eradication and sinless perfection

[David Showalter]

As I once was young and now am older, could someone please clarify and explain to me exactly where pure Nazarene theology stands here in 2007 in regard to our position on "sinless perfection" and the "eradication of the carnal nature"? Thanks, I am presently faced with an older saint that is somewhat persistent in encouraging me to preach these positions and use these words and terminology. Your help is appreciated. Just a by thought, how do we handle the Lord's prayer, forgive us our sins, debts, etc.? Do we skip that part of it when we pray? Ready to learn.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

David, check out:
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=338
and
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=7583

[Wilson L. Deaton]

.... Thanks, I am presently faced with an older saint that is somewhat persistent in encouraging me to preach these positions and use these words and terminology.

I don't care what the topic is, I'm bothered by the concept of anyone being "persistent" in telling you what and how to preach. Gently but firmly explain that you preach what God lays on your heart and mind and that when God burdens you with that message, you'll preach it.

Or you might try a more indirect approach and say something like, "My memory is not what it used to be. If you'd write down the Bible references that teach those positions with those words and terms and I'll try to work up a sermon on it." :basic05

Or you could preach, "What Holiness Isn't" and use "sinless perfection" as a sub-point! This saint would think twice before suggesting topics to you again. :basic05

(I'm feeling a little ornery tonight.)

Wilson

[David Showalter]

wow scott, I ask a simple question and you send me to read hundreds of pages. I just spent 2 hours reading, thanks though, it was fun, interesting and challenging, HOWEVER, it raised more questions than it answered.

I'll ask you two of them, as you addressed both issues in my reading the past couple hours.

1. Can you biblically prove that there is a clear, distinct, and defined difference between the flesh (human nature) and the sin (carnal) nature? Please give several biblical passages from OT and NT, Christ and Paul, that support this theological position.

2. If the sin (carnal) nature is eradicated, and yet once sanctified always sanctified is not true, does that mean our sin (carnal) nature, (that we are born with, through Adam's sin) pops in and out of us as we back slide from our second blessing experience of entire sanctification?

Lastly, and I am being totally submissive to you, has this topic already been rode to death in years and posts gone by? If so, I'll humbly stand down. Thanks, your posts are always insightful. p.s. you didn't really answer my first two questions either.

[David Showalter]

Wilson posted,

Or you could preach, "What Holiness Isn't" and use "sinless perfection" as a sub-point! This saint would think twice before suggesting topics to you again.

David replies,
Wilson, I take it your position is that our official pure theology does not include sinless perfection? I appreciated your humor, it put a smile on my face. This is a serious topic for me, in that I preach a very relational type of holiness, and realize that certain terminology and doctrinal words are seldom heard in my sermons. I have never thought that was a weakness or a barrier, but this fellow is convinced I am not one of us. The other day I was sharing with him that my awareness of sin was one of the very things that kept me at the feet of Jesus, he nearly freaked on me. So, I went on to tell him that Christ's spirit, grace, forgiveness, and HOLINESS was able to keep me living above and beyond a lifestyle of sin, but that I would be awfully careful about claiming to be sinless. He let me know that he lived above and beyond sin and that he had not sinned in decades. He told me he refused to say the word sin when he prayed, he will ask God to forgive him of his short-comings, his mistakes, but he will not confess or admit to sin because he does not and has not sinned in decades. I rejoice for him, however wonder what his wife and kids would say to that.

[Scott Daniels]

"We believe that entire sanctification is that 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 holy obedience of love made perfect.

It is wrought by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and comprehends in one experience the cleansing of the heart from sin and the abiding, indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, empowering the believer for life and service..."

This is what Article X currently says. There is none of the language of sinless perfection nor eradication of the carnal nature in the Article as it is currently written.

As Quanstrom's book on 100 years of Holiness theology points out there is a tension within the Holiness tradition between a kind of Pentecostal 19th Century understanding of holiness that tends to see sanctification as the removal of sin as a substance in a instantaneous moment at a time subsequent to justification on the one hand, and on the other hand a more "Wesleyan" understanding that sees sanctification as a relational process of healing which through the means of grace reforms the character of Christ (love) in us.

Unfortunately group two usually sees group one as theologically inarticulate, and group one usually sees group two as watering down holiness.

I once preached an 8 part series in which I looked at holiness from eight different OT and NT perspectives. I included readings from four different NPH books on holiness for people to read for more help. At the end of it I had a retired missionary tell me that I wasn't a real "Holiness Preacher" because I didn't include the kind of terms you are describing... So good luck.

[Randy Wise]

"We believe that entire sanctification is that 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 holy obedience of love made perfect.

It is wrought by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and comprehends in one experience the cleansing of the heart from sin and the abiding, indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, empowering the believer for life and service..."

This is what Article X currently says. There is none of the language of sinless perfection nor eradication of the carnal nature in the Article as it is currently written.

As Quanstrom's book on 100 years of Holiness theology points out there is a tension within the Holiness tradition between a kind of Pentecostal 19th Century understanding of holiness that tends to see sanctification as the removal of sin as a substance in a instantaneous moment at a time subsequent to justification on the one hand, and on the other hand a more "Wesleyan" understanding that sees sanctification as a relational process of healing which through the means of grace reforms the character of Christ (love) in us.

Unfortunately group two usually sees group one as theologically inarticulate, and group one usually sees group two as watering down holiness.

I once preached an 8 part series in which I looked at holiness from eight different OT and NT perspectives. I included readings from four different NPH books on holiness for people to read for more help. At the end of it I had a retired missionary tell me that I wasn't a real "Holiness Preacher" because I didn't include the kind of terms you are describing... So good luck.

If anyone is in Christ they are a new creation and have received the indwelling Holy Spirit and that Spirit helps us put down the misdeeds of the flesh. That gift was clearly taught by the Apostles. Now the baptism of the Holy Spirit you are teaching as a second work of grace sounds a whole lot like the first to me and I find no "clear" teaching to a second work of grace. Obviously your denomination does, but it has been shown your members are clearly confused on how to apply that concept in terms of teaching and their own personal experiences.

Randy

[Wilson L. Deaton]

.... This is a serious topic for me, in that I preach a very relational type of holiness, and realize that certain terminology and doctrinal words are seldom heard in my sermons. I have never thought that was a weakness or a barrier, but this fellow is convinced I am not one of us.

I can't help but wonder if you don't share one of my wife's characteristics: the compulsion to please everyone. No matter how much you would like to please this guy and have his affirmation, you can't let an isolated voice set your agenda. If you preach in such a way that multiple members often question you, if other holiness preachers/scholars repeatedly disagree, etc., then you might want to re-examine your stance. In the meantime, don't let this guy bother you (easier said than done).

The other day I was sharing with him that my awareness of sin was one of the very things that kept me at the feet of Jesus, he nearly freaked on me.... He let me know that he lived above and beyond sin and that he had not sinned in decades. He told me he refused to say the word sin when he prayed, he will ask God to forgive him of his short-comings, his mistakes, but he will not confess or admit to sin because he does not and has not sinned in decades. I rejoice for him, however wonder what his wife and kids would say to that.

I suspect that his claim to sinlessness is based on his theology more than his behavior. He believes that sanctified people do not sin. He believes he is sanctified. Therefore, he concludes that whatever it is that he does wrong must be something other than "sin, properly so called."

Furthermore, he very likely believes that to admit to sin would be an insult to the power of the Holy Spirit. In his mind it would imply that the Holy Spirit failed to cleanse him thoroughly enough. Therefore, he can't admit to "sin."

As one last ditch effort you might try to explain that not everyone understands the fine line between sin and mistake the way he understands it and if you talked about it the way he suggests, people would very likely misunderstand. In other words, steer it away from theology and toward communication. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that you might just have to live with this guy's displeasure.

(His wife and kids would probably say that he makes his fair share of "mistakes" and has his fair share of "short-comings!" He would probably agree.)

Wilson

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

wow scott, I ask a simple question and you send me to read hundreds of pages. I just spent 2 hours reading, thanks though, it was fun, interesting and challenging, HOWEVER, it raised more questions than it answered.

I just thought that before we start this round of discussion on our distinctive doctrine that the thousands of words already written ought to be considered. I'm glad you read it and glad you found it worth while.


1. Can you biblically prove that there is a clear, distinct, and defined difference between the flesh (human nature) and the sin (carnal) nature? Please give several biblical passages from OT and NT, Christ and Paul, that support this theological position.

I'm not a theologian, but here are the scriptures that the Church of the Nazarene uses to define original sin:Genesis 3; Genesis 6:5; Job 15:14; Psalm 51:5; Jeremiah 17:9-10; Mark 7:21-23; Romans 1:18-25; Romans 5:12-14; Romans 7:1—8:9; 1Corinthians 3:1-4; Galatians 5:16-25; 1John 1:7-8. They were selected by people who are way beyond me in their theology. Happily, they pretty much cover your desire for "whole Bible."


2. If the sin (carnal) nature is eradicated, and yet once sanctified always sanctified is not true, does that mean our sin (carnal) nature, (that we are born with, through Adam's sin) pops in and out of us as we back slide from our second blessing experience of entire sanctification?

The Manual explains it like this: "We believe that the grace of entire sanctification includes the impulse to grow in grace. However, this impulse must be consciously nurtured, and careful attention given to the requisites and processes of spiritual development and improvement in Christlikeness of character and personality. Without such purposeful endeavor, one’s witness may be impaired and the grace itself frustrated and ultimately lost."


Lastly, and I am being totally submissive to you, has this topic already been rode to death in years and posts gone by? If so, I'll humbly stand down. Thanks, your posts are always insightful. p.s. you didn't really answer my first two questions either.

I think this is an important topic and that so long as people want to discuss it that it should be discussed! I know that most would rather have "their own" discussion about stuff like this -- so I say go for it!

And, I really wasn't trying to answer your questions, just point out that these things, and related matters, have been addressed in other threads.
Over the years I have been impressed by how many capable people we have contributing to NazNet.

[Marsha Lynn]

... this fellow is convinced I am not one of us. The other day I was sharing with him that my awareness of sin was one of the very things that kept me at the feet of Jesus, he nearly freaked on me. So, I went on to tell him that Christ's spirit, grace, forgiveness, and HOLINESS was able to keep me living above and beyond a lifestyle of sin, but that I would be awfully careful about claiming to be sinless. He let me know that he lived above and beyond sin and that he had not sinned in decades. He told me he refused to say the word sin when he prayed, he will ask God to forgive him of his short-comings, his mistakes, but he will not confess or admit to sin because he does not and has not sinned in decades. I rejoice for him, however wonder what his wife and kids would say to that.

Thanks for the questions, David. Personally, I am always helped by these discussions.

Two sources have profoundly impacted my view of what it takes to enter the kingdom of God. One is The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis who depicts a world where everyone is welcome into the kingdom but many decide the price is too high to pay. The other is a poem by British poet Adrian Plass about the wonderful playground he'd like to see in heaven. At the end, he wonders if he might be too big for this playground and prays:

"If I am too large /tell the angel in charge /to let me bow down and come in."

I wonder... if your friend gets to the pearly gates and it turns out he has to bow down in humility to get through them, will he do it? Wouldn't it be tragic if he held to his claim of sinlessness rather than humbling himself before God as a sinner in order to gain admittance to the kingdom?

I still hold (thanks to Mildred Bangs Wynkoop) that sin always traces back to self getting in the way of our relationship with God. Desiring to be an example of sinless living surely falls into that category. (Notice that I did NOT say that desiring to rid ourselves of every barrier in our relationship with God is a sin; only that the desire to know ourselves - and to be known - as sinless is a sin.)

What you have is an example of someone who is convinced he has the best vision around but is sadly blind. He's investing his life in living the best he can for God while completely missing the point. Rather than allowing him to direct your preaching program, I hope that you cultivate a deep compassion toward him based on the misery he brings on himself and to those around him. Will he ever bow down enough to discover the joy of living by grace? Ironically, his path from where he is to abundant living may be more difficult than anyone else in your congregation.

The March 27th devotional from My Utmost for His Highest speaks of how when the devil takes us high he sets us on a peak from which every direction leads downhill. We dare not move for fear of falling. We cling desperately to a pinnacle. But when the God takes us high, we find ourselves on a wide plain with plenty of room to move. I hope you never give up preaching about the plain of grace and substitute the dangerous cliffs of sinless perfection.

Marsha

[David Showalter]

My dear brother Wilson posted,

I can't help but wonder if you don't share one of my wife's characteristics: the compulsion to please everyone.

David replies,

Ouch, and guilty as charged! I realize this weakness and it has indeed impaired my ministry over these past 25 years. I am amazed that it was so apparent to you, or perhaps God works in mysterious ways.

Wilson posted,

Furthermore, he very likely believes that to admit to sin would be an insult to the power of the Holy Spirit.

David replies, I had never even considered this possibility. But knowing him, as I think I do, I'm sure this is probably part of his thinking, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[David Showalter]

Marsha posted,

I hope you never give up preaching about the plain of grace and substitute the dangerous cliffs of sinless perfection.

David replies,

I certainly enjoyed reading your post from years gone by on this subject. Hebrews 12 has always caused me a bit of trouble when I have tried to nail down a sinless perfection theology in my peon brain and mind. I am so thankful that as I run from sin that so easily entangles and keep my eyes on Jesus he seems to be able to do in me something I never could accomplish on my own. I don't know if it sinlessness, but it sure feels like amazing grace, and the sweetness of his holy presence and righteousness. With his grace, mercy, love, forgiveness, and holiness at work inside of me, I am anticipating seeing him face to face one day. God bless and thanks for you insight.

[Paul Whitaker]

If anyone is in Christ they are a new creation and have received the indwelling Holy Spirit and that Spirit helps us put down the misdeeds of the flesh. That gift was clearly taught by the Apostles. Now the baptism of the Holy Spirit you are teaching as a second work of grace sounds a whole lot like the first to me and I find no "clear" teaching to a second work of grace. Obviously your denomination does, but it has been shown your members are clearly confused on how to apply that concept in terms of teaching and their own personal experiences.

Randy

I wish we knew a bit of your denominational affiliation. Can't find it in your profile. Not wanting to argue but would just like the info.

[Scott Daniels]

...Obviously your denomination does, but it has been shown your members are clearly confused on how to apply that concept in terms of teaching and their own personal experiences.

Randy

Hey, that's not fair Randy. Those inside the family are allowed to make fun of our mother, but those outside aren't allowed to. :)

Tell us who your mother is, and we'll be glad to make fun of her. :cool:

"Your mother is so Calvinist, God predestined her to be that ugly..."

"Your mother is such a fundamentalist, she doesn't allow herself to speak in church..."

Bring it on, ye of an unconfused theological lineage... :o

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I certainly enjoyed reading your post from years gone by on this subject. Hebrews 12 has always caused me a bit of trouble when I have tried to nail down a sinless perfection theology in my peon brain and mind. I am so thankful that as I run from sin that so easily entangles and keep my eyes on Jesus he seems to be able to do in me something I never could accomplish on my own. I don't know if it sinlessness, but it sure feels like amazing grace, and the sweetness of his holy presence and righteousness. With his grace, mercy, love, forgiveness, and holiness at work inside of me, I am anticipating seeing him face to face one day. God bless and thanks for you insight.


David, I am confused by your continued references to "sinless perfection" as though it is part of our doctrine. Just about the only people in history who have used that term did so to create a straw man to knock down as though they were refuting the theology of the holiness movement. Wesley explained his use of "perfection" and said that the term "sinless perfection" was "not worth disputing about." Wesley used the term "Christian perfection" and then only after carefully defining it in terms of loving God with all one's heart soul and mind and neighbor as self.

I think I am safe in saying that Wesley, and now our own Zion, believes that Christian perfection is loving God with all of one's being and loving neighbor as self.

[Billy Cox]

As I once was young and now am older, could someone please clarify and explain to me exactly where pure Nazarene theology stands here in 2007 in regard to our position on "sinless perfection" and the "eradication of the carnal nature"? Thanks, I am presently faced with an older saint that is somewhat persistent in encouraging me to preach these positions and use these words and terminology. Your help is appreciated. Just a by thought, how do we handle the Lord's prayer, forgive us our sins, debts, etc.? Do we skip that part of it when we pray? Ready to learn.

'A Theology of Love' by Mildred Wynkoop
http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Love-Mildred-Bangs-Wynkoop/dp/0834120003/ref=pd_sim_b_5/102-7252696-1536166

This is one of the foremost rejections of 'eradication' as a metaphor for entire sanctification.

Be aware that Wynkoop became a scapegoat for those seeking to figure out how Satan defeated the American Holiness Movement.

[Randy Wise]

Hey, that's not fair Randy. Those inside the family are allowed to make fun of our mother, but those outside aren't allowed to. :)

Tell us who your mother is, and we'll be glad to make fun of her. :cool:

"Your mother is so Calvinist, God predestined her to be that ugly..."

"Your mother is such a fundamentalist, she doesn't allow herself to speak in church..."

Bring it on, ye of an unconfused theological lineage... :o

I don't know theology just scripture. Feel free to make fun. I would like to know if your sinless perfection is another act beyond the scripture below? If so what scripture defines that act?
Randy

Romans 8:9 NIV
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

[Scott Daniels]

I don't know theology just scripture. Feel free to make fun...
Theology is just an attempt to talk coherently and in a disciplined way about God, and you are obviously trying to do that. You may not claim to be in conversation with a tradition or history of people that is attempting to talk coherently about God, but in the very act of choosing a particular scripture - as you have done - as the lens through which to interpret holiness, you are doing theology.

Personally, I don't trust myself enough to try to talk coherently about God without a history of thinkers (dead and alive) to dialogue with, but nevertheless...


Romans 8:9 NIV
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

In answer to your question about sinless perfection... I don't think Nazarenes would use the term sinless perfection. Wesley used the term Christian perfection by which he really meant Christian maturity or completeness. And so yes, I believe that Romans 8:9 is one place where what we mean by Christian Perfection is described well.

As far as subsequence or "another act" goes... I think there are many different models or processes for the way in which Christian maturity is brought about in the life of the believer in the scripture. The disciples, Paul, the Gentiles, the Ethiopian Eunich, Cornelius, etc. all seem to have followed a different path or process in coming to what Nazarenes would call the sanctified life.

This is just my opinion, and I recognize that I do not speak for all Nazarenes and that I am also opening myself up to theological criticism and political susupicion by saying this, but I think our commitment to subsequence is largely due to our making a doctrine out of the particular historical and spiritual experience of our denominatonal fathers and mothers. Similar experiences can be seen in scripture, and thus in that way our commitment to secondness can be argued as scriptural. But there are counter-examples in life and in scripture as well (a point Wesley realized later in life also).

I think that part of our current struggle as a denomination doctrinally comes from the fact that we are no longer preaching to a predominantly Christian culture that needs to move from cultural Christianity to a place of entire consecration, but we are now preaching to a largely post-Christian culture and are thus encountering people with a very different experience of God's pardoning, transforming, and sanctifying grace than we encountered in previous generations of the Holiness movement. The product of holiness is the same, but we are probably going to have to give up our commitment to a particular process. But I openly admit that not all Nazarenes share that view - but we are learning to perfect our love for one another anyway.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Obviously your denomination does, but it has been shown your members are clearly confused on how to apply that concept in terms of teaching and their own personal experiences.

It seems to me that I've asked before and didn't get an answer or at least I forgot what the answer was.... With what denomination are you affiliated?

Wilson

[John Kennedy]

Wilson, I don't think you spent enough time in dental school to extract an answer to the question you asked.

[Hans Deventer]

I don't know theology just scripture.

Theology is just an attempt to talk coherently and in a disciplined way about God, and you are obviously trying to do that. You may not claim to be in conversation with a tradition or history of people that is attempting to talk coherently about God, but in the very act of choosing a particular scripture - as you have done - as the lens through which to interpret holiness, you are doing theology.

Personally, I don't trust myself enough to try to talk coherently about God without a history of thinkers (dead and alive) to dialogue with, but nevertheless...

This could be part of a FAQ. There is no way of talking about the Scriptures without doing theology, or making interpretations that are influenced by whatever culture, education, social group etc. you are immersed in. A lot of discussions here on NazNet could be helped once everyone agrees to that concept and starts to become aware of one's own biases (which is a process that might not have an end in this life, but nevertheless it is crucial for understanding).

[Hans Deventer]

Wilson, I don't think you spent enough time in dental school to extract an answer to the question you asked.

I would indeed be very surprised if we got an answer to your question. Randy seems very keen not to give it. Of course, it says a whole lot when you don't "fight" with your visor raised.

[Randy Wise]

Theology is just an attempt to talk coherently and in a disciplined way about God, and you are obviously trying to do that. You may not claim to be in conversation with a tradition or history of people that is attempting to talk coherently about God, but in the very act of choosing a particular scripture - as you have done - as the lens through which to interpret holiness, you are doing theology.

Personally, I don't trust myself enough to try to talk coherently about God without a history of thinkers (dead and alive) to dialogue with, but nevertheless...



In answer to your question about sinless perfection... I don't think Nazarenes would use the term sinless perfection. Wesley used the term Christian perfection by which he really meant Christian maturity or completeness. And so yes, I believe that Romans 8:9 is one place where what we mean by Christian Perfection is described well.

As far as subsequence or "another act" goes... I think there are many different models or processes for the way in which Christian maturity is brought about in the life of the believer in the scripture. The disciples, Paul, the Gentiles, the Ethiopian Eunich, Cornelius, etc. all seem to have followed a different path or process in coming to what Nazarenes would call the sanctified life.

This is just my opinion, and I recognize that I do not speak for all Nazarenes and that I am also opening myself up to theological criticism and political susupicion by saying this, but I think our commitment to subsequence is largely due to our making a doctrine out of the particular historical and spiritual experience of our denominatonal fathers and mothers. Similar experiences can be seen in scripture, and thus in that way our commitment to secondness can be argued as scriptural. But there are counter-examples in life and in scripture as well (a point Wesley realized later in life also).

I think that part of our current struggle as a denomination doctrinally comes from the fact that we are no longer preaching to a predominantly Christian culture that needs to move from cultural Christianity to a place of entire consecration, but we are now preaching to a largely post-Christian culture and are thus encountering people with a very different experience of God's pardoning, transforming, and sanctifying grace than we encountered in previous generations of the Holiness movement. The product of holiness is the same, but we are probably going to have to give up our commitment to a particular process. But I openly admit that not all Nazarenes share that view - but we are learning to perfect our love for one another anyway.

One component I have always had is Love for Jesus, but I can clearly draw a line when I didn't have the Spirit of Christ in me. The apostles and the lord taught about the gift of the promised Holy Spirit and the new creation. If Jesus were to ask you why you teach His children to come to Him for a second work of grace after that gift what would your answer be to Him? I would think what Jesus thinks would be important to you. Anyway thanks for the response in grace.

Randy

2peter

3His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

[Barbara Moulton]

This could be part of a FAQ. There is no way of talking about the Scriptures without doing theology, or making interpretations that are influenced by whatever culture, education, social group etc. you are immersed in. A lot of discussions here on NazNet could be helped once everyone agrees to that concept and starts to become aware of one's own biases (which is a process that might not have an end in this life, but nevertheless it is crucial for understanding).

Amen.

Stepping away from theology for a minute, I can recall two times when I was "blown away" by statements here.

Once was when someone said that he felt sorry for anybody who lived in a country where they did not have the right to "bear arms" and once when someone said having government health plans were communistic.

Both times I was shaking my head going "say what"? Although these were people with whom I had a deeply shared faith in common, they had a bias based on where they had been raised and the culture in which they lived. It was a bias which surprised me greatly. They had been shaped by their tradition just as much as I have been mine.

I don't think any of us have been to a Bible Study where we all sat in a circle and the leader read verse after verse, announcing the meaning of each with everyone nodding their head in total agreement. Normally a Bible Study becomes a discussion of the different shades of meaning that can be found and different people pick up on those various shades according the glasses they wear.

Gender, race, culture, life experience, denomination...all these have a huge impact on how we interpret any one verse or passage. Either only one is right and the rest of us are wrong or there is enough truth in each to minister to us all, no matter who we are and where we come from. God is big enough to accomodate our bias.

None of us only use the Bible. All of us have been influenced by others. I was influenced by certain "thinkers" as I was growing up and some of them left lasting biases in my personality. Even if I made a decision as of "right now" to read only the Bible and go nowhere else for help with the interpretation, I am still interpreting it through the personal bias I already have.

I know this, when I became less concerned about making sure others had the right interpretation (e.g. MY interpretation) and more concerned about simply building relationships with them, I became far more content and level in my own spiritual walk.

In my family, in my life, in my work, in my church it is far more important that people see Jesus in my life than they embrace my own bias.

[Jerry Frank]

I think a lot of Nazarenes like to point to their roots in Wesley's ideas of holiness. What they forget (or don't know) is the strong influence in North America of people like Phoebe Palmer who, in particular, focused on the phrase, "entire sanctification". We will never know if Wesley would have agreed with her interpretation but we should acknowledge the differences.

See for example http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/21-25/23-13.htm and pay particular attention to the third paragraph which describes how she modified Wesley's teachings. While the article in particular draws attention to her influence on the Pentacostal movement, I am certain that Nazarene, Free Methodist and other related theologies were also greatly influenced by her work, teaching and writing.


Jerry

[Scott Daniels]

I don't know if I'm getting included in the "lot of Nazarenes" you mention, nevertheless, I think many of us know the influence Palmer and others had on NA Holiness in retraditioning Wesley. I think the question has become, in the light of questions like Wyncoop's "Credibility Gap" was that retraditioning by Palmer and others a good move or do we need to go back to Wesley (and to some degree Palmer, et al.) and retradition again in the light of that credibility gap?

[Kevin Rector]

I think that part of our current struggle as a denomination doctrinally comes from the fact that we are no longer preaching to a predominantly Christian culture that needs to move from cultural Christianity to a place of entire consecration, but we are now preaching to a largely post-Christian culture and are thus encountering people with a very different experience of God's pardoning, transforming, and sanctifying grace than we encountered in previous generations of the Holiness movement. The product of holiness is the same, but we are probably going to have to give up our commitment to a particular process. But I openly admit that not all Nazarenes share that view - but we are learning to perfect our love for one another anyway.

All Nazarenes don't share that view, but I certainly do.

[Hans Deventer]

I don't know if I'm getting included in the "lot of Nazarenes" you mention, nevertheless, I think many of us know the influence Palmer and others had on NA Holiness in retraditioning Wesley. I think the question has become, in the light of questions like Wyncoop's "Credibility Gap" was that retraditioning by Palmer and others a good move or do we need to go back to Wesley (and to some degree Palmer, et al.) and retradition again in the light of that credibility gap?

I would say it was a good move in the 19th century and it helped a lot of people back then. I would also say that in our time, we indeed need to retradition starting with Wesley again. Or even further back, Wesley didn't "invent" holiness.

[Paul Whitaker]

While everybody catches their breath I would like to give a tribute to Mildred Wynkoop.

She and I shared several good conversations during the year I taught at TNU. A few of those included our brown-bagging for lunch in her office.

In all of the conversations she exhibited a profound love for Holiness, her church, TNU and others.

I am much richer for that and I am so thankful.

Now back to the discussion at hand.

[Jerry Frank]

Certainly I was not including you in the "lot of Nazarenes". However, I think the average Nazarene does not know the history of their church nor that of the Holiness Movement in general.

I for one have always preferred the Wesleyan emphasis rather than the Palmerist and appreciate those within Nazarene, Free Methodist and similar denominations who are returning to those roots.


Jerry

[Billy Cox]

As I once was young and now am older, could someone please clarify and explain to me exactly where pure Nazarene theology stands here in 2007 in regard to our position on "sinless perfection" and the "eradication of the carnal nature"? Thanks, I am presently faced with an older saint that is somewhat persistent in encouraging me to preach these positions and use these words and terminology. Your help is appreciated. Just a by thought, how do we handle the Lord's prayer, forgive us our sins, debts, etc.? Do we skip that part of it when we pray? Ready to learn.

That is the gist of a 1999 article written by Richard S. Taylor entitled "Why the Holiness Movement Died". Unfortunately I can find only reviews of the article and not the article itself. (except in Spanish, LOL)

Here is a link to one of the reviews. (near bottom of page)
http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/arminian_mag/18_1_00.htm

Lest one think that this idea is 'bleeding edge', Keith Drury wrote an article entitled 'The Holiness Movement is Dead' in the early 90's.

Here is a link to that article/sermon:
http://www.crivoice.org/hmovement.html

Entire sanctification understood as 'eradication' of the sinful nature is a spent force and (God willing) is not coming back.

[David Showalter]

Scott asks,
David, I am confused by your continued references to "sinless perfection" as though it is part of our doctrine.

David replies,
Scott, sorry to be confusing. Do you ever sin? If not I would call that sinless perfection, to me when we reject the reality that we may, or have sinned we are promoting, not grace, but sinlessness. This really is where my thread started due to wanting to know how I properly communicate the life and reality of holiness. Especially in light of the fact there are those in my fellowship that want me to focus in on the reality that the sanctified do not sin, can not sin, and if they do they are not really sanctified. If I claim I have not committed a sin the past 40 years and therefore do not need to ask Christ for forgiveness of any sin, is that not promoting or teaching a sinless perfection? It is late and I fear I am rambling. The terminology, sinless, is not one of my choosing, but one that a board member wishes me to use and promote. That is where and why I had the courage to post on a theology board in the first place. Still wanting to learn and grow, thanks.

[Hans Deventer]

Scott, sorry to be confusing. Do you ever sin?

I'm not Scott but my answer would be yes. And my question, according to what definition :basic05

Perhaps Wesley's words here from his Plain Account (http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/wesley/8317/831706.htm) shed some light:

Q. But still if they live without sin, does not this exclude the necessity of a Mediator? At least, is it not plain that they stand no longer in need of Christ in His priestly office?

'A. Far from it. None feel their need of Christ like these; none so entirely depend upon Him. For Christ does not give life to the soul separate from, but in and with, Himself. Hence his words are equally true of all men, in whatsoever state of grace they are: "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. Without" (or separate from) "Me ye can do nothing."

'In every state we need Christ in the following respects:--(1) Whatever grace we receive, it is a free gift from Him. (2) We receive it as His purchase, merely in consideration of the price He paid. (3) We have this grace, not only from Christ, but in Him. For our perfection is not like that of a tree, which flourishes by the sap derived from its own root, but, as was said before, like that of a branch, which, united to the vine, bears fruit; but, severed from it, is dried up and withered. (4) All our blessings, temporal, spiritual, and eternal, depend on His intercession for us, which is one branch of His priestly office, whereof therefore we have always equal need. (5) The best of men still need Christ, in His priestly office, to atone for their omissions, their shortcomings (as some not improperly speak), their mistakes in judgement and practice, and their defects of various kinds, for these are all deviations from the perfect law, and consequently need an atonement. Yet that they are not properly sins, we apprehend, may appear from the words of St. Paul: "He that loveth hath fulfilled the law; for love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom. xiii 10). Now, mistakes and whatever infirmities necessarily flow from the corruptible state of the body are no way contrary to love nor therefore, in the Scripture sense, sin.

'To explain myself a little farther on this head(1) 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. (2) I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions, which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. (3) Therefore, sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself. (5) Such transgressions you may call sins, if you please: I do not, for the reasons above mentioned.

[David Showalter]

Billy suggested,

Here is a link to that article/sermon:
http://www.crivoice.org/hmovement.html

David replies,
Billy the sermon or article by Keith Drury was excellent and helpful, thanks for the suggestion.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Paul, when did you teach at TNU? Dwayne graduated in 1968. My sister taught there 21 years. Our son attended three years. Both of Dwayne's sisters graduated from Trevecca. So, when were you there?

[David Showalter]

On another thread Roland shared this,

I remember a great preacher I heard once saying, "the test of your sanctification isn't whether you sin or not it is how long it takes to get to the cross when you do.

David replies, I think that describes my understanding of the life and journey of heart holiness. How many of you would use, or feel comfortable using this illustration in a sermon or teaching? How many of you would not use it, because you think it is theologically faulty or weak? Thanks for your input, ideas, and positions.

[Hans Deventer]

On another thread Roland shared this,

I remember a great preacher I heard once saying, "the test of your sanctification isn't whether you sin or not it is how long it takes to get to the cross when you do.

David replies, I think that describes my understanding of the life and journey of heart holiness. How many of you would use, or feel comfortable using this illustration in a sermon or teaching? How many of you would not use it, because you think it is theologically faulty or weak? Thanks for your input, ideas, and positions.

I would use it.

If love is indeed the fulfilment of the law, and the heaven of heavens as John Wesley said it was (see below), then it is clear that while living in love, we may still hurt people, for instance. Unaware, that is. So then the issue becomes, what will I do when confronted with this fact that I have hurt someone? I cannot withdraw behind some statement like "I meant well so there is no sin". Love would never accept that, love wants to restore and heal a relationship. Now in this line of thinking, Roland's statement makes perfect sense.



"It were well you should be thoroughly sensible of this, -- 'the heaven of heavens is love.' There is nothing higher in religion; there is, in effect, nothing else; if you look for anything but more love, you are looking wide of the mark, you are getting out of the royal way. And when you are asking others, 'Have you received this or that blessing?' if you mean anything but more love, you mean wrong; you are leading them out of the way, and putting them upon a false scent. Settle it then in your heart, that from the moment God has saved you from all sin, you are to aim at nothing more, but more of that love described in the thirteenth of the Corinthians. You can go no higher than this, till you are carried into Abraham's bosom."
Section 25, Question 33, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection

[Randy Wise]

I would indeed be very surprised if we got an answer to your question. Randy seems very keen not to give it. Of course, it says a whole lot when you don't "fight" with your visor raised.

Its these answers of yours that help keep my guard up. Its seems you also are still working towards perfection. As for the term fight I object. We are discussing scripture.

Randy

[Randy Wise]

wow scott, I ask a simple question and you send me to read hundreds of pages. I just spent 2 hours reading, thanks though, it was fun, interesting and challenging, HOWEVER, it raised more questions than it answered.

I'll ask you two of them, as you addressed both issues in my reading the past couple hours.

1. Can you biblically prove that there is a clear, distinct, and defined difference between the flesh (human nature) and the sin (carnal) nature? Please give several biblical passages from OT and NT, Christ and Paul, that support this theological position.

2. If the sin (carnal) nature is eradicated, and yet once sanctified always sanctified is not true, does that mean our sin (carnal) nature, (that we are born with, through Adam's sin) pops in and out of us as we back slide from our second blessing experience of entire sanctification?

Lastly, and I am being totally submissive to you, has this topic already been rode to death in years and posts gone by? If so, I'll humbly stand down. Thanks, your posts are always insightful. p.s. you didn't really answer my first two questions either.

People are tempted by their own "evil desires" and its the weakness of the flesh that wars against our mind. "The Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." Though this isn't sin you might eat chocolate. Your body desires the sweet taste, but the mind remembers the sweet taste. If you give in and keep eating chocolate you will find your resistance to keep away from all those calories less and less even though in your mind you know that is bad for your health. Anything God touches is Holy. If His Spirit resides with your spirit you are Holy by that act not your will. The Spirit given helps us in our weekness to keep away from sin. If you follow the Spirit you reap from the Spirit. If you follow the flesh you reap from the flesh. There is instruction that states don't rebuild the sin that Christ Jesus destroyed. We have the power to live Holy lives. We have been given all that we need to live Holy lives. "The promised Holy Spirit" We also have the choice to refollow sin. If we didn't why all the warnings? There is a difference between those that live like believers and those that don't. Examine yourself. Do you steel? Do you commit adultery? Do you covert your neighbors wife? Do you murder? Are you sexually immoral? Do you honor your parents? You know the commands. I didn't answer your question with theological precision and scriptural tags, but I think you can I understand my thoughts. It might be your friend is seeking something that isn't their to receive.

Randy

[Randy Wise]

Hey, that's not fair Randy. Those inside the family are allowed to make fun of our mother, but those outside aren't allowed to. :)

Tell us who your mother is, and we'll be glad to make fun of her. :cool:

"Your mother is so Calvinist, God predestined her to be that ugly..."

"Your mother is such a fundamentalist, she doesn't allow herself to speak in church..."

Bring it on, ye of an unconfused theological lineage... :o

I think the problem with all the above apart from your humor is that I can attribute parts if not all of those beliefs in my understanding of scripture. I believe the world was formed in six days as God spoke those words from heaven. Ex 20:1 Anything else would be lie in my mind and my God doesn't lie. However in the gospel genealogies of the human Jesus I see error. The accurate records just didn't exist. To the enemies of the Gospel that keep pointing this out I don't defend the accuracy of the genealogies. I just point out there is a difference between unintentional error and a deliberate error. In Luke I point to the son of God before Adam. What is accurate is that Joseph was of the house of David and thats why he took Mary to Bethlehem. I believe God is offering all a place in His kingdom and those that listen and learn from the Father will go to the Son. I also see Paul didn't make that choice it was made for Him by God and Jesus appointed Him to the task he was set aside from birth to perform. I believe the early church appointed "Men" to positions of authority. I don't believe there is a command from Jesus that forbids women in ministry. If I did you would find my challenge perhaps perceiving it to be a attack, or me making fun of your beliefs.

We are on the same team:)

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Its these answers of yours that help keep my guard up.

You may want to consider why you are afraid of a moderator. I hope it is paranoia rather than the alternative.

[Randy Wise]

You may want to consider why you are afraid of a moderator. I hope it is paranoia rather than the alternative.

Yes, it was a poor choice of words "keep my guard up" ceratinly no fear of you
Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Yes, it was a poor choice of words "keep my guard up" ceratinly no fear of you

That's good. Then what or who are you afraid of?

[John Kennedy]

It's been my experience that those who cite only scripture and disavow theology have internalized theological structures all the more unyielding because they are unrecognized, especially to person disavowing them.

[Randy Wise]

That's good. Then what or who are you afraid of?

No one, as I said that was a poor choice of words
Randy

[David Pettigrew]

This was the title of a Sunday night sermon I preached recently. The theological elephant in the Nazarene room is that we are in the position of defending a doctrine (entire sanctification) for which we can't reach a consensus on what it is (and isn't), and that no one we know lives up to. Sister Bertha might have come close, but she's long since in Glory.

I think those of my generation (I'm an "X") came along at the worst possible time in our unfolding understanding of holiness. Those who taught us were sure of what it meant, but we've failed at experiencing what they talk about. Those we teach aren't even asking the questions we're trying to answer.

The point of my sermon was that what we should concern ourselves with is seeking God, not an "experience". The "experience" part is up to Him. That's my best understanding of what Wesley taught. Instead of going to the altar during every revival hoping to finally get the "blessing", let's seek God's holiness for each day.

There is only one movement that is still interested in preserving the 19th century idea of holiness (and unapologetically uses terms like "sinless perfection" and "eradication".) The Conservative Holiness Movement http://www.holiness.cc consists of about 30,000 people in North America in about a dozen tiny denominations, most of which trace their roots to splits off of the Nazarene and Wesleyan denominations. The Bible Missionary Church (which experienced their umpteenth split and lost about a third of their churches in 2003) is an example of this group. Their splits are almost always over legalistic standards (length of shirt sleeves that are allowed, whether or not internet in the home is ok) and almost never over doctrine, which is pretty consistant from group to group.

I would direct anyone in your church that insists we must teach "sinless perfection" to this group. They'll be happier there (although I've known quite a few of these folks, and they're almost never happy.)

dp

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

God is Holiness. For me, my prayer is "more like you, Christ, more liike you." The more like Christ we are, the holier we would be. But, that does not mean that we have "head" perfection. We are still in this human body. But, I promise you that we can live above actual, intentional sin. I have, for some reason, always been a very pious, mostly obedient person--even to my mother. When Dwayne and I married, I could have ventured into a sinful life, and I believe he may have followed, even though he was raised in a Nazarene parsonage. But, that was not my personalality. If I were 1000 miles away from anyone I knew, and no one I knew would ever know it, I would not purposefully sin, if I knew it to be wrong. But, that is also my personality, But others may have a harder time with refraining from willful sin.
One thing, I cannot understand, though, is how someone ended up being ordained, if they did not understand the doctrine of sanctification.

[David Pettigrew]

God is Holiness. For me, my prayer is "more like you, Christ, more liike you." The more like Christ we are, the holier we would be. But, that does not mean that we have "head" perfection. We are still in this human body. But, I promise you that we can live above actual, intentional sin. I have, for some reason, always been a very pious, mostly obedient person--even to my mother. When Dwayne and i married, I could have ventured into a sinfule life, and I believe he may have followed, even though he was raised in a Nazarene parsonage. But, that was not my personalality. If I were 1000 miles away from anyone I knew, and no one I knew would ever know it, I would not purposefully sin, if I knew it to be wrong. but, that is also my personality, but others may have a harder time with refraining from willful sin.
One thing, I cannot understand, though, is how someone ended up being ordained, if they did not understand the doctrine of sanctification.

Anne, it's not that I don't understand the doctrine as we teach it. It's not even that I don't testify to having that moment of full surrender to God (at an altar in a Nazarene campmeeting, under evangelist Elaine Pettit, to be exact!)

My problem with our keystone doctrine as it has been taught is the following:

a) I still struggle with wanting to do what I want to do, rather than doing what God wants me to do, every day.

b) Sometimes what I want to do wins out, and that's sin.

c) I don't know anybody who lives a sanctified life as John Wesley described it in "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection" (never has a bad thought, a bad word, a bad attitude, a bad day). If I saw some folks in my pews living this way, I'd feel better about preaching it was possible.

It's not about what is possible. It's about what is being practiced. Nazarenes don't really live any different than any other Christians (and not really that much different than the world). This is the elephant in the room to which I referred.

Blessings on this beautiful Palm Sunday!

[Roland Hearn]

I confess I haven't read this whole thread. I hope what I am about to say is not too redundant.
The Nazarene position has never been one of sinless perfection. We have used the phrase Christian perfection to align with John Wesley but the concept of sinless perfection is a folk theology that has neither biblical nor traditional support.
Eradication theology is probably a product of its time and useing it to explain what was trying to be said when it was being said is probably ok. It doesn't work anymore in any real sense.
I believe in the infilling of the Holy Spirit at entire sanctification as a relational concept. I now have the capacity to be fully in relationship with God because I have yielded to the adequacy of His love and declared my intention to be led by his love, those for me are the parameters of entire sanctification. I experienced an encounter with God on January 28 1986 at 11:41 AM that I consider the moment of my entire sanctification. Since that time I have struggled, dealt with fear and sinned (but not daily in word, thought and deed). I have found my life in Christ growing sweeter and more wonderful as the years go by. What he is doing is transforming my mind on the basis of that encounter consistent with Romans 12. I believe progressive sanctifcation is a much missunderstood concept.
However, I think we have robbed entire sanctification of its central local in our theology to our detrminent. It is right and good and wonderful to call people to an encounter with God where they surrender their all to him. I believe that what we do in that moment is surrender our selves, our identity to him as in Galatians 2:20. It should be preached with passion and it should lead to victory.
On the one hand I agree with those that want more old time holiness preaching, on the other I want preachers to work on their terminolgy so that what we are preaching makes sense and leads people to a genuine glory filled encounter with God.

[David Showalter]

Anne notes,

One thing, I cannot understand, though, is how someone ended up being ordained, if they did not understand the doctrine of sanctification.
__________________

David asks,

Anne which doctrine of sanctification, of the many described by several Nazarene Elders in this tread and the tread from a few years back, are you referring to?

[Roland Hearn]

Anne notes,

One thing, I cannot understand, though, is how someone ended up being ordained, if they did not understand the doctrine of sanctification.
__________________

David asks,

Anne which doctrine of sanctification, of the many described by several Nazarene Elders in this tread and the tread from a few years back, are you referring to?

David,
I am convinced that terminology is the problem. The debate between those of genuine experience of holiness association tendency and those who claim a more fundamental Wesleyan understanding is generally one of semantics more than substance. I embrace the latter perspective and I see the inherent floors in the former but I constantly try to put that view in the context of the culture of the time and I find, for the most part, it is consistent in that frame work with what I believe. The real problem comes when you take both views and try to make them work in a fundamentalist evangelical frame work. Either one does not work and that is where the real struggle is. Our church's primary struggle today is one where pastors and people see themselves on the fundamentalist side of the equation and try to sound like we are Baptists or the like.
Nazarene elders ought to believe that the one unmovable component of being Nazarene is a confidence that God draws us consistently to deeper relationship with Him and that encounter is marked by a crisis experience of Entire Sanctification. That crisis experience may not be able to be articulated in a testimony of a momentary encounter but there must be a sense of complete and utter dependence on Him.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Nazarene elders ought to believe that the one unmovable component of being Nazarene is a confidence that God draws us consistently to deeper relationship with Him and that encounter is marked by a crisis experience of Entire Sanctification. That crisis experience may not be able to be articulated in a testimony of a momentary encounter but there must be a sense of complete and utter dependence on Him.

Well stated Roland. I appreciate this clear statement on entire sanctification.

[Roland Hearn]

c) I don't know anybody who lives a sanctified life as John Wesley described it in "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection" (never has a bad thought, a bad word, a bad attitude, a bad day). If I saw some folks in my pews living this way, I'd feel better about preaching it was possible.


David I just want to bring some balance to that statement because John Wesley never suggest the concept of sinless perfection. This is a quote from "A Plain Account..."
"For neither love nor the 'unction of the Holy One' makes us infallible: Therefore, through unavoidable defect of understanding, we cannot but mistake in many things. And these mistakes will frequently occasion something wrong, both in our temper, and words, and actions. From mistaking his character, we may love a person less than he really deserves. And by the same mistake we are unavoidably led to speak or act, with regard to that person, in such a manner as is contrary to this law, in some or other of the preceding instances."

[Brenda Jackson]

Roland

Wesley taught that it is always possible to fall from the sinless state, that the body of sin is not eradicated but crucified (and how people can still think that if it is crucified it can still be active is puzzling) and when he talks about mistakes, he is not refering to sin. He gives an example,

"A mistake in judgment may possibly occasion a mistake in practice. For instance: Mr. De Renty's mistake touching the nature of mortification, arising from prejudice of education, occasioned that practical mistake, his wearing an iron girdle. 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."

"Many mistakes may consist with pure love; (2.) Some may accidentally flow from it: I mean, love itself may incline us to mistake. The pure love of our neighbour, springing from the love of God, thinketh no evil, believeth and hopeth all things. Now, this very temper, unsuspicious, ready to believe and hope the best of all men, may occasion our thinking some men better than they really are. Here then is a manifest mistake, accidentally flowing from pure love."


"To explain myself a little farther on this head: (1.) 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. (2.) I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. (3.) Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself. (4.) I believe, a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary transgressions. (5.) Such transgressions you may call sins, if you please: I do not, for the reasons above-mentioned."

I cannot find the quote you gave

"From mistaking his character, we may love a person less than he really deserves."

I believe that this is one of the frequent manipulations of the text that I have found, to back up the claims of those who preach sin. Wesley says that one can think either less or more of the person, and does not say that our behaviour can be less than loving, and still in the position of grace. He only says that we can mistake the character.

Brenda

[Paul Whitaker]

Paul, when did you teach at TNU? Dwayne graduated in 1968. My sister taught there 21 years. Our son attended three years. Both of Dwayne's sisters graduated from Trevecca. So, when were you there?

What was your sister's name? I was there 1972-73

[Billy Cox]

As I once was young and now am older, could someone please clarify and explain to me exactly where pure Nazarene theology stands here in 2007 in regard to our position on "sinless perfection" and the "eradication of the carnal nature"? Thanks, I am presently faced with an older saint that is somewhat persistent in encouraging me to preach these positions and use these words and terminology. Your help is appreciated. Just a by thought, how do we handle the Lord's prayer, forgive us our sins, debts, etc.? Do we skip that part of it when we pray? Ready to learn.

I find Wesley's discussion of mistakes (infirmities) to be an indication that even Wesley did not have sinless perfection in mind when he talked about sanctification.

[Brenda Jackson]

From what I have read, Wesley did not like to use the term 'sinless perfection' because of the misunderstandings over it and because of the disputes that he had to deal with. It is not easy to come to agreement about the meanings of terms like this. But he definately believed that it is possible and indeed expected that we can reach a stage in this life when we do not sin, in thought word or deed. Mistakes are the result of our infalibility, we cannot know all things even when perfect but we can live without sin and this is what he meant.

[Roland Hearn]

Brenda,
Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing, I'm not sure? It seems like you are disagreeing with me but everything you post of Wesley's completely validates my post. My post was responding to the suggestion that John Wesley advocated a state of grace that meant never having a bad moment and that in the discussion of sinless perfection. Quite clearly he never did that. I skimmed through Q&A in a Plain account ... on line to find a quote that reflected Wesley unwillingness to ever makes such a claim. It is possible that as you say it was a manipulation of the text in part (specifically the piece you pulled out) but I was not then nor am I now claiming that John Wesley advocated a sinning sanctification. What I was claiming was that John Wesley did not preach sinless perfection, something that you have verified. Sinless perfection claims it is impossible to fall into sin. So thanks for your obvious support of my point, I'm going to choose to believe that you agree with me.

[Bob Carabbio]

The view from the outside -

After hanging around on these boards for several years, I, quite early in the game, asked what was meant by "Sanctified Wholly" (or "Sanctifed Holy" both versions seemed to be out there). I had much difficulty getting any substantive information, and then finally somebody on Dr. Bratcher's site pointed me to Wesley's "Plain Account" with the comment that "we've gone way PAST Wesley".

Anyway, "Plain account" appeared to be an accurate presentation of the process of sanctification as I've experienced it at least, but didn't appear really to deal with the HARD doctrine of the "eradication of the sinful nature".

In any case it didn't (and doesn't) seem that many in the Nazarene denominational rank and file really understood in any detail WHAT it was all about, and furthermore that there was quite a bit of internal opposition to the concept of "Eradication" to begin with. The old "Christian Growth Ministries" displayed a WIDE range of concepts from "Total Sinlessness" to a pretty generic "WHEN we sin we have an advocate" Baptist-style teaching.

In any case I've PERSONALLY come away with the strong impression that the Nazarene denomination of today at least as far as I've been exposed to it - mainly on these boards and their predecessors - seems not to either understand OR present very consistently the older "second act of grace" teachings that appeared to be much MORE common in the '60s and '70s.

I don't attend a Nazarene Church, of course, and haven't actually been in one since a one time visit in Cleveland, OH about 5 years ago, so anything I say is a PERSONAL impression which is the result of reading the various posting that appear here, and other Nazarene-colored sites as mentioned above.

[Brenda Jackson]

Roland
No I don't think that we are in agreement unfortunately.

Wesley did not use the term, like some other holiness teachers, purely because it would mean him having to go into a huge explanation with people who only wanted to oppose him and not those who were seeking for the truth. He did not believe that there will be a 'slip up' now and again, meaning a sin. As I have said, he qualified what a mistake is. If one sins then one has fallen from grace and that person is no longer entirely sanctified. Yes we have an advocate at that time, and can be restored to our state of grace, but woe betide us if we make any presumptions here. God requires holiness and that meaning is pure and simple. If we sin, we are of our father the devil.

[Hans Deventer]

I cannot find the quote you gave

"From mistaking his character, we may love a person less than he really deserves."

"Q. 8. But do we not `in many things offend all,' yea, the best of us, even against this law?

"A. In one sense we do not, while all our tempers, and thoughts, and words, and works, spring from love. But in another we do, and shall do, more or less, as long as we remain in the body. For neither love nor the `unction of the Holy One' makes us infallible: Therefore, through unavoidable defect of understanding, we cannot but mistake in many things. And these mistakes will frequently occasion something wrong, both in our temper, and words, and actions. From mistaking his character, we may love a person less than he really deserves. And by the same mistake we are unavoidably led to speak or act, with regard to that person, in such a manner as is contrary to this law, in some or other of the preceding instances.

http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/plainaccount.stm

[Brenda Jackson]

Thanks Hans, I was wrong, he did say this. I am confused by that. I will have to check other sources of the sermon to see if there is agreement.

[Randy Wise]

Thanks Hans, I was wrong, he did say this. I am confused by that. I will have to check other sources of the sermon to see if there is agreement.

Obedience comes from Love. A love I had prior to being born again. After regeneration a Love that still persists. I dearly dearly Love Jesus and shall always strive to promote His message and His honor out of love for Him.

Below is a good link about ES, but my experiences have love before regeneration. John 14:15 John 14:23

http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/entire.htm

[Roland Hearn]

Thanks Hans, I was wrong, he did say this. I am confused by that. I will have to check other sources of the sermon to see if there is agreement.

No I don't think that we are in agreement unfortunately.

Wesley did not use the term, like some other holiness teachers, purely because it would mean him having to go into a huge explanation with people who only wanted to oppose him and not those who were seeking for the truth. He did not believe that there will be a 'slip up' now and again, meaning a sin. As I have said, he qualified what a mistake is. If one sins then one has fallen from grace and that person is no longer entirely sanctified. Yes we have an advocate at that time, and can be restored to our state of grace, but woe betide us if we make any presumptions here. God requires holiness and that meaning is pure and simple. If we sin, we are of our father the devil.

Brenda, it seems you may be confused by a lot of things. First of all you choose to suggest that you are not in agreement with me but if you actually read what I wrote you would see that there is much agreement. Secondly I wasn't going to argue about what Wesley said in Plain account.... I have read it many times and know the tenor but it has been probably 10 years since I read it last so my certainty isn't what it once was. I plucked the quote off the internet and we all know that people twist things there so I was willing to accept the potential for correction. However, I knew that paragraph as a whole existed which reflects his overall position. I think you are clearly mistaken about what Wesley really thought about sin. Even the passage you quoted shows that Wesley clearly believed that sin both properly so called and as mistakes that are from our limited understanding require the blood of Christ and the grace of God to deal with. I will say it just once more Belinda so you can see where there might possibly be some point of agreement, I do not believe in a sinning sanctification . What I wrote originally was that Wesley did not promote sinless perfection. You have adequately proved that. Wesley does believe that it is possible to act in error and to love less than we should and we need God to be God even in that moment.
BTW it isn't some holiness teachers that refuse to use the term "sinless perfection," but the vast majority of recognized ones. The only people that do are those that are off on their own little tangent.
We do not believe in a sinning religion as Calvinists do but we do believe in repenting for being unChristlike.

[Roland Hearn]

Obedience comes from Love. A love I had prior to being born again. After regeneration a Love that still persists. I dearly dearly Love Jesus and shall always strive to promote His message and His honor out of love for Him.

Randy this is pretty good stuff, thanks mate. "Obedience comes from Love," brilliant that is great, of course you can beat people into obeying in actions but that doesn't mean the heart is obedient. Genuine heart felt obedience only comes when there is love, trust, respect and vulnerability. The latter three are only expansions on the first so yes, you've certainly have my agreement here.

"A love I had prior to being born again." Yup, every good Wesleyan is going to agree with you there, we call it prevenient grace.

Everything else you have written here reflects a genuine heart. That is a great little paragraph.

[David Showalter]

Brenda shares,

If one sins then one has fallen from grace

David asks, how far fallen? Has he/she at that point lost their eternal salvation?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I know Keith Drury has indicated that he sometimes visits NazNet. I wonder if he has been reading this thread. See what you think of his latest article:
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/sin.intentional.htm

[Brad Mercer]

I know Keith Drury has indicated that he sometimes visits NazNet. I wonder if he has been reading this thread. See what you think of his latest article:
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/sin.intentional.htm

Thanks for the link, Scott. Here's a great couple of sentences from the article:


But the abusers no longer read holiness writers—they just float around the church sinlessly sinning all the time giving holiness a bad name. These holiness oldtimers need to fast the Wesleyan definition of sin for forty days and live under the more commonplace definition. Maybe after 40 days of prayer and fasting they’ll be a bit more sensitive to sin and holiness.

Brad

[Brenda Jackson]

I am sorry Roland that I am not being clear. I meant that the verse in question is certainly in the link you gave. I have found another interpretation as follows which I believe is in keeping with the rest of Wesley's teaching, whereas the verse in question is not;

'Even one that is perfected in love may mistake with regard to another person, and may think him, in a particular case, to be more or less faulty than he really is. And hence he may speak to him with more or less severity than the truth requires. And in this sense, (though that be not the primary meaning of St. James,) `in many things we offend all.' This therefore is no proof at all, that the person so speaking is not perfect.'

This verse does not mention lack of love. And also

'Many mistakes may consist with pure love; (2.) Some may accidentally flow from it: I mean, love itself may incline us to mistake. The pure love of our neighbour, springing from the love of God, thinketh no evil, believeth and hopeth all things. Now, this very temper, unsuspicious, ready to believe and hope the best of all men, may occasion our thinking some men better than they really are. Here then is a manifest mistake, accidentally flowing from pure love.'


I agreee that Wesley taught that mistakes also require the blood of Christ. Even entirely sanctified, we need moment by moment the sanctifying blood, not just when we make a mistake, otherwise we cannot stand in this position. It is all of Christ and none of us which enables us to remain in this position, of being crucified with Christ, and therefore without sin, being dead to sin. But we can come down from the cross, and therefore not saved from sin in answer to your question David. Wesley said that we can come down from the cross and out of the state of grace. The warnings for such are very clearly put forth in 1John.

I think that what we saying and where we disagree, is that I say it is impossible to sin and *be in the state if ES*, whereas you seem to be saying that having the intention not to sin qualifies us to be in that state, please correct me if I am wrong. That it is all in the intention? If so....

'But, supposing you had, do good designs and good desires make a Christian? By no means, unless they are brought to good effect. "Hell is paved," saith one, "with good intentions." The great question of all, then, still remains. Is the love of God shed abroad in your heart? Can you cry out, "My God, and my All"? Do you desire nothing but him? Are you happy in God? Is he your glory, your delight, your crown of rejoicing? And is this commandment written in your heart, "That he who loveth God love his brother also"? Do you then love your neighbour as yourself? Do you love every man, even your enemies, even the enemies of God, as your own soul? as Christ loved you?' from the Almost Christian. And also from Christian Perfection,

'6. Indeed it is said this means only, He sinneth not wilfully; or he doth not commit sin habitually; or, not as other men do; or, not as he did before. But by whom is this said? By St.John? No. There is no such word in the text; nor in the whole chapter; nor in all his Epistle; nor in any part of his writings whatsoever. Why then, the best way to answer a bold assertion is simply to deny it. And if any man can prove it from the Word of God, let him bring forth his strong reasons.'

Wesley says in Plain Account 'Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself.' It was over this matter of mistakes that he wanted to avoid confusion, not, please note, that he did not believe in sinless perfection. He makes it clear in other places, that indeed he ddi believe in sinless perfection.


I agree with a lot of what is said in the link that Randy has given but
'
Wesley taught that;

Maintaining full fellowship with God is something the apostle Paul said was his lifelong passion: "Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me" (Philippians 3:12).'

has been taken out of context, as Paul says later that

'3:15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.'

When he talked about perfection earlier, he was reffering to the completion of his ministry.

[Randy Wise]

I know Keith Drury has indicated that he sometimes visits NazNet. I wonder if he has been reading this thread. See what you think of his latest article:
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/sin.intentional.htm

Drury=>So my question is this: Are there better ways for Wesleyans to explain the optimistic possibility of living above premeditated intentional sin? Or is it time to abandon this two-tiered approach to holiness?

My thoughts:
The two tiered approach creates more problems then it was intended to teach. 2nd tier - not all receive it, difficult to explain or define, no clear cut 2nd work or instruction about seeking a second work of grace found in scripture.


The new testament contains the foundation of the General Church and the teachings do address with many warnings about those who sin and those that continue to sin after comming to the knowledge of Christ Jesus. Therefore the Apostles believed and wrote those that were in Christ did not continue to sin. So what they saw as sin certainly couldn't be about everytime you weren't as Christ like as the perfect law states. We can however not commit adultery, keep our lives free from sexual immorality, not murder, not covet our neighbors wife, honor our parents, not bear false testimony in court against anyone, as the Lord stated Loving God and Loving your neighbor covers these commands.

If someone has shared in the Holy Spirit and then willfully commits a known sin such as adultery are they then disqualified for the prize as Paul seems to indicate when He stated after preaching to others he beat His Body that He might not be disqualified for the prize? When does one crucify the Lord all over again? There have to be serious consequences to a deliberate sin after one knows Christ and recieves the Holy Spirit, but alot of people who claim Jesus as Lord just ask God to forgive them again and again stating we are all sinners. It is written that God gives His Holy Spirit to those that obey Him, which means to me those that arn't ready to leave their life of sin don't receive the Spirit no matter what they believe about Jesus. So there is a commitment or a pledge of Holyness from Ones heart that God can see. I would dare state after all I have experienced from Gods Holy Spirit if I sold my writes away with a single act of pleasure of deliberate sin it would be all she wrote for me. These are my thoughts as I try to make sense of what sin is and the christain life.

Randy

[Roland Hearn]

I am sorry Roland that I am not being clear. I meant that the verse in question is certainly in the link you gave. I have found another interpretation as follows which I believe is in keeping with the rest of Wesley's teaching, whereas the verse in question is not;

I'm not sure I understand, are you saying John Wesley is contradicting himself?


'Even one that is perfected in love may mistake with regard to another person, and may think him, in a particular case, to be more or less faulty than he really is. And hence he may speak to him with more or less severity than the truth requires. And in this sense, (though that be not the primary meaning of St. James,) `in many things we offend all.' This therefore is no proof at all, that the person so speaking is not perfect.'

How you can see a difference between those two statements is beyond me.


This verse does not mention lack of love.

more or less severity than the truth requires.
I'm thinking the person on the receiving end may think this is an issue of love. Just because JW does not mention "lack of love" in this tiny snipit does not suggest at all that he did not have that in mind. To suggest otherwise is sure straining at gnats.



And also

'Many mistakes may consist with pure love; (2.) Some may accidentally flow from it: I mean, love itself may incline us to mistake. The pure love of our neighbour, springing from the love of God, thinketh no evil, believeth and hopeth all things. Now, this very temper, unsuspicious, ready to believe and hope the best of all men, may occasion our thinking some men better than they really are. Here then is a manifest mistake, accidentally flowing from pure love.'

Belinda your point is beyond me, to keep quoting Wesley this way is a little obscure. All Wesley is saying in these passages is it is possible to make mistakes. I think we get that. He isn't saying it is impossible to sin. He most certainly believes it is possible not to sin.


I think that what we saying and where we disagree, is that I say it is impossible to sin and *be in the state if ES*, whereas you seem to be saying that having the intention not to sin qualifies us to be in that state, please correct me if I am wrong. That it is all in the intention? If so....


Intention is a big component of sin. Are you saying it is impossible to sin and be in the state of ES or it is impossible to be in the state of ES and sin?



Wesley says in Plain Account 'Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself.' It was over this matter of mistakes that he wanted to avoid confusion, not, please note, that he did not believe in sinless perfection. He makes it clear in other places, that indeed he ddi believe in sinless perfection.

Belinda you can't keep quoting what Wesley said and then say he believed the opposite of what he said. He quite clearly thought the position of sinless perfection was indefensible. What he believed in was Christian perfection which is what Paul is talking about in the quotes you write here.

Here is my belief.
Sinning and the state of ES are mutually exclusive.
There is no state of grace in this life that puts us beyond the capacity to sin.
Love is the plumb line by which we understand sin.

Here is my observation.
Those that maintain the concept of sinless perfection work hard at making sure people understand their short falls as mistakes. They always, at least in my experience, develop massive blind spots where those looking on can clearly see that the things they are calling mistakes are in fact sins "properly so called". Give me time with someone who claims sinless perfection and I think I can find their blind spots, they are usually pretty obvious.
Entire Sanctification brings us to a state of grace that fills our hearts with love. There is a cleansing at the core of our being that makes it possible to live above sin. The entirely sanctified soul does not willfully sin. However more than anything else they are deeply in love with their saviour and all around. Anything that causes pain to another, even when it is not intentional, will bring a quick and sensitive response. It will bring apology and the desire for restoration of relationship. To not do so would be sin. Those that defend themselves by constantly calling these things mistakes without going down the road of repentance and apology all in the name of their entire sanctification don't actually have the experience.

[Randy Wise]

I
Entire Sanctification brings us to a state of grace that fills our hearts with love. There is a cleansing at the core of our being that makes it possible to live above sin. The entirely sanctified soul does not willfully sin. However more than anything else they are deeply in love with their saviour and all around. Anything that causes pain to another, even when it is not intentional, will bring a quick and sensitive response. It will bring apology and the desire for restoration of relationship. To not do so would be sin. Those that defend themselves by constantly calling these things mistakes without going down the road of repentance and apology all in the name of their entire sanctification don't actually have the experience.

The One born of God doesn't continue to sin as John wrote and the one who has the Spirit of Christ as Paul wrote is not controlled by the sinful nature. I am sure like me those Christians have a Love for their Lord and savior as well as their Heavenly Father. Your statement above seems to mirror the teaching by the Apostles of those who are born of God not a separate work of God after regeneration. How do you measure the difference in One born of God and the 2nd work you teach?

Randy

[Brenda Jackson]

Roland

Please use my correct name.

are you saying John Wesley is contradicting himself?

Not at all. I am saying that the verse being a contradiction of JW's teaching shows that they are not his words.

I'm thinking the person on the receiving end may think this is an issue of love.

Intention is a big component of sin

My point is, and sorry it seems so laboured but I think that it is important, John has said elsewhere, and this is in accordance with the rest of his teaching, that the problem lies in speaking more severely than the situation warrants. This is not a sin. But according to the verse you quoted, and which I question, he is saying that one can make the mistake, and feel less love towards the person. This would be sin. We are commanded to love as He loves us. A mistake does not lead one to sin if ES. Yes, one cannot sin and still be in the ES state. John is clear, whosoever sins belongs to the devil.

I agree with you that there are some who claim ES yet they are sinning though blind to it. That does not make the doctrine wrong, it just means that they are mislead and do not live in the ES state. If one has been given the power to not sin, and then to sin, it is no excuse to say they could not help it. It is not their own power that holds them in the state, it is divine power, and divine power does not fail.

[Roland Hearn]

Roland

Please use my correct name.

My genuine apologies, I was not paying attention when I was writing.

[Brenda Jackson]

Thankyou Roland.

[Randy Dillon]

1. Can you biblically prove that there is a clear, distinct, and defined difference between the flesh (human nature) and the sin (carnal) nature? Please give several biblical passages from OT and NT, Christ and Paul, that support this theological position.

It starts with a clear definition. For me, “proving” the distinction isn’t hard at all whether within Old or New Testament passages. The human nature is a constitutional impulse to absorb, maintain, utilize and pursue life. It is seen in admonitions to keep it regulated. Divinely created, instinctual human desires, appetites, and functions are very descriptive of that nature. My favorite description of such a regulation of the human nature in the Old Testament is found in Proverbs 25:16. “Hast thou found honey? Eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled with it, and vomit it.” Hey… maybe it’s because of my sweet tooth, but for some reason I think this verse captures the common quest of this human nature quite succinctly – we want life more abundantly. So whether it is the sweetness of that special one you love, the sweetness of a favorite sport or recreation, or the sweetness of a job well done, that quest must not be driven to excess. It applies in most every area of our life and would perhaps fit best in the New Testament as one of the fruitful descriptions of the Spirit-filled life - self-control or moderation.

My understanding presents the carnal nature as a perversion and impairment of this human nature. It is plainly defined as a fascination or obsession with self… the “I-me-mine” urge, and the evil direction and possible manifestations it takes. That perversity is a consequence of a deprived nature, or where that “God-space” imploded and filled up with a self-compass after His departure in The Fall. (Adamic Depravity, Original Sin, Inherited Sin, etc..) It is so prevalent in the scripture that one finds no shortage of examples. It is very crafty and cleverly disguised, even underneath the witness of true Christianity. It can be diabolically accessed and attached to the presence of the father of lies. (John 8:44, 1 John 3:12) Prevenient Grace restrains it to varying degrees when acknowledged in one’s conscience, but where it is fueled and left unchecked, it can erupt into the most horrific acts such as we’ve seen in the news lately. God’s Spirit must regain that center, and that’s what we refer to as entire sanctification.

One Old Testament example that continues into and through the New Testament is that of Cain slaying his brother Abel. Cain’s example is applied toward the end of the Bible in 1 John 3:11-18 – the carnal nature, even within the Christian family!

2 . If the sin (carnal) nature is eradicated, and yet once sanctified always sanctified is not true, does that mean our sin (carnal) nature, (that we are born with, through Adam's sin) pops in and out of us as we back slide from our second blessing experience of entire sanctification?

It is eradicated. Yet the door to being pulled back into a carnal self-sourcing is first found in a careless thought life. Brother, this grants the evil one access where he is at liberty to reattach his self-promoting impulses, all while the saint upholds a witness for Christ and maintains an externally good, clean moral life. Presently this writer is enduring hurtful effects of this self-catering propensity -- not from without - but from within the church. It is here as strong as ever, perhaps its strength has never been more intense in our rich holiness heritage as it is now. It is in full covert operation.

Jesus lived out crucifixion was His stamp on the second work even before His actual death on Calvary.

Hi Michael and Wanda - God bless you! - Randy

[Randy Wise]

1. Can you biblically prove that there is a clear, distinct, and defined difference between the flesh (human nature) and the sin (carnal) nature? Please give several biblical passages from OT and NT, Christ and Paul, that support this theological position.

It starts with a clear definition. For me, “proving” the distinction isn’t hard at all whether within Old or New Testament passages. The human nature is a constitutional impulse to absorb, maintain, utilize and pursue life. It is seen in admonitions to keep it regulated. Divinely created, instinctual human desires, appetites, and functions are very descriptive of that nature. My favorite description of such a regulation of the human nature in the Old Testament is found in Proverbs 25:16. “Hast thou found honey? Eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled with it, and vomit it.” Hey… maybe it’s because of my sweet tooth, but for some reason I think this verse captures the common quest of this human nature quite succinctly – we want life more abundantly. So whether it is the sweetness of that special one you love, the sweetness of a favorite sport or recreation, or the sweetness of a job well done, that quest must not be driven to excess. It applies in most every area of our life and would perhaps fit best in the New Testament as one of the fruitful descriptions of the Spirit-filled life - self-control or moderation.

My understanding presents the carnal nature as a perversion and impairment of this human nature. It is plainly defined as a fascination or obsession with self… the “I-me-mine” urge, and the evil direction and possible manifestations it takes. That perversity is a consequence of a deprived nature, or where that “God-space” imploded and filled up with a self-compass after His departure in The Fall. (Adamic Depravity, Original Sin, Inherited Sin, etc..) It is so prevalent in the scripture that one finds no shortage of examples. It is very crafty and cleverly disguised, even underneath the witness of true Christianity. It can be diabolically accessed and attached to the presence of the father of lies. (John 8:44, 1 John 3:12) Prevenient Grace restrains it to varying degrees when acknowledged in one’s conscience, but where it is fueled and left unchecked, it can erupt into the most horrific acts such as we’ve seen in the news lately. God’s Spirit must regain that center, and that’s what we refer to as entire sanctification.

One Old Testament example that continues into and through the New Testament is that of Cain slaying his brother Abel. Cain’s example is applied toward the end of the Bible in 1 John 3:11-18 – the carnal nature, even within the Christian family!

2 . If the sin (carnal) nature is eradicated, and yet once sanctified always sanctified is not true, does that mean our sin (carnal) nature, (that we are born with, through Adam's sin) pops in and out of us as we back slide from our second blessing experience of entire sanctification?

It is eradicated. Yet the door to being pulled back into a carnal self-sourcing is first found in a careless thought life. Brother, this grants the evil one access where he is at liberty to reattach his self-promoting impulses, all while the saint upholds a witness for Christ and maintains an externally good, clean moral life. Presently this writer is enduring hurtful effects of this self-catering propensity -- not from without - but from within the church. It is here as strong as ever, perhaps its strength has never been more intense in our rich holiness heritage as it is now. It is in full covert operation.

Jesus lived out crucifixion was His stamp on the second work even before His actual death on Calvary.

Hi Michael and Wanda - God bless you! - Randy


Hi Randy, As for me what I see in scripture and read is people including Eve are tempted by their own evil desires. The one who sows these seeds is the devil. So you have Spiritual forces at work. Romans 8 seems to attribute those not controlled by the sinful nature, (however you wish to argue it), to all those that belong to Christ, that is have the Spirit. Yes many follow the devil and go on to do evil as is witnessed in the bible and in the news. But as is witnessed in the bible even before Christ Jesus is that others seemed to follow another Spirit as Joshua did and as those who belong to Christ Jesus do even to this day.

Randy

[Gina Stevenson]

Hi Randy, As for me what I see in scripture and read is people including Eve are tempted by their own evil desires. The one who sows these seeds is the devil. So you have Spiritual forces at work. [snip]

Randy

Hmmm ... seems like we recall seeing the above highlighted portion elsewhere in some of your writing, too, Randy. 'Seems, for some reason, that you're wanting to just forget all about Adam ... he had a choice, too. ;)

[Randy Dillon]

Hi Randy, As for me what I see in scripture and read is people including Eve are tempted by their own evil desires.

Good morning brother. I had discussed this at length previously with our brother Dane in one of the threads Scott initially submitted in his response. So please excuse me Randy if this is a bit redundant.

The key to understanding these temptations, is with this particular adjective ‘idios’ modifying the word ‘strong desire’. (epithumia) We get the word idiosyncrasy from idios, and it was no doubt used by James to specify “one’s own peculiar” selfhood as opposed to a divine sourcing coming from God. (James 1:5, and James 1:17) The word ‘evil’ doesn’t appear in the James 1:14 text… but is placed there by translators hoping to accentuate the wrongness of stressing one’s individuality (and the strong desires associated with this self-centeredness.) So this is not pointing out to the reader that every individual has evil desires, but that one pursuing selfish desires (the double-minded brother James 1:6-8) is vulnerable to temptations that will eventuate in sinning, and this brings about spiritual death.

The one who sows these seeds is the devil. So you have Spiritual forces at work.

Amen. We are open to the tempter through the usurping self – pursuing the lie – attempting to be as God.

Romans 8 seems to attribute those not controlled by the sinful nature, (however you wish to argue it), to all those that belong to Christ, that is have the Spirit. Yes many follow the devil and go on to do evil as is witnessed in the bible and in the news. But as is witnessed in the bible even before Christ Jesus is that others seemed to follow another Spirit as Joshua did and as those who belong to Christ Jesus do even to this day.

We agree that the essence of being a Christian is being Spirit-Indwelt and Spirit- Inspired/Led (Rom. 8:9,14) but we differ if my brother is asserting that all Christians are Spirit-led. We certainly wouldn’t place some of the Corinthian Christians, who were initially sanctified, (1 Cor. 1:2, and 1 Cor. 3:1-3) in that category. - Randy

[Randy Wise]

Hmmm ... seems like we recall seeing the above highlighted portion elsewhere in some of your writing, too, Randy. 'Seems, for some reason, that you're wanting to just forget all about Adam ... he had a choice, too. ;)

Adam listened to His wife EVE:) I don't think Adam was deceived but there isn't anything written about Him being tempted.

Randy

[Randy Wise]

Good morning brother. I had discussed this at length previously with our brother Dane in one of the threads Scott initially submitted in his response. So please excuse me Randy if this is a bit redundant.

The key to understanding these temptations, is with this particular adjective ‘idios’ modifying the word ‘strong desire’. (epithumia) We get the word idiosyncrasy from idios, and it was no doubt used by James to specify “one’s own peculiar” selfhood as opposed to a divine sourcing coming from God. (James 1:5, and James 1:17) The word ‘evil’ doesn’t appear in the James 1:14 text… but is placed there by translators hoping to accentuate the wrongness of stressing one’s individuality (and the strong desires associated with this self-centeredness.) So this is not pointing out to the reader that every individual has evil desires, but that one pursuing selfish desires (the double-minded brother James 1:6-8) is vulnerable to temptations that will eventuate in sinning, and this brings about spiritual death.



Amen. We are open to the tempter through the usurping self – pursuing the lie – attempting to be as God.



We agree that the essence of being a Christian is being Spirit-Indwelt and Spirit- Inspired/Led (Rom. 8:9,14) but we differ if my brother is asserting that all Christians are Spirit-led. We certainly wouldn’t place some of the Corinthian Christians, who were initially sanctified, (1 Cor. 1:2, and 1 Cor. 3:1-3) in that category. - Randy

Hello Brother Randy, thanks for the feed back.
I didn't see Paul address Corinth with needing any additional gift to behave.:) Nor can we tell from scripture that they lacked any gift (the Holy Spirit). They were just addressed as a community. With your Pop in pop out writing I'm not sure how you could even know for sure they weren't sanctified fully as you teach that work. I only state as Peter did that we, (all christians), have everything we need to live Godly lives and escape corruption caused by evil desires. 2Peter 1:3,10. Peter instructed "the believer" to add on top of what God had given. Goodness etc.. and that would give them sure footing. To those that didn't have those qualities Peter assigned the fault with the believer not a lack of a 2nd work of grace or any gift. 2Peter 1:9

I think the key to understanding temptation is actual experience. We all have been tempted to do what we know is wrong. We all have the ability to say NO. As stated before obedience comes from love.
Randy

[Gina Stevenson]

Adam listened to His wife EVE:) I don't think Adam was deceived but there isn't anything written about Him being tempted.

Randy

He wasn't tempted? Well, if he was off somewhere else, to not be there to advise his wife when she was tempted, he also was tempted once he returned ... tempted to choose between being "like her," or remaining as they both were before that yielding to temptation. If he were there, he didn't do much, it appears (at least we read nothing of the sort), to stop her. Whatever, which did Adam choose ... huh, huh, huh!? :basic05 Don't want to fight; just in one weird mood, that's all. 'Just had to speak up, if'n y'all were one of those men who want to blame it all on us women! :eek:

[Randy Wise]

He wasn't tempted? Well, if he was off somewhere else, to not be there to advise his wife, he was tempted to choose between being "like her," or remaining as they both were before that yielding to temptation. Which did he choose ... huh, huh, huh!? :basic05 [don't want to fight; just in one weird mood, that's all.] 'Just had to wonder if'n y'all were one of those men who want to blame it all on us women! :eek:

Adam was indeed found guilty by God for His own sin, for the reason Adam gave God for doing what God commanded him not to do didn't hold up. :)

Randy

[Randy Dillon]

Hello Brother Randy, thanks for the feed back.

Thank you brother, for the privilege is mine.

I didn't see Paul address Corinth with needing any additional gift to behave. Nor can we tell from scripture that they lacked any gift (the Holy Spirit). They were just addressed as a community.

That’s a legitimate objection, for it would be preferable to open 1 Corinthians and find it stated plainly where no one could raise an objection. I won’t try to pretend that it is. Yet let me ask you this sincerely, is it possible that we often approach the text looking for the concept to be expressed openly while the author’s approach is more concealed? I believe that one of the big reasons for this is in the stated prerequisite from Christ for receiving more grace namely, asking, seeking, knocking, hungering, thirsting, or basically – striving. That’s not to say that we must be a select elite of divinely inspired individuals to receive it, but that light increases as we walk closer to it. Obviously we’re in this pursuit together or we wouldn’t be in a discussion about it. What a wonderful privilege to dialogue with our brothers and sisters concerning its known reality.

Let me state it this way. Perhaps we’d agree that divine truth must be given from above, and is, as we wrestle with it, and as we conform to the truth we already possess. So it is my conviction that the concept of a “second work of grace” is there - and can be seen - as we reason from the scriptures as objectively as possible.

So maybe I can state it simply without a lengthy dissertation. (Not that this unworthy soul is capable of one.) I propose that the broad theme of 1 Corinthians is the call to be conformed to Christ rather than the culture that surrounds us. A question we might ask is: “How can the believer be perfectly conformed to Christ and be in unity with one another?” There is no argument that Corinth’s culture was very debased and idolatrous, and quite logically, those converted from that society would need the best possibilities of grace to sustain their witness and overcome the evil encompassing them. Likewise, there is no argument that this church was one of discord and factions. (1 Cor. 1:11-13) Paul writes a progressive letter opening by acknowledging their initial sanctification and eventually showing them “…a more excellent way.” (1 Cor. 12:31) I would then submit the answer to the above question found within the pages of this first letter to Corinth this way: We can be conformed to Christ and in harmony with one another only through a love made perfect, through a body interdependency generated by His Spirit, a body of one - allegiant under the common Lordship of Jesus Christ. How else can 1 Corinthians 1:10 be possible unless we die to the self emphasis as found with the emphatic personal pronouns of “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.”? (1 Cor. 1:12) There is much to substantiate this thesis in the letter. As the common expression goes, they had the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit didn’t have them.


With your Pop in pop out writing I'm not sure how you could even know for sure they weren't sanctified fully as you teach that work.

I hope my brother sees this now by examining my response above more closely. A church with a party spirit is a carnal church. As you already agree Randy, we must in love serve one another, but these Corinthian saints were locked into self-promotion. As referenced, Paul states he couldn’t even address them as spiritual in the opening of chapter 3.

I only state as Peter did that we, (all christians), have everything we need to live Godly lives and escape corruption caused by evil desires. 2 Peter 1:3, 2 Peter 1:10.

Yes, but there is a synergism about this whole thing Brother Randy. We have all we need … but is it being utilized by an obedient response in faith and expanding itself throughout the temple of His body??

Peter instructed "the believer" to add on top of what God had given. Goodness etc.. and that would give them sure footing. To those that didn't have those qualities Peter assigned the fault with the believer not a lack of a 2nd work of grace or any gift. 2 Peter 1:9

Formula: No response -- no “He giveth more grace”. (James 4:1-8)

I think the key to understanding temptation i