop to do as individuals, due to the consolidated order of sin which is about them.

It is possible that he has carried such a motif as “the sinning collective” much too far, and that in so doing he has not only declared the impossibility of living within “the bond of perfectness,” but has cut the nerve of moral endeavor within his hearers to the point that they are no longer interested in personal sanctity. But in leading us away from a “modern Constantinianism” and from such misleading ideas as “Christian political parties,” he does remind us that the relationships between individual sanctity and public virtue are by no means simple. This in turn drives us to consider again the perennial problem of the adjustments which the Christian must make (and frequently does make unconsciously) if he is to take any vital part at all in the life of the world.

Concrete situations remind us, perhaps more frequently than ever nowadays, that the expressions of perfect love in many of the apparently conflicting demands of our social order may be much more proximate than we think. One may take for a familiar example the question of enforcing discipline within the home. There are occasions in which the overt application of that which is everywhere recognized as love will secure every desired result. However, there are occasions, particularly in connection with the normal desire (this is frequently goaded in abnormal fashion) to achieve independence during adolescence, in which love seems inadequate to deal with the situation, and justice must become a substitute norm. I am aware that some will suggest that love may frequently operate at the level which only appears to be the pure realm of justice. At the same time, there seem to sensitive persons to be situations of power in which love (as best we can define it) cannot deal with the harsh realities which they contain.

Examples of this type could be multiplied; but it seems clear that there is need for a greater recognition within our holiness movement of the problematic quality of much of our finite life, and therefore for a recognition, to a degree which has not been the rule, of the need for the continuing merit of the Blood of our divine Lord to cover the many situations in which we all, with the best of motives and the purest of intentions, do offend. It was no accident that our Lord incorporated in the Disciples’ Prayer the words, “And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.”

The second question which must engage us in this very practical consideration of our subject is that of making the transition from love (which is the core of the motivation which lies behind Christian sanctity) to justice. The same Lord who has placed love of the neighbor on a level with love for the self, and love for God as a canopy above both of these, has without doubt a concern that the life of the sanctified Christian should operate in such a way as to avoid contravening the usually and easily recognized canons of justice. Unless we are willing to accept frankly the “double-entry system of divine bookkeeping,” as Principal Denny terms the antinomian mood (which maintains that what we are positionally in Christ is so conclusive that what we are in the empirical realities of life releases us from the obligations of public righteousness), then we are compelled to explore the demands of justice as it impinges upon all areas of our living, private and public.

Whether the fact appeals to us or not, it is true that the claims of justice are being forced upon us from many quarters—secular as well as sacred. Such matters as the treatment of the races (whether in the South or whether in the North) can no longer be overlooked, nor those who bring them to our attention be dismissed by a simple, gay wave of the hand. The facilities for the transmission of information, to mention but one element in the situation, make it inevitable that men and women of sanctity concern themselves with public justice. But such a concern must always take cognizance of a genuine (as against a merely apparent) problem of deducing, from the controlling motive of love, the moment-by-moment, hour-by-hour, day-by-day demands of a just life in a just society.

It has been charged (and perhaps not wholly without justification) that the evangelical movement has concerned itself with an individualistic morality so exclusively as to enable Christian men and women to evade such questions as belong to the achievement of righteousness and justice in the social life. Whether this be widely justifiable or not, it remains true that in the holiness movement we have been tempted to view Christian behavior in terms of a special, attainable form of visible righteousness. While personal morality is at the core of any true type of public morality, it can be understood in such a manner as to limit the expression of personal sanctity to such attainable (and note that we repeat this adjective) features as abstaining from certain modes of personal practice. Now the abstentive factors in such an attempt may themselves be correctly descriptive of “life at the highest level”; but the difficulty comes when the Christian is brought to quiescence in a context of ethical teaching which he can achieve with relative ease (particularly as he becomes older!). This leads to a narrow casuistry, of an intensely private and personal type, which may exclude the weightier matters of justice largely, or almost exlusively, from the area of profound concern.

It needs to be said with emphasis that the divorce of love from justice is a fateful one. No one will disagree that loveless justice may be a brutal and degrading thing; but a love without justice may likewise shrink the area of personal concern to the point that there is no deterrent either to antinomianism or to Pharisaism. While the structures of society may not permit the complete and unambiguous expression of Christian love, they will doubtless afford an arena for its expression of far greater dimensions than we have at times supposed. We must, after all, live “soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.” And this is by no means the simple task that most of us have, at some time or other at least, supposed.

What we have been saying is this: that the Christian who takes the message of Christian sanctity seriously will find himself sensing, and very frequently at that, tension between the condition of being perfect in love within and the manner in which he is able to express this in active participation in the common life of man. Some will remind us that entire sanctification has been historically understood as an experience which leads to a relationship with our Lord through the Holy Spirit in which inner stresses are eliminated from the character. This is, on the one hand, true—that is, the purification of the nature does resolve the inner doubleness which, as St. James reminds us, precipitates instability.

On the other hand, we misrepresent the case for applied sanctity if we structure it in simple terms of the lack of polarity and of tension in the expression of perfect love in the day-by-day routines of life. In the strategy of holy living in a world which easily compounds human sin, particularly at the group level, the sensitive Christian will always live under the humble awareness of the fact that none of us will, in this life, reach the point at which we do not need the compassion of God and the charity of men.

A third element in this more practical application of the canons of Christian sanctity to our placidness in the life of the world is that the dynamics of our civilization, particularly as these are rooted in modern technology, are such that our common life lays upon us an increasing need for moral and ethical living, as opposed to mere living according to received patterns of conduct. In an age in which life was less complex, it was quite possible to live a relatively virtuous life through an uncomplicated (and perhaps unimaginative) conformity to the general standards of the community. Many who lived in a relatively immobile pattern of existence succeeded in a relatively easy avoidance of that which was recognized to be evil—frequently also without any significant achievement of good!

We live today in an age in which the frontier is no longer to be found at the edge of a wilderness—but it is now at the patent office. To those who are disposed to defy the “thou shalt’s” and the “thou shalt not’s” of God’s law, there are available means by which the external consequences of sin may be avoided to a degree which mankind has not known in past centuries. Increased social mobility, the acceptance, across the board, of the inevitability of the maintenance of vast, sprawling military establishments, the general availability of information, and other related factors force the Christian who would walk in white before his Lord to the making of decisions which his grandfather was spared—and which were scarcely contemplated by any but the wealthy and privileged few a century ago.

Today’s world demands, then, a type and quality of living in which radical decision is an hour-by-hour demand. We have no option in the matter; what is optional is the manner in which we meet the demands of our world. It is the persuasion of this writer that, while in such a day as this there will be spectacular and massive failures at the point of the achievement of a genuinely moral quality of living, there will come out of such times as these a quality of sainthood which past generations could not have, in the nature of the case, produced. But to the holiness movement there comes the challenge of solemn opportunity: opportunity to project into the lives of men and women of this generation the God-wrought capabilities of living upon the basis of sustained moral principle.

This will require, it seems clear, a more tough-minded facing of some of the problems which press us in our time. It will call for a less prudish and more forthright facing of the question of race and color, of the problems inherent in the complexities of our economic life, and of the massive questions imposed upon us by the revolution in the relations between the sexes. In relation to these and other questions, may it not be high time that those who advocate the life of Christian sanctity seize the initiative in dealing with them, until they come up with some constructive strategy for meeting them at the high level of keen ethical sensitiveness and courageous moral responsibility?

Finally, it should be noted that those who will live “soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” will need certain very definitely crystallized attitudes toward the whole moral problem. If there was a day in which the mere avoidance of contaminating externals would suffice to meet the ethical mandate to the sanctified life, it certainly will not do so today. If there was a time in which a merely defensive posture toward new technical developments, and an almost automatic resistance to the changes which they bring, would suffice for a platform for Christian preaching, that day is past.

Those who would seek to fulfill the mandate, “Go … preach,” in these shriveled terms will find themselves so utterly out of touch with the problems of morally serious men and women of today that they will scarcely provoke anything so tangible as a word of opposition. They will simply find that their message has no relevance.

Again, the assumption that a merely personal and parochial morality, an ascetic and aloof withdrawal from the world, will answer the demands of either earth or heaven is being, and will continue to be, increasingly called into question. If Christians insist upon applying shibboleths (however correct and meaningful they may be) as a substitute for right attitudes in the pressing questions, such as discrimination against minorities, the claims of the hungry and the destitute of the world, and the demand for public morality in the several areas of our common life—then forces which we usually term “liberal” and “secular” will become the bearers of culture in our time, and we will be reduced to a harmless backwash, a mildly swirling eddy alongside the moving currents of our time.

It seems indicated, further, that the Christian who seeks to live in sanctity will require, in increasing measure, humility of attitude and outlook in demanding times like these. If there was ever a time in which we could bask in the luxury of counting ourselves to have attained in the matter of a perfect embodiment of the moral ideal in our lives as they relate to the complexities of our world, that day is no more. As citizens of our great land, to be more specific, we are involved, to a degree which we can scarcely grasp, in a world which is on fire, which is falling apart. Vicious movements which would dethrone God from His heavens are jeopardizing every security which we have known—and may I add, are bringing us to look at the point of the discrepancy between our national preachments and our empirical practice.

It is shocking to realize that, as a citizen of this land, I am responsible for the enslavement of Eastern Europe’s millions; I must bear a share of the responsibility for the debacle in China; I must accept responsibility for interracial violence, no less than for the exclusion of 10 percent of the population of my nation from any adequate participation in her constructive life, upon the mere basis of the accident of pigmentation. These are humbling things; and no simple formula of “saved and sanctified”—and I am certainly not launching a broadside against public witnessing to what God’s grace can do for the sons of men!—will meet the realities of our life in today’s world.

He who would live in sanctity must accept the discipline of humility which “times like these” force upon him, and, driving the anchor of his faith more firmly into the bedrock of God’s promises for a full deliverance, he must perforce seek, at the level of dead seriousness, every resource of grace and of the wisdom which God has promised, to enable him to a fearless application of perfect love to a world of bewildering complexity. Massive forces of evil press him on every side—and force him out of his sequestered and self-cloistered living.

Is there a sufficiency for these things? Ponder the promise, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” Ponder St. Paul’s private assurance, “My grace is sufficient for thee,” and his triumphant, “I can do all things through Christ …” For our dark world needs lights, needs them desperately! We have a message—it is, we are persuaded, as changeless as God’s Word itself. But it has little worth as a museum piece. The God of peace, the universe’s holy Sovereign, has been in the business of building saints for a long time. We are persuaded that He stands available, with full resources in hand, to build in our demanding time a type of strong saint who can weather the growing ferocity of the moral storm of even this day, and who will be, when the tempest is over, standing majestically and unbent and unscarred against the eternal sky.

Everett L. Cattell

Minister, Friends church; A.B., Marion College; M.A., Ohio State University. Has served as pastor, missionary to India (twenty-one years), superintendent of American Friends India Mission; executive secretary of the Evangelical Fellowship of India; promoter and first chairman of the Board of Governors of the Union Biblical Seminary in Yeotmal, India; general superintendent, Ohio Yearly Meeting of Friends. Presently serving as president of Malone College, Canton, Ohio.

An Appraisal of the Keswick and Wesleyan Contemporary Positions

by EVERETT L. CATTELL

It is an interesting quirk of human nature that we usually feel a more intense antagonism for those who differ with us slightly than for those who differ glaringly. Perhaps this is our way of sharpening issues. When it is obvious that one side is black and the other white, no emotional heat is necessary to make the matter more obvious. We can even fraternize with the opposition a bit without danger of losing our distinctives. But when our differences are shades of gray instead of black and white, it becomes necessary to find labels which carry in addition to descriptive material something of emotional tone the sum total of which will make clear a cleavage which otherwise might be lost.

I was brought up with a feeling about “Keswick” which was emotionally almost identical with that for “modernism.” After I became a man I met people from the Victorious Life Movement and heard them talk. I was amazed at how much of my language they spoke. Later my association with such became intimate and the discovery that many of them were passionately devoted to Jesus Christ and to holy living forced me to reeval-uate my emotions. I had to find a new dimension for the term “perfect love” inasmuch as mine had unchristian limitations. This dimension included a determined attempt to understand what my Christian brothers, with whom I differed, actually meant. This became a replacement for my former passion to win my debate with them.

I am assured that this, my experience, has been duplicated in the lives of many in the “holiness movement.” This paper is an examination of some of the differences between Keswick and Wesleyan positions in an attempt to discover where the differences are merely verbal and where they are real, and to set a stance for communication across the lines.

My thesis is that two “holiness” movements have been going on simultaneously, that what they have in common is more important than their differences, that the differences are more a matter of definition of terms than of fundamental concept, that the differing terms reflect more the historical theological presuppositions of the two schools of thought than they do Scripture usage, and that perfect love demands of us a fresh and thoroughgoing effort at communication across the lines of difference. This is a large order. Obviously a definitive study cannot be attempted in this paper, as the detail required would exceed the limits of time available. I can only hope to point the broad lines of investigation and hope that others may someday fill in the detail.

Historical Approach

The matter must first be seen in historical perspective.

The Church very early explored two antithetical positions as championed by Augustine and Pelagius. Because they were felt to be mutually exclusive they have tended to hold the limelight in their extremism and thus to deprive the mediating school of the attention it should have received. This school for want of a batter name has been called Semi-Pelagianism.

It is entirely clear that Calvin is in the mainstream of Augustinianism. But it is much more difficult to say just who is the spiritual successor of Pelagius. This is partly due to the fact that his descendants are more like the branches of a tree than a straight line. Perhaps we should admit that one of these main branches leads to Unitarianism, liberalism, and humanism. It is not true, however, as some Calvinists argue, that liberalism in the Methodist church proves the Pelagian fruit of Arminianism. It is important to point this out because the heart of my contention here is that Arminianism is not in the Pelagian stream at all and is therefore not a true antithesis to Calvinism. Rather, Arminius is in the mediating stream which proceeds from Semi-Pelagianism. Furthermore I believe that a case can be made for the notion that “mild Calvinism,” which holds only three of Calvin’s five points and which is the home of the Keswick teaching, is nearer to Arminianism than to Calvinism and that it might help our “mild Calvinist” brethren to admit this if they could see that being near to Arminius is very far removed from being Pelagian. While both sides have failed to recognize the fact, yet it is true that the mild Calvinists stand on the Calvinist side of the Arminian line and the Wesleyans stand on the Pelagian side of the line. I would plead for a recognition of a certain organic unity here, perhaps thinking of the Arminian line as a spinal cord from which branches move out on both sides, one side called mild Calvinist and the other Wesleyan, rather than to suppose that mild Calvinism is organically connected with Calvinism and Wesleyanism organically connected with Pelagianism.

For years I have been convinced of the correctness of the above analysis, but only in recent years have I found documentation for it in Calvinist sources.

The primary source of this documentation is Benjamin Warfield, who was professor of didactic and polemic theology in the Theological Seminary of Princeton from 1887 to 1921 and was easily the outstanding spokesman for thoroughgoing Calvinism of the last generation. His books, recently reprinted, on The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible and on The Person and Work of Christ are monumental evangelical documents. In addition he wrote a thousand pages on Perfectionism, which was published in two volumes by the Oxford Press. Since this is out of print, the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company of Philadelphia reprinted in 1958 a portion of this in one volume. The editor, Samuel G. Craig, chose to omit the treatment of the German rationalists which occupies most of the first volume and to preserve those portions which treat of the background of various non-Wesleyan perfectionist movements now current in America, England, and Germany.

Warfield’s viewpoint is given in an appendix under the heading “Entire Sanctification,” which is a concise exposition of I Thess. 5:23-24. It is a clear and clarion call to holiness of an absolute sort permitting of no relativism and therefore attainable only in heaven, a work of God in no way dependent upon our efforts. From this viewpoint, in the words of Editor Craig, “Dr. Warfield’s ever-present criticism of perfectionism is its inadequate notion of sin. Perfectionism is impossible, he claimed, in the presence of a profound sense of sin. The perfectionism of the Higher Life Movement is a subjective rather than an objective perfectionism. At the most it saves from sinning but not from sin, that is from ‘known sin,’ but not from the ‘corruption of man’s heart.’ And this because it ignores the fact that sin consists of lack of conformity unto the law of God as well as transgression of that law.”[1] This will be recognized as the position of a thorough Calvinist. From this viewpoint the concern of the book is to point out that the mild Calvinists of the Keswick or Higher Life Movement are not really Calvinist,[2] have taken their roots from Arminian and Wesleyan sources,[3] and “are summed up in the phrase, ‘the Second Blessing.’”[4]

The method is twofold. Warfield both traces the history of the perfectionist movement and at the same time gives a running critique of the teaching of the principal leaders of the movement. The book does not stop to criticize Mr. Wesley or the N.H.A. He simply assumes Mr. Wesley to be in error. His concern is to prove that the Calvinist-based perfectionist movements are part and parcel of Wesley’s error. He makes them bedfellows with us—perhaps we are closer than we knew.

The historical line is interesting. It starts with Jonathan Edwards, New England’s most brilliant and paradoxical theologian. Edwards was a Calvinist, who fortified Calvin with the determinism of John Locke. He was troubled by the gains of Arminianism in New England and sought to restore Calvinism to pristine acceptance. At the same time he was a successful evangelist and was sufficiently brilliant to find a resolution of this tension, which at the time appeared to be a mighty defense of Calvinism but which actually gave rise to the New England school of theology from which mild Calvinism has arisen.

No one trained in the New England theology took its Arminian element so seriously or so far as did Charles G. Finney. Warfield traces in detail the founding of Oberlin, the association of Finney and Asa Mahan, and the growth in their evangelistic and revival labors of the perfectionist teaching. The difference between the Oberlin and Wesleyan teaching is indicated[5] and a thorough critique of both Mahan’s and Finney’s theology is presented. We should probably agree that Finney’s position approximated a Pelagian one and thus indicates how widely divergent are the branches of Pelagian tradition.

Mahan’s influence is felt in the Keswick movement, whose origin is our next concern.

Three people are the root of the Keswick movement: W. E. Boardman, and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Pearsall Smith. W. E. Boardman was a somewhat impulsive man who sought under Methodist influence many times for sanctification and the eradication of the old nature but could not understand it and was further confused by seeing others fall into fanaticism. He finally experienced “rest of heart in Jesus for sanctification” and wrote a book on The Higher Christian Life which had a wider interdenominational influence than any other similar work.

Robert Pearsall and Hannah Whitall Smith were Philadelphia Quakers who received a conversion experience through other than Quaker influence. Later Mrs. Smith was led through a Methodist seamstress and a Baptist theological student into a second crisis experience. Later she was inclined to find this consistent with the Quaker teaching on perfection in Barclay but acknowledged her debt to the Methodists who had made it explicit to her. Still later Mr. Smith came into the same experience in a Methodist camp meeting. Like Boardman, both of the Smiths began active propagation of their newfound blessing. Hannah Whitall Smith’s The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life is a classic still avidly read by both Keswick and Wesleyan people.

Warfield is at pains for many pages to indicate that all three of these made a strong emphasis upon the difference between justification and sanctification and two separate experiences of the appropriation of God’s grace.

Both men for health reasons went to London and there met in parlor meetings which were initiated by Smith and in which Boardman participated. While Smith was spiritually the pupil of Inskip, Upham, and Boardman, his manner of presentation of truth followed Boardman, These meetings in England began in 1873, just six years after the organization by Inskip of the National Association for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, so that the preparation of these three vessels of the Lord occurred during the founding days of the N.H.A.

The parlor meetings in London spread in influence until they produced a series of conferences which eventuated in the great Keswick Convention. It is clear that the origins of Keswick lie deep in Wesleyan influence, but the teaching of Keswick has taken a different turn by the influence of Boardman in his reaction to Wesleyan teaching in certain phases due to the confusion in his own experience. One realizes that there are multitudes in the holiness movement today who are in confusion because of misunderstanding of what is rightly to be expected from eradication, and that perhaps the failure to clarify this matter in the beginning days of the N.H.A. set the stage for Boardman’s deviation into Keswick. It is interesting also that the response to this new putting of sanctification came in mild Calvinist circles which further colored the mode of expression.

After Keswick had fully flowered, the emphasis recurred in the United States and Canada in the Victorious Life Movement led by Charles G. Trumbull, the editor of the Sunday School Times, and ably assisted by Dr. W. H. Griffith Thomas, Dr. Robert C. McQuilkin, Dr. A. B. Simpson, and many others.

I hope it may now be clear as to how close is the historical affinity between the Wesleyan and Keswick movements.

Absolute or Relative Perfection

The crux of the difference between Calvinist and Arminian teaching about the deeper life lies in the area of perfectionism, the one demanding nothing less than an absolute perfection which all will admit is unattainable in this life, while the other permits and emphasizes a relative perfection in the area of motivation which is claimed to be possible and manageable in this life.

When the Calvinist argues, as does Benjamin Warfield, for absolute perfection as God’s standard for man and its unattainability in this life, let us recognize that while some of his followers may take advantage of this view to condone sin in an antinomian sense, this is not the case with responsible Calvinist leaders who genuinely feel that to talk of any conclusive deliverance from sin in this life is to take a light view of sin, failing to grasp its insidious ramifications. Let us admit that a bit of reading of Calvinist authors now and again may even help us to keep a healthy hatred of sin. At any rate it is no more fair to charge the responsible Calvinist leaders with antinomianism than it is for them to charge Arminians with sinless perfection.

On the other hand, when the Wesleyan argues for relative perfection as attainable now, he is not oblivious of the absolute claims of God, and it should be recognized that he is distinguishing a certain area, the area of conscious motive, for cleansing and perfecting, which is not the whole of life nor the whole of God’s demand, but a manageable portion thereof. Although the glibness of many Wesleyan testimonies and the extreme statements of some holiness preachers would seem to offset this, yet the responsible teaching, that is, the teaching which roots into Wesley instead of into “camp-meetingism,” does not take lightly the absolute claims of God but rather feels that the expedient of emphasizing one manageable segment tends to lead to greater victory and to offset a possible tendency to condone known sin under the blanket of a view of sin which is all-pervasive and inescapable.

The tension between these two views pervaded the Calvinist camp itself, and with the rise of the mild Calvinist school there arose also an emphasis upon a delimited area of victory over the freedom from sin. This is the holiness movement known as Keswick. It is interesting that not only has Warfield disowned it in America, relegating it to the same objectionable status as Wesleyanism, but in England today there is a growing opposition to Keswick arising in a movement whose best-known leader is Martin Lloyd-Jones, giving renewed expression to thoroughgoing Calvinism.

Now how is it that Keswick teaching in the main is to be identified with the Wesleyan position and yet exponents of Keswick and Wesleyanism look at each other askance as representing irreconcilable opposites? There are two main reasons, one rather superficial and the other more profound.

The Problem of Vocabulary

The first reason is a matter of vocabulary. The essential unity of the two positions has been vitiated by the fact that one movement drew its expression from its Calvinist historic roots and the other from Arminian. Thus the same words have different meanings for each party. This has led to a hopeless confusion with each party charging the other with believing certain things because they made certain statements using words in a different sense from that held by the hearer.

For instance, it is easy to find statements by Keswick leaders to the effect that we can never be completely free from sin or the sinful nature in this life. It is not fair for Wesleyans to attack this by reading into the word sin the limitation which Wesley put upon the word as meaning only willful, known sin, when the Keswick leader uses it in the absolute sense of any infringement of the total will of God, a position with which we are in substantial agreement. In his own way and with other terms the Keswick leader gets around to insist on deliverance and victory and thus brings on his head the wrath of the thoroughgoing Calvinist.

The differences between the Keswick and Wesleyan positions are subtle when terms are fully defined. It is a healthy exercise for groups of open-minded and open-hearted representatives of both sides to sit together dispassionately, as I have been privileged to do by the day, and explore these differences thoroughly. Our general consensus has been that when terms are fully defined, and especially when Scripture language is adhered to, we seem as a result to be saying the same thing.

Some of the terms which are at issue are as follows:

1. Sin: Wesley restricted this to voluntary evil, whereas Keswick includes all want of conformity to the will of God. We shall probably have to admit that Scripture can be found for both usages and that Wesley’s position is more an expedient than a scriptural necessity.

2. Sanctification: Wesleyans tend to emphasize the crisis phase of sanctification and restrict the use of the term to this, as when one testifies, “I was sanctified the thirteenth of August last year.” Calvinists regard sanctification as a process until death, and Keswick teachers hold that sanctification is both crisis and process. Actually Wesleyans also recognize three aspects of sanctification: initial, crisis, and the process of growth in grace. In meaning we are together but when in practice we talk about sanctification only in connection with the crisis we open the door for misunderstanding.

3. Baptism of the Holy Ghost: Calvinists and Keswick teachers identify this with conversion, Wesleyans with crisis sanctification, and, one should add, Pentecostals use it for the additional experience of speaking in an unknown tongue. When a word gets such varied use, it raises a question as to whether it is any longer useful. Certainly it should not be used without the most careful definition.

4. Second blessing or second definite work of grace: Wesleyans use this to emphasize the distinction between justification and sanctification. Keswick teachers so far emphasize a second crisis experience as to draw from Warfield the criticism that they are "second blessing" folk over again. But they themselves repudiate the term inasmuch as it seems to fragment the work of God. They recognize only one "work of grace" which was wrought on Calvary in the death of Jesus Christ. There may be multiple appropriations in our experience of this work of grace but only one work. Again, this is a matter of definition.

Probably we should recognize in honesty that Wesley’s discovery or emphasis here was more psychological than theological and more experiential than scriptural. In fact he raises the question as to whether sanctification is a crisis or a process and says the inquiry is the more difficult "because the Scriptures are silent upon the subject." In the same sermon he argues entirely from experience, citing persons all over England who were receiving blessing in this way. It would seem possible for us to agree with Keswick teachers that there is no scriptural or theoretical reason why justification and crisis sanctification could not happen simultaneously, yet in practice souls are usually not sensitive to need in this area until later experience makes it clear.

5. Eradication: This word must set over against the Calvinist term suppression and the Keswick word counteraction. Neither of these is a Scripture word. Scripture terms such as "crucify," "strip off," "mortify," used, as they are, in the aorist tense, are just as effective and much to be preferred.

6. Carnal mind or sinful nature: Here the debate has been on whether or not deliverance could be expected or merely victory over it. The battle has been very hot and at the same time inconclusive for reasons which I shall outline.

The Meaning of Sinful Nature

I must insist that the major reason for the incon-clusiveness of the battle over eradication is precisely because both sides have been fuzzy and ambiguous in their definition of the sinful nature.

Much of this fuzziness is an inheritance from the long debate among Calvinists as to whether original sin should include inherited guilt. To get the feel of this debate as well as fuller historical understanding of the issues involved in this paper, one should read that excellent and recent (1955) survey done by H. Shelton Smith entitled Changing Conceptions of Original Sin and subtitled A Study in American Theology Since 1750, which was first presented as lectures on the Levi Stone Foundation at Princeton Theological Seminary.

But beyond this area of difference is the one more relevant to our consideration, which is the distinction of the voluntary and the involuntary in original sin.

While Wesley got hold of a very helpful truth in distinguishing the conscious and the unconscious, the voluntary and the involuntary in the definition of acts of sin, and was largely followed by the Keswick teachers in this, both parties have failed to carry the distinction on through as it ought to be carried in the other two areas of great pertinence, i.e., the area of corrupt sinful nature and the area of the self-life. Let me explain.

That an inherited corruption in our natures is our common lot is accepted by both Wesleyan and Keswick teachers. Our differences however inhere in a failure to carry through the distinction between the voluntary and the involuntary. On the voluntary side the “carnal mind is enmity against God,” according to Paul. Wesleyans calling for eradication actually mean the “putting to death” or “stripping off” of our inherited “enmity” or corrupted will and attitude toward God. We have confused both ourselves and others by using figures of speech such as “removing the root,” which are materialistic and sound like a chunk of something was eradicated. Even Paul’s expression of “put to death” is a figure which can be misunderstood, for ordinarily dead bodies are buried and that is the last of them. But the carnal mind is not a chunk of something material—rather it is a wrong relationship. Paul’s figure is meant to emphasize the radical and crisis nature of the decisiveness with which this enmity must be handled, but the figure thereafter must be dropped in favor of those which indicate that the problem is in a relationship which must be maintained moment by moment, a living sacrifice in which enmity gives way to continuous love for God.

Thus it should be clear that Wesleyans mean by eradication deliverance from an inherited attitude of enmity against God, that holiness is the state of a continuously maintained love for God, and that the maintenance of that state is not the product of a crisis experience but of perpetual surrender.

This leaves an involuntary aspect of the inherited sinful nature yet to be dealt with. Sometimes Calvinists and Keswick teachers seem to identify the sinful nature with the mere fact of temptability. But the experience of Adam and Eve and our Lord Jesus Christ, who without a sinful nature were tempted, prove the falsity of this view. Equally false is the view which identifies the sinful nature with the body. The incarnation of Jesus is the final answer to this. But beyond these areas there still remain in our bodies and personalities certain scars of sin, both by inheritance and from our own misdeeds, which predispose us to sin even when we are delivered from enmity against God. Perhaps a useful illustration of a grosser sort is the case of the drunkard who has been converted and delivered from drinking. When he and a brother who never drank pass a saloon door, the fumes coming out affect one with disgust and the other with temptation because of scars of the old life that are written into the very cells of his body.

We must be aware that when the Keswick teacher insists that we are never delivered from the sinful nature he may mean this scar area of human nature. He should also realize that the Wesleyan agrees, and when insisting that there is a deliverance from the sinful nature he means only that voluntary area covered by the word “enmity.” That this distinction has not been made clear by either side accounts for the confusion and inconclusiveness of the debate.

The Self-life

The same distinction between the conscious and the unconscious, the voluntary and the involuntary needs to be carried into the area of the self-life if we want clarity and understanding between the two schools of thought.

First let us be accurate in our language about what happens to the self. It is not destroyed, killed, or eradicated. The self will live forever and is created by God as a thing which is good, and as the center of the soul will live into eternity. The “old man” which is to be destroyed is not to be identified with the self. Rather, the “old man” is a pattern of life in which the particles of life, like the iron filings on a paper above a horseshoe magnet, group themselves around two poles, self and God, which are not identical but by standing apart introduce an area of conflict between them. This independency of the self is enmity against God and is the essence of that conscious depravity which must be crucified. The pattern of life in which there are two separated poles must be eradicated so that the “old man” is killed. But this is not done by destroying the self pole in life but rather by destroying its independency and enmity as it slides over to become one with the will of God and, as the Scripture puts it, is “hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3).

Now the self in its new position of willing a will which is identical with God’s will is very much alive. And grouped about this surrendered self is the whole equipment of human nature with which God has created and endowed us, and this equipment, once made in the image of God but now badly marred and warped by sin, is free to be used for the glory of God—that is, free from the bias of conscious enmity but not from the unconscious heritage of infirmity and scar tissue with which human nature is disfigured. Temptation comes to the fully surrendered and cleansed heart, not through an appeal to a traitorous enmity, but through the infirmities of scarred human nature by which the legitimate use of human equipment is subtly moved across the line to become a reinstatement of the independency of the self again. Thus the enemy seizes upon legitimate hunger and the God-given joy of its fulfillment to produce a glutton. Where one crosses the line from the one to the other is subtle. It cannot be defined by rules. We are entirely dependent upon the convicting voice of the Holy Spirit to know when we are in danger. The maintenance of holiness is dependent upon utter obedience to the whispers of the Holy Spirit.

Likewise we cross from holy anger to carnal temper displays through subtle situations in which a real concern for right becomes the occasion for a new independency of the self. So also is there a line between the appreciation of beauty and the lustful look, the use of the tongue for edification and sinful gossip, the power of distinguishing right and wrong and the growth of a judging spirit, the element of zeal in the Lord’s service and envy of other workers, the taking of a responsible place of leadership with loss of humility, the exercise of God-honoring self-respect without its becoming pride, and on through a great variety of illustrations.

Nowhere is this truth more vital than in the area of self-indulgence. There is a holy sense in which the joy of eating is the indulgence of self. Likewise are the joys of sexual life within holy wedlock. It is also consistent with holiness that one should really enjoy a nice new suit or a beautiful dress. The Quakers were wrong in approving gray as against color. After all, God created the flowers and the birds and made the colors to be enjoyed. Self-indulgence therefore has a holy and a legitimate side. But in no area have “holiness” people brought more reproach upon themselves than by witnessing to eradication of the sinful nature and then displaying to a skeptical world a degree of self-indulgence which was perfectly obvious to all but themselves as being a sinful kind of selfishness—a sinful self-indulgence.

Probably the most neglected and the most needed area for emphasis among Wesleyans today is a fresh attention to this whole matter of the control and discipline of the delivered self. It is entirely possible for one to be delivered from conscious selfishness—and this is all we can claim for eradication—but to need desperately constant and profound and daily heart searching and sensitiveness to the checks of the Holy Spirit against self-indulgence, especially in an affluent society such as ours.

Let us remember that the failure to make this distinction between deliverance from known and recognized selfishness as the only possible claim for eradication and the remaining presence of unconscious, and let us be honest and say sinful, selfishness is at once the cause of great confusion in our own ranks and of misunderstanding between advocates of Keswick and Wesleyan holiness.

In closing let me plead for two things. First a change of attitude toward our brethren in Keswick. Instead of neat verbalizations by which we dispose of their inadequacies, often with painful and sarcastic digs, let us recognize them as Christian brothers sincerely striving after holiness, with inadequacies in their presentation just as, may God help us to realize, we too have inadequacies in ours. Let us recognize that we need each other. As I have moved for years among both camps, I have often felt among Keswick people a more earnest striving after holiness than among our own, while at the same time sensing a real lack in the area of arriving. Wesleyans have a contribution to make precisely here in that by delimiting the field to the manageable one of the conscious and the voluntary there is possible a real sense of arriving at deliverance and victory, I have also learned from Keswick people a much more profound sense of humility before the area of unconscious and involuntary sin or infirmity, which is not unimportant as holiness people seem to feel, but which requires the atonement and the cleansing of Jesus’ blood just as much as our voluntary sin. No longer can I give a glib testimony to being “saved and sanctified” and make it sound like an achievement of mine. Keswick has a contribution to make to us if it could get us to realize how much it is costing God all the time to keep cleansing us from the sin of which we are completely unaware.

Secondly, I would plead for much more accurate thinking about and definition of what we really mean by our holiness terms and for frequent contact with Keswick brethren in an effort to really understand what they mean. The implication of this is that there must be an accommodation of our language even to the abandonment of mere shibboleths and particularly of clichés and the words which because of their ambiguity become “red flags.” Let us take up the basic concepts for which we must stand and clothe them in fresh and more implicitly scriptural language and pray God that this will bring new vitality into the holiness movement of our day, lest God find it necessary to bypass us in our preoccupation with words and find himself new vessels, for a holy people in our day He certainly will have.

Walter H. Johnson

Minister, Free Methodist church; chairman, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Greenville College, Greenville, Illinois; A.B., Greenville College; B.D., McCormick Seminary; Th.D., Northern Baptist Theological Seminary; special study in philosophy of religion and research on Christology in Neo-Orthodoxy, Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Has served as pastor and educator.

Needed – Neo-Wesleyanism

by WALTER H. JOHNSON

In the autumn issue of Religion and Life, 1960, there is a discussion of the question, “Is there a Neo-Wesleyanism?” Topic headings include “What God hath joined together,” emphasizing the inseparable bond in the thinking of John Wesley between justification and sanctification and the fact that neither of these great doctrines should obscure the other in a mature Christian faith. Another article is entitled “What kind of Neo-Wesleyanism?” another on “Neo-Wesleyanism, Neo-orthodoxy and the New Testament.” These with other articles point to the need in our day of rethinking and reevaluating the emphasis of John Wesley. Our particular concern is to agree with this series of studies that we should have a Neo-Wesleyanism; therefore the title, “Needed—Neo-Wesleyanism.” An attempt to answer the questions that may arise by giving some reasons why we should have a revival of Neo-Wesleyanism will be made.

God Cares

For one thing there seems to have been a universal appeal to the Wesleyanism interpretation of the Christian gospel. The needs of men were satisfied by the emphasis of the Wesleys upon the possibilities of personal assurance and confidence that salvation was not only attainable, but that we could know that we have met with Christ and God. These basic human longings included a desire for an experience of God, a personal, individual vision of God, not to be confused with the rationalistic, deistic abstractions of the eighteenth century. In our day, as in the eighteenth century, the longings of man reach out toward a God who meets with man, who walks with him, and tells him he is His own.

I believe this universal appeal of the Wesleyan emphasis is authenticated in contemporary religious life by the surge of the Pentecostal denominations, not only in America, but around the world. Whether we agree completely with every interpretation of the Pentecostal experience by the movement known as Pentecostalism is not the question here. It is a matter of contemporary history that the Pentecostal movement is a most virile, dynamic, aggressive religious movement in America today. The strength and virility of Pentecostalism is fundamentally the appeal of historic Wesleyanism.

Particularity

Another reason for reconsideration of the Wesleyanism interpretation of Christian truth is that Wesleyanism dealt forthrightly with problems of particularity with respect to other major faiths. Whether or not one faith, one particular faith, is the way of religious life is a question of major interest in our day, not only for religious leaders and theologians, but also for sociologists, psychologists, and many others. Wesleyanism was forthright in its assertion that the Christian faith was the faith of truth. It asserted with the Scriptures that before Jesus Christ and Him only, every knee must bow. This allows no room for the syncretistic interpretations that have weakened and watered down the distinctive witness of Protestantism on many mission fields.

This particularity dealt, however, with other evangelical denominations kindly and respectfully. Other evangelical denominations who believed the great truths of the Old and New Testaments were always respected by Wesleyanism leaders as Christians. Their right to denominational interpretation and organizational integrity was never questioned.[1] This problem is again today of great significance because of the clamor of voices for ecumenicity from the major organizational forces in world Protestantism. The healthy balance between forthright, honest cleavage presented by Christianity to other world religions and the respectful treatment of other evangelical denominations has been a tradition among Wesleyans. This balanced strength is needed in Protestant thought today.

The Nature and Destiny of Man

Wesleyan resurgence today is important because in Wesleyanism we have an answer to the great questions concerning anthropology. Not only the sociologists, the philosophers, but the theologians of all faiths have been occupied with the renewed interest in the nature of man. Following the first and second world wars there was a sorrowful demise of liberalism’s overoptimistic confidence in the essential goodness of man and the inevitable progress of man which would lead us to a fair utopia of Christian identification with a democratic world order. This left a great vacuum in the study of anthropology. Neoorthodoxy asserted a new discovery of original sin. Wesleyanism had always emphasized the fact that man contained within himself the sin of Adam.[2] This emphasis was never characterized in traditional Wesleyanism by the extreme view of determinism found among certain branches of Protestant thought. Original sin was stated as a fact, a fact of history, a fact of sociology, a fact of psychology to be observed, in the Scripture. And the wonderful thing about Wesleyanism was that in its interpretation of the New Testament there was remedy for this sin. The tragic neglect even by recent teachings in Neoorthodoxy and others is the assertion of the fact of original sin without a remedy. Neo-Wesleyanism, then, should not be a Neoorthodoxy as we know it.

We Must Witness

We need a new look and a new emphasis on Wesleyanism today because of the influence of Wesleyan thought upon other denominational movements. Wesleyanism has always respected the right of other denominations to interpret the Scripture with respect to church government, with respect to baptism, with respect to varied emphases upon the transcendence of God, and so forth. However, throughout its history the influence of Wesleyanism has been felt in the stream of Protestant Christianity even if this influence is seen only as a corrective for an imbalance in other interpretations. We have a responsibility, therefore, to our tradition to be a witness, an influence concerning the person and work of the Holy Spirit.[3] We must witness concerning the warmth and vitality of Christian experience, concerning a healthy, needed emphasis upon Christian ethics. These concepts may be fed into the mainstream of Protestant Christianity only as we have a continuing vital Wesleyanism. Already we see about us the influence of Wesleyan thought upon Calvinism insofar as the contemporary Calvinism emphasized by our brethren of other denominations is only a hybrid Calvinism. There are very few today, very few indeed, after the years of respectful debate with Wesleyans, who follow the Synod of Dort Calvinism. So the influence of Wesleyanism is needed; a resurgence is needed for the health of the Protestant Christian community.

“What God Hath Joined”

The emphasis of the Wesleys in general upon the doctrine of the person and work of the Holy Spirit is another reason for the revival of Wesleyanism if only to avoid the omission of this great teaching in the mainstream of theology and Christian thought. For many years those of other faiths than the Wesleyan have been speaking out concerning the great void in Christian thought with respect to the doctrine and work of the Holy Spirit. In this area Wesleyanism avoided the extremes that we sometimes see today surrounding this teaching of Christian truth. They avoided the orgies of emotionalism that have sometimes characterized an emphasis upon the Holy Spirit. However, they emphasized that this doctrine was not expendable for any other substitute. The Wesleyans avoided an overemphasis as suggested in the introduction, in that justification and sanctification were like husband and wife, given their position by God, not to be broken asunder. So Methodism had conserved and advanced the teaching concerning the Holy Spirit.

The Divine Imperative

Another reason for Wesleyanism today is that there were in the Wesleyan emphasis some great imperatives. The responsibility to witness was a driving imperative which drove Wesley out from the closet and the monastery of contemplation to the fields and to the people. This has always been the genius of Methodism. To be sure, at times this emphasis has placed too much concern upon man, but in general the imperative has been a healthy one, that we must take the message from the churches to the people and from the classroom to the practical application in Christian evangelism and personal witness.

Another imperative of Wesleyanism was concerned with Christian ethics. Christianity was not considered complete without the witness of life. The witness of doctrine was inherent in Methodism and the contention of many contemporary Methodist scholars that Wesley had little or no concern with doctrine is a misinterpretation of some limited statements of Wesley. Wesley took Christian doctrines as basic and foundational, like Abraham Lincoln believed in the principles of democracy, but beyond doctrine there was the healthy emphasis of Wesleyanism upon Christian ethics.[4] It was not considered enough in Wesleyanism to emphasize a witness of doctrine and abstractions. It was considered important to emphasize a witness of life. This is one of the great imperatives of Wesleyan teaching. These imperatives need reaffirmation in our time: the imperative witness to carry the message to the people, to the field, to the uttermost part of the earth—as Wesley said, “The world is my parish.” The imperative of Christian ethics is also important for reemphasis in our day.

Christ and Wesley

Another reason for consideration of Wesleyanism and its values in Christian history is the emphasis of Wesleyanism upon Jesus Christ. In our consideration of the importance of Neo-Wesleyanism we want to observe carefully that Wesley wasn’t the central concern of the movement known as Wesleyanism. Not man but God and Christ as the Revelation of God was the central fact in Wesleyanism teaching. Today there are many who assert that, because Wesleyanism did emphasize the importance of the human experience by man of the presence and assurance of God, this has become the essence of Methodism, this is the exclusive emphasis, that faith is anthropocentric and not Christocentric and theocentric. This is far from the emphasis of historic Methodism.

There is in Wesleyanism a healthy emphasis upon Christ as central to truth.[5] This is a corrective to the extreme deism of the eighteenth century in which the transcendence of God was pushed so far and so high that the importance of communication with God was obscured under such theological extremes. Today contemporary scholars in reaction against decadent liberalism and modernism have reasserted the transcendence of God. This is, in some respects, a healthy correction. However, the transcendence of God is again pushed to such an extreme that God is spoken of by Karl Barth as “Wholly Other.” This is not the healthy emphasis of Christ as available as taught by the Wesleyanism movement. We need the constructive, biblical concept of a Christ who is not only transcendent, not only a Revealer of the justice of God, but of love, mercy, and the tenderness of the presence of God in the person of the Holy Spirit.

Either-Or?

Another emphasis of Methodism which makes it attractive to us today is that it was not satisfied with negations. Minor movements do major on the negations but this has never been the historic perspective of sound, healthy Wesleyanism. These great affirmations of Wesleyanism included the confidence that God is able to deliver from the bondage of sin. The contrary view that man is so dominated by depravity, so a product of religious determinism that he is incapable of escaping the bondage of sin is not the faith of Wesleyanism. The biblical view as interpreted by Wesley and healthy Wesleyanism is that God is able to deliver from bondage.[6]

Also Methodism affirms that man is able to do good because the image of God is still resident in his person and personality. Not all that man does is evil because of a completely depraved soul and spirit. Wesleyanism suggested however that man is able to do good only by the enablement of Almighty God. These great affirmations that are not negations affirm the positive fact of the ability of God to deliver from the bondage of sin; that man is able by the help of God, yea, has a responsibility to use the grace of God, to do that which is right, that which is true, that which is good. The full Christian life, then, is not by either faith or works but by both.

Results

Confidence in the Wesleyanism tradition is continued because the results of Methodism have been good in history. No doubt all of us are acquainted with the eighteenth century, the depraved social life, as the result of the cumulative philosophical movements which took away from man his sense of moral responsibility, his sense of responsibility to God as the Author of good. The eighteenth century is one of the dark spots in the history of morality. Revelation of the results of Methodism and the social, moral, and economic relationships of the time are strong proof that Wesleyanism contributes constructive and effective results to the social life of the age in which it has a powerful influence. In our time many are speaking of the tragic need for moral improvement, for a faith and religion which emphasizes morals—not morals as an end in themselves, not justification by works, but justification by faith which results, by the grace of God, in good works. The delinquency, not only of juveniles but of adults, the rising crime wave, the decline of idealism, the decline of integrating factors of morality, so prevalent and the subject of many studies, governmental, educational, sociological—all point to the need of a revival of religion which affects not only the intellect but which places upon the individual a sense of responsibility for witnessing in life to the grace of God, which enables him to live above the world, the flesh, and the devil.[7]

The Subjective Word

One last suggestion concerning the reasons for re-emphasis and rediscovery of Wesleyan thought is that in Wesleyanism there is a healthy biblical view. In our day many of our brethren of the conservative evangelical faith are very properly emphasizing the objective nature of biblical truth. A generation of scholars has come and gone which overemphasized the inner, the subjective, and it is a happy time that Schleiermacher and his overly subjective emphasis is fading. However, many of our brethren fail to see the healthy balance which we observe in historic Wesleyanism between the objective Word as the authority of God, and the inescapable subjective.

The evangelical world today needs to witness Wesleyanism to remind us continually that this so-called objective Word does not stand by itself completely apart from man. There is no such thing. Neither in the original inspiration nor in the contemporary interpretation is the Word of God separate and apart from man. The Word of God, indeed, was revealed to men. Without discussing in detail the theories of inspiration, most biblical scholars of today recognize clearly that God spoke, not mechanically, not with dictation, but through the personalities of men. He used the gifts, the graces, the background, the cumulative judgments of these men as a channel through which He revealed himself. Now we do believe with our evangelical brethren that this revelation of God is the Word of God. We do not, with others, hold that this revelation only contains the Word of God. With our evangelical brethren we believe this is the Word of God. However, the subjective element of interpretation as constructively, biblically interpreted by Wesleyanism, it seems is inescapable.[8]

Some time ago at one of our evangelical gatherings, a good and gracious scholar was asserting the importance of believing the Bible as the Word of God. Throughout his message he emphasized the Word as the objective Word. At the conclusion of the address, however, he inquired briefly into the source of the authority of the written Word. And in his inquiry he quoted Calvin that the written Word is authoritative and objectively the Word of God. The canon as we know it is the Word of God because it was through these particular books that the Holy Spirit spoke to man and at the time of the establishment of the canon these books spoke to the hearts of men. Still today, he affirmed, these are the books that speak to the hearts of men. Now this we believe with our brother, but in his message he failed to notice that this is subjective. The inner voice of the Spirit speaking to the Early Church and still speaking today is a subjective voice which reveals to us anew that these are the books of God.

The differences that we have within all our communions in subjective interpretation of various aspects of the Christian life—often over minutiae—only serve to further authenticate that fact that as we read the Scripture it is inescapable that the subjective element enters our thinking. This is not to suggest that man is the important subject in biblical analysis. On the contrary, the Bible we believe, with Wesleyan tradition, is the Word of God.[9] But in the Wesleyan emphasis there is a healthy biblical balance between the objective Word of God and the place for subjective interpretation of the Word of God.

These have been brief, survey suggestions concerning the importance of Wesleyanism, a few observations concerning the need for Wesleyanism in our day. It is hoped that we carry with us from this study, not the interpretation that the name Wesley is the central fact in Wesleyanism, but that Wesley simply interpreted the gospel of Jesus Christ in what we feel to be the healthiest, the best balanced, and most complete approach to “the more excellent way.”[10]

[1]Leslie Ray Marston, From Age to Age a Living Witness (Winona Lake, Indiana; Light and Life Press, 1960), pp. 53-63.

[2]John Wesley, Works (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.; reprint of 1872 edition), XI, 432.

[3]Wesley, op. cit., XII, 227-30.

[4]Richard Watson, Theological Institutes (New York: Emory and Waugh, 1828), III, 188.

[5]Ibid.

[6]John L. Peters, Christian Perfection and American Methodism (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 195G), p. 98.

[7]Ibid., pp. 99-100.

[8]Abel Stevens, Life and Times of Nathan Bangs (?, 1864), pp. 396-402.

[9]John Wesley, in Plain Account of Christian Perfection, asserts: “None, therefore, ought to believe that the work is done till there is added the testimony of the Spirit witnessing his entire sanctification as clearly as his justification.”

[10]Or 1867 to 1894, then 1894 to the present, as suggested by Peters, op, cit., pp. 146-47.

[11]M. L. Haney, Inheritance Restored (Chicago: The Christian Witness Company, 1904), pp. 214-18.

[12]A, M. Hills, Scriptural Holiness and Keswick Teaching Compared, p. 29, as quoted in Peters, op. tit., p. 162.

[13]Holiness by Faith, a Manual of Keswick Teaching (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1906), pp. 21-23.

[14]A. T. Pierson, The Keswick Movement (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1903).

[15]F. B. Meyer, Holiness by Faith, pp. 73-74.

[16]Klaude Kendrick, The Promise Fulfilled (Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1961), pp. 33-36.

[17]Ibid., p. 45.

[18]Ibid., p. 53.

[19]Ibid., pp. 71-72

[20]Ibid., p. 145.

[1]Harry E. Jessop, Foundations of Doctrine (University Park, Iowa: Chicago Evangelistic Institute, 1938), p. 230.

[2]Ibid., p. 10.

[3]H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1952), II, 473-74.

[4]C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves (New York: Haircourt, Brace & World, Inc.), pp. 53-83.

[5]Floyd Ruch, Psychology and Life (Chicago: Scott, Foresman, and Company), p. 58.

[6]Ruth Strung, Introduction to Child Study (Now York: The Macmillan Company).

[1]John Fletcher, An Appeal to Matter of Fact and Common Sense (New York: Hunt and Eaton, n.d.). p. 11.

[2]H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1941), II, 51.

[3]Ibid., p. 52.

[4]Richard S. Taylor, A Right Conception of Sin (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1945), p. 9.

[5]J. S. Whale, Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: The University Press, 1950), p. 36.

[6]Thomas Jackson, ed., The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M. (London: John Mason, 1830), VI, 271.

[7]John A. Mackay, God’s Order (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1953), pp. 32-33.

[8]William Burt Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1877), II, 28.

[9]John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (London: The Epworth Press, 1950 ed.), p. 857.

[10]Ibid., p. 261, note on Luke 15:12.

[11]John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, VI, 217.

[12]Ibid.

[13]George Allen Turner and J. Harold Greenlee, “Sin and Sinfulness: A Study in New Testament Terminology,” the Asbury Seminarian, IV (1949), 109.

[14]John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, XII, 378.

[15]W. E. Sangster, The Path to Perfection (New York; Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1943), p. 76

[16]E. H. Sugden, ed., Wesley’s Standard Sermons (Nashville: Lamar and Barton Agents, Publishing House M.E. Church, South, n.d.), II, 360.

[17]Ibid., pp. 361-62.

[18]Ibid., pp. 364, 381.

[19]Ibid., p. 365.

[20]Ibid.

[21]Ibid., pp. 366-67.

[22]George Allen Turner, The More Excellent Way (Winona Lake, Indiana: Light and Life Press, 1952), pp. 236 f.

[23]Leo G. Cox, “John Wesley’s Concept of Perfection” (Marion, Indiana: Mimeographed at Marion College, March, 1961), p. 138.

[24]W. E. Sangster, op. cit., pp. 135-39.

[25]R. Newton Flew, The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology (London: University Press, 1934), pp. 411-12.

[26]Wiley, op. cit., pp. 64-65.

[27]Ibid., p. 88.

[28]Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church, 1944 (The Methodist Publishing House, 1944), p. 28.

29Wiley, op. cit., p. 93.

[30]Ibid., p. 135.

[31]John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, XI, 394-95.

[32]Delbert R. Rose, A Theology of Christian Experience (Wilmore, Kentucky: The Seminary Press, 1958), p. 163.

[33]WiIey, op. cit., p. 118.

[34]Ibid., p. 126.

[35]John Miley, Systematic Theology (New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1892), I, 506.

[36]Whale, op. cit., p. 47.

[37]W. B. Godbey, Commentary cm the New Testament (Cincinnati: God’s Revivalist Press, 1898), IV, 534.

[38]A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1931), p. 313.

[39]John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, p. 904.

[40]J. Baines Atkinson, The Beauty of Holiness (London: The Epworth Press, 1953), pp. 50-51.

[41]Ibid.

[42]Ibid., p, 53.

[43]Ibid., p. 56.

[44]Ibid., p. 58.

[45]Edwyn Hoskyns, The Riddle of the New Testament, p. 175, as quoted in ibid., p. 52.

[46]Copyright © 1928. Renewed 1956 by Lillenas Publishing Co. All rights reserved.

[1]John Wesley, Works (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.; reprint of 1871 edition), XI, 446.

[2]H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, “The Expositor’s Bible” (5th ed.; New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1906), pp. 328-29.

[3]C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, “Harper’s New Testament Commentaries” (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), p. 231.

[4]John Peter Lange, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), p. 382.

[5]David Brown, “Romans,” A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments. Ed. R. Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948), VI, 263.

[6]John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (London: Epworth Press, 1941 reprint), p. 568.

[7]Adam Clarke, The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (New York: Methodist Book Concern, n.d.), II, 136.

[8]F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956 [reprint of 1883 ed.]), p. 244.

[9]Ibid.

[10]Works, XI, 402. 11 Op. cit., p. 245.

[12]W. E. Sangster, The Path to Perfection (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1943), p. 82.

[13]Herman Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, trans. W. Urwick (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1878), p. 261.

[14]Clarke, op. cit., p. 77.

[1]Sam Shoemaker, How You Can Find Happiness (New York: E. P. Dutton &Company, Inc.).

[2]E. Stanley Jones, Victorious Living (Nashville: Abingdon Press).

[3]Caroline Davis, “Seeking,” in World’s Great Religious Poetry, ed. Caroline Miles Hill (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1934).

[4]H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1952), II, 470.

[1]W. R. Matthews, The Search for Perfection (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1957), p. 3.

[2]Joseph H. Smith, Pauline Perfection (Chicago: The Christian Witness Co., 1913), p. 3.

[3]Ibid.

[4]Ibid.

[5]Hugh Ross Mackintosh, Types of Modern Theology (London: Nisbet & Co., Ltd., 1949), p. 219.

[6]Unpublished study of “The Doctrine of Sin,” The National Holiness Association, Dayton, Ohio, April 16, 1955. Reporter: Delbert R. Rose.

[7]George Allen Turner, The More Excellent Way (Winona Lake, Indiana: Light and Life Press, 1952), p. 74.

[8]Leo G. Cox, “John Wesley’s Concept of Perfection” (Marion, Indiana: Mimeographed at Marion College, March, 1961), p. 15.

[9]Delbert R. Rose, A Theology of Christian Experience (Wilmore, Ky.: The Seminary Press, 1958), p. 118.

[10]N.H.A., Report, op. cit.

[11]Ibid.

[12]Ibid.

[13]Harold Lindstrom, Wesley and Sanctification (Stockholm: Nya Bokforlags Aktiebolaget, 1946), pp. 44-45.

[14]N.H.A. Report, op. tit.

[15]Ibid.

[16]Ibid.

[17]J. Baines Atkinson, The Beauty of Holiness (New York: Philosophical Library, 1953), p. 63.

[18]Ibid., p. 64.

[19]Ibid., p. 66.

[20]Turner, op. cit, p. 38.

[21]Ibid., p. 37.

[22]Matthews, op. cit, p. 4.

[23]H. Orton Wiley, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press, 1959), p. 188.

[24]Ibid., p. 189.

[25]Ibid., pp. 189-90.

[26]W. E. Sangster, The Path to Perfection (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1943), p. 176.

[27]Quoted by Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 16.

28Turner, op. cit., p. 93.

[29]Ibid., p. 113.

[30]John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), VI, 6-7.

[31]John Wesley, quoted by Harry E. Jessop, in The Wesleyan Message (Winona Lake, Indiana: Light and Life Press, 1942), pp. 62-63.

[32]Ibid., p. 63.

[33]Smith, op. cit., pp. 4-5.

[34]Wesley, op. cit., XI, 419.

[35]Ibid., XII, 278-79.

[36]Cox, op. cit., p. 143.

[37]Rose, op. cit., p. 163.

[38]Ibid., p. 165.

[39]Ibid., p. 166.

[40]Wesley, op. cit., XI, 395-96.

[41]Cox, op. cit, p. 144.

[42]Smith, op. cit., p. 8.

[43]Cox, op. cit., p. 87.

[1]John Wesley, Plain Account of Christian Perfection, p. 3.

[2]Ibid., p. 4.

[3]Ibid., p. 106.

[4]Ibid., p. 34.

[5]Ibid., p. 35.

[6]John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions (Thos. Jackson ed., 1825), II, 168.

[7]Ibid., p. 169.

[8]Wesley, Sermon XL, “On Christian Perfection,” II, 2.

[9]Wesley, Plain Account of Christian Perfection, p. 43.

[10]Ibid., p. 43.

[11]Wesley, Sermon. XL, “On Christian Perfection.”

[12]Wesley, Plain Account of Christian Perfection, pp. 9, 19.

[13]Wesley, Sermon XIII, “On Sin in Believers,” V, 1.

[14]Wesley, Sermon XIV, “On Repentance of Believers,” II, 6.

[15]Ibid., II, 4.

[16]Wesley, Plain. Account of Christian Perfection, p. 71.

[17]Wesley, Sermon XIV, “On Repentance of Believers,” II, 5.

[18]Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, HI, 255.

[19]Wesley, Sermon XC, “On Working Out Our Own Salvation,” II, 1.

[20]Wesley, Sermon XL, “On Christian Perfection,” I, 9.

[1]H. A. Baldwin, Holiness and the Human Element (Louisville: The Pentecostal Publishing House, 1919).

[2]EImer T. Clarke, “Holiness Churches,” The Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. Lefferts A. Loetscher (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House).

[3]I Cor. 15:53-58.

[4]Westlake T. Purkiser, ed, Exploring Our Christian Faith (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1960), p. 308.

[5]Ibid., pp. 215-18.

[6]Randolph S. Foster, Studies in Theology (New York: Eaton and Mains, 1899).

[7]See p. 111.

[8]Op. cit., p. 130.

[9]Ibid., pp. 134-35.

[10]Ibid.

[11]Stephen Neill, Christian Holiness (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), pp. 110, 112.

[12]Foster, op. cit, p. 135.

[13]W. Earl Biddle, Integration of Religion and Psychiatry (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1955), p. 19.

[14]Baldwin, op, cit., p. 11.

[15]Purkiser, op. cit, p. 339.

[16]Asbury Lowrey, Positive Theology (Cincinnati: Methodist Book Concern, 1856), p. 241.

[17]Thomas Cook, New Testament Holiness (London: Epworth Press, 1935), p. 13.

[18]Clifford T. Morgan, Introduction to Psychology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), pp. 493, 692.

[19]Horace B. and Mrs. H. B. English, eds., A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms (New York: Longmans Green, 1958), p. 545.

[20]J. Lewis McIntyre, “Temperament,” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings (New York: Chas. Scribner’s Sons, 1958), Vol. XII.

[21]Ibid.

[22]Howard Wilkins, A Student’s Psychology Handbook (Los Angeles: Howard Chandler, 1958), p. 37.

[23]Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon. of the New Testament (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1887).

[24]W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Westwood: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1952).

[25]W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1957).

[26]John H. Wallace, Entire Holiness: An Essay (Auburn: William J. Moses, 1853), p. 28.

[27]Richard S. Taylor, A Right Conception of Sin (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1945), p. 63.

[28]Purkiser, op. cit., p. 343.

[29]Daniel Steele, Milestone Papers (New York: Nelson and Phillips, 1878), pp. 284-85.

[30]”Romans,” Biblical Illustrator (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), II, 130.

[31]Robert W. Burtner and Robert E. Chiles, A Compend of Wesley’s Theology (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), pp. 212-13.

[32]John Fletcher, The Works of the Rev. John Fletcher (New York: Carlton and Porter), II, 601-6.

[33]Asbury Lowrey, Positive Theology (Cincinnati: Methodist Book Concern, 1856), p. 241.

[34]Joseph H. Smith, Pauline Perfection (Chicago: Christian Witness Co., 1913), p. 77.

[35]D. F. Brooks, Bethabara to Pentecost (Chicago: Christian Witness Company, 1905).

[36]Samuel Chadwick, The Call to Christian Perfection (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1944), pp. 56-58.

[37]Purkiser, op. cit., pp. 372-73.

[38]Steele, op. cit., Chap. IV.

[39]Ibid.

[40]George W. Wilson, Truths as I Have Seen Them (Boston: Christian Witness Co., 1897), p. 116.

[41]Randolph S. Foster, Philosophy of Christian Experience (New York: Hunt and Eaton, 1891), pp. 143-44.

[1]T. J. Bach, God’s Challenge for Today, p. 89.

[2]Edwin Lewis, Manual of Christian Beliefs, p. 105.

[3]Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 494.

[4]Lewis, op. cit., p. 105.

[1]Samuel Chadwick, The Way to Pentecost (Berne, Ind.: Light and Hope Publications, 1937), p. 6.

[1]Congregational Quarterly, April, 1957, p. 116.

[2]Ibid.

[3]Bernard Ramm, The Witness of the Spirit (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company).

[4]Rackham, in The Acts of the Apostles, says the simplest and best definition of the Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of Jesus.

[5]On the biblical materials on the Holy Spirit, see the article by Mack B. Stokes, “The Holy Spirit in Biblical Theology,” London Quarterly and Holborn Review, July, 1959, pp. 199-203.

[6]Cp. Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press).

[7]Told with delightful interest in Luccock, Hutchinson, and Goodloe, History of Methodism (Abingdon, 1949).

[8]James S. Stewart, Thine Is the Kingdom (Edinburgh: The St. Andrew’s Press, 1956), p. 72.

[9]E. Stanley Jones, The Christ of the Indian Road (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press).

[1]William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 120.

[2]Ibid.

[3]Ibid., pp. 122-23.

[4]A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1931), p. 170.

[5]“Exposition of First Corinthians,” The Pulpit Commentary, p. 399.

[6]Robertson, op. cit., p. 77.

[7]Barclay, op. cit.

[8]“Exposition of Romans,” The Pulpit Commentary, p. 345.

[9]Charles R. Erdman, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press) pp. 112-13.

[10]Ibid.

[1]Benjamin Warfield, Perfectionism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1958), p. 11.

[2]Ibid., p. 396.

[3]Ibid., pp. 10-11, 395.

[4]Ibid., p. 358.

[5]Ibid., p. 58.

[1]“To separate ourselves from a body of living Christians, with whom we were before united, is a grievous breach of the law of love” (John Wesley, Works [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.; reprint of 1872 edition], II, 164).

[2]“From this infection of our nature (call it original sin, or what you please) spring many, if not all, actual sins” (ibid., IX, 274-75).

[3]“The question between the Methodists (so called) and their opponents” (John Wesley, The Letters of John Wesley [London: Epworth Press], m, 65).

[4]“Consider this well; that to preach Christ, is to preach all things that Christ has spoken; all His promises; all His threaten-ings; all His commands …” (Wesley, Works, I, 318).

[5]“About noon I preached at Warrington; I am afraid, not to the taste of some of my hearers, as my subject led me to speak strongly and explicitly on the Godhead of Christ. But that I cannot help, for on this I must insist is the foundation of all our hope” (John Wesley, Journal, V, 253-54).

[6]“There is no need that we should ever more be deprived of either the testimony of God’s Spirit or the testimony of our own, the consciousness of our walking in all righteousness and true holiness” (John Wesley, “The Witness of the Spirit,” Sermons, V, 3-4).

[7]“As long as the character and nature of man is not changed into something now quite unknown in human history, neither a new and more perfect social pedagogy nor a more perfect social organization will be able to eliminate all possibilities of injustice and conflict in human society” (Reinhold Niebuhr, Reflection on the End of an Era [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons], p. 243).

[8]“But orthodoxy has always insisted that the written Word does not commend itself unless the heart is confronted by the living Word” (Edward J. Carnall, The Case for Orthodox Theology [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959], p. 33).

[9]In contrast to Bultmann: “Jesus is not presented in literal seriousness as a pre-existent divine being who came in human form to earth to reveal unprecedented secrets. Rather, the mythological terminology is intended to express the absolute and decisive significance of the Word—the mythological notion of the pre-existence is made to serve the idea of the Revelation” (Rudolph Bultmann, The Theology of the New Testament [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons], II, 62).

[10]Suggested also by: Father Maximin Piette, John Wesley in the Evolution of Protestantism.