Revisioning Article X

[Hans Deventer]

At the http://wesley.nnu.edu/ website there is a paper by Thomas Jay Oord, the co-author of Relational Holiness, with the title Fifteen Changes in the Church of the Nazarene’s Article on Entire Sanctification (http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesley_conferences/2007/Oord%20Revisioning%20Article%20X%20Paper.pdf)

I would love to discuss that paper but in order to avoid discussions on all the 15 proposed changes at the same time, I would like to start with #1 and move on to #2 after we finished it and so on.

I'll post his introduction here, and then in a second post, the current article and the proposed change #1.


Paper delivered at the NNU Wesley Center
“Revisioning Holiness” conference, February, 2007

I have yet to meet a member of the Church of the Nazarene who, after studying the
denomination’s article on sanctification, thought the article was perfectly worded. Everyone
believes article ten on sanctification needs to be improved. For many, the most obvious
improvements revolve around poor sentence structure and antiquated wording.
But the call for change in the formulation of the denomination’s article on
sanctification goes beyond cosmetic alterations. A growing number of leaders in the
denomination – what seems to be the overwhelming majority – are calling for substantive
changes. (Examples: Guatemala conference: What had only been talked about in small
meetings or in the academy was laid open for all; Porter quote: “We believe our
denomination is in a theological crisis” Quanstrom book: “The question in the last decades
of the 20th century was whether or not the Church of the Nazarene had a coherent and
cogent doctrine of holiness at all.” Bond paper: Nazarene Archives label for current time
period: “Searching for an identity in an era of change;” Relational Holiness: the book
Michael Lodahl and I co-wrote)
In this session, I want to suggest fifteen changes that I think should be made to
article ten in the manual. Some are cosmetic, most are more substantial.
I hope this exercise is not seen as the attempt by some radical discontent who exists
on the edges of the Church of the Nazarene. Instead, I am someone who loves the church
and is committed to her. I plan to remain in her arms even if all the changes I propose are
ignored.
Although I take full responsibility for these suggestions, I know that I do not stand
alone in believing that the suggestions I offer are helpful. Other – pastors, superintendents,
theologians, Sunday school teachers, scholars of various sorts -- agree with many if not all
of my suggestions. In the past few years, I have been in conversation with hundreds of
denomination leaders. And the suggestions I offer have been shaped and molded by my
conversations with these influential people.
I realize that not everyone will agree with me. Of course, getting everyone to agree
on these types of things is next to impossible. Gone are the days when, as a tiny
denomination, a person like H. Orton Wiley could sit down alone in a back room at the
general assembly and hammer out an article of faith that virtually everyone accepts. We are
a large denomination with diverse views. We need to respect this diversity while
simultaneously seeking a degree of unity that can bring us together in one accord. We need
unity without requiring uniformity. We must appreciate and allow diversity without slipping
into chaos and incoherence.)
Before offering the fifteen changes I suggest, let me also say that I offer these as
starting points for discussion. They are not meant to be the stuff of stone tablets brought
down from the mountain. Rather, my hope is that a conversation will ensue (actually,
continue) that can move us toward a healthy revisioning of article ten together.
What I hope will transpire in the remainder of our time together is that we take the
present article on entire sanctification and examine it for clues about how it should be
reformulated. In the end, I hope our exercise will help us all to revision article ten in a way
that is more faithful to our experiences of holiness, to the vision of John Wesley and many
in the past holiness movement, and most importantly to a Wesleyan reading of the Bible.

[Hans Deventer]

X. Entire Sanctification
13. 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 the holy obedience of love
made perfect.
It is wrought by the baptism with 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.
Entire sanctification is provided by the blood of Jesus, is
wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration;
and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit
bears witness.
This experience is also known by various terms representing
its different phases, such as “Christian perfection,” “perfect
love,” “heart purity,” “the baptism with the Holy Spirit,”
“the fullness of the blessing,” and “Christian holiness.”
14. We believe that there is a marked distinction between
a pure heart and a mature character. The former is obtained
in an instant, the result of entire sanctification; the latter is
the result of growth in grace.
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.
(Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27; Malachi 3:2-3; Matthew 3:11-12;
Luke 3:16-17; John 7:37-39; 14:15-23; 17:6-20; Acts 1:5; 2:1-4; 15:8-9; Romans
6:11-13, 19; 8:1-4, 8-14; 12:1-2; 2 Corinthians 6:14—7:1; Galatians
2:20; 5:16-25; Ephesians 3:14-21; 5:17-18, 25-27; Philippians 3:10-15;
Colossians 3:1-17; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; Hebrews 4:9-11; 10:10-17;
12:1-2; 13:12; 1 John 1:7, 9)
(“Christian perfection,” “perfect love”: Deuteronomy 30:6; Matthew 5:43-
48; 22:37-40; Romans 12:9-21; 13:8-10; 1 Corinthians 13; Philippians
3:10-15; Hebrews 6:1; 1 John 4:17-18
“Heart purity”: Matthew 5:8; Acts 15:8-9; 1 Peter 1:22; 1 John 3:3
“Baptism with the Holy Spirit”: Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27;
Malachi 3:2-3; Matthew 3:11-12; Luke 3:16-17; Acts 1:5; 2:1-4; 15:8-9
“Fullness of the blessing”: Romans 15:29
“Christian holiness”: Matthew 5:1—7:29; John 15:1-11; Romans 12:1—
15:3; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Ephesians 4:17—5:20; Philippians 1:9-11; 3:12-
15; Colossians 2:20—3:17; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 4:7-8; 5:23; 2 Timothy
2:19-22; Hebrews 10:19-25; 12:14; 13:20-21; 1 Peter 1:15-16; 2 Peter 1:1-
11; 3:18; Jude 20-21

(The following is from Thomas Oord's paper)

We should…
1. Drop the word “entire” from the article heading. Because…
a. The phrase “entire sanctification” is only used once in Bible. As a people
who regard scripture as principally important for those things necessary to
salvation, do we want a phrase mentioned only once in the Bible to be the
label of our distinctive doctrine? (NIV: “through and through,” KJV
“wholly”)
b. In the one instance in which we find the phrase “entirely sanctified,” it is far
from clear what the author means. (1 Thess. 5:23)
c. John Wesley did not use “entire sanctification” primarily to distinguish
sanctification from justification. This strong distinction between the two is
NOT characteristically Wesleyan. Rather, John Wesley used “entire
sanctification” to emphasize that the sanctification present at one’s new birth
requires subsequent expressions in the life of the Christian.
d. The phrase “entire sanctification” has come to mean in holiness circles
something like “total commitment.” While total commitment to God ought
to be promoted, this is not the meaning of entire sanctification in scripture
(apparently) and not Wesley’s meaning. Interestingly, 1 Thes. 5:23 places all
the work on God’s part, which undermines the urge to identify entire
sanctification with total commitment.
e. Some might argue that keeping “Entire” in the title of Article X is appropriate
on historical grounds. They may argue that we should not discard the
identify of the denomination, which has been to emphasize not just
sanctification but “entire sanctification.” This argument is undermined when
we realize that the earliest Nazarenes did not think it important to add the
label “entire” to sanctification. “Entire” was not added until the 1923
Manual.

[Roland Hearn]

I understand the reasons for the word "entire", I agree with those reasons. I recognize the Church of the Nazarene may be the only denomination of any significance that uses the phrase, "entire sanctification," as its most prominent phrase to denote the experience of encountering God and the purifying of heart that results. I think we could change it and be ok. If we do though I hope we end up saying something that is real, vital, obtainable and glorious not just theologically adequate.

[Hans Deventer]

I think we could change it and be ok. If we do though I hope we end up saying something that is real, vital, obtainable and glorious not just theologically adequate.

Agreed. The problem with my approach to deal with the 15 points one by one is that you don't get the entire picture. Obviously, it is a lot harder to "say something that is real, vital, obtainable and glorious" than it is to say what you don't like about the current statement.

I do agree with Oord though that the word "entire" is problematic. We all know it isn't a goal but rather a station along the way. We can talk about entire commitment but even that isn't the same at age 15 as it is at age 50.

It seems to me the main problem (which we cannot and should not evade, though!) is that we are talking about what God is doing IN people, in stead of FOR them. Therefore a discussion about justification is always a lot easier than one about sanctification. We cannot discuss sanctification as an abstraction, apart from what it means in you and in me. Which is probably why it is best phrased in relational concepts.

I think (despite all the discussions and sometimes, confusion) it is one of the strengths of our church that we actually try to say something about this experience. While agreeing there is a lot of room for improvement, I am very glad that at least, we try.

[Martijn van Beveren]

I understand the reasons for the word "entire", I agree with those reasons. I recognize the Church of the Nazarene may be the only denomination of any significance that uses the phrase, "entire sanctification," as its most prominent phrase to denote the experience of encountering God and the purifying of heart that results. I think we could change it and be ok. If we do though I hope we end up saying something that is real, vital, obtainable and glorious not just theologically adequate.

Yes! :fav18
Though it's always difficult to describe. Time, circumstances, interpretations and cultures, change. So Theologic description of something we live by is a sticky thing. though living it is more important than the way we write it down. I'm very glad that even though we have to be careful, our theological definition is something we can talk about and even change if it needs to be. Not to deform and missuse but to keep it real, close and dear.:rolleyes:

Words are like a vessel to bring the valuable to the other side.

In His grace,
Marty

[Mike Schutz]

At the http://wesley.nnu.edu/ website there is a paper by Thomas Jay Oord, the co-author of Relational Holiness, with the title Fifteen Changes in the Church of the Nazarene’s Article on Entire Sanctification (http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesley_conferences/2007/Oord%20Revisioning%20Article%20X%20Paper.pdf)

I would love to discuss that paper but in order to avoid discussions on all the 15 proposed changes at the same time, I would like to start with #1 and move on to #2 after we finished it and so on.

I'll post his introduction here, and then in a second post, the current article and the proposed change #1.



Hans,
I think we have already seen that it would be helpful if folks read the entirety of Oord's paper, even as we discuss each suggestion individually.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,
I think we have already seen that it would be helpful if folks read the entirety of Oord's paper, even as we discuss each suggestion individually.

Sure! I have provided the link for that very reason.

[Jerry Frank]

Therefore a discussion about justification is always a lot easier than one about sanctification. We cannot discuss sanctification as an abstraction, apart from what it means in you and in me. Which is probably why it is best phrased in relational concepts.




I don't plan on entering the debate except to say that I like what I see. I am much more comfortable with the root Wesleyan position than I am with the North American version of Palmer, et al.

Regarding your above comment, it is interesting to note that you can hardly find the word sanctification in any of Luther's works. He was so focused on justification that he ignored sanctifiction. OR, perhaps as you indicate, he found it much more difficult to grasp and thus ignored it.

Jerry

[Hans Deventer]

Regarding your above comment, it is interesting to note that you can hardly find the word sanctification in any of Luther's works. He was so focused on justification that he ignored sanctifiction. OR, perhaps as you indicate, he found it much more difficult to grasp and thus ignored it.

Jerry, this is a side note in the discussion on Article X, but I did find some interesting remarks regarding Luther that you might like to read. See point 1 in this paper: http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesley_conferences/2007/Staples%20-%20Revisioning%20Holiness%20address%20at%20NNU.pdf

[William Hunter]

I needed to clarify my agreement with Randy in that we need to use biblical terms in trying to describe our faith statements. I think this will be a good discussion if it stays on task. Thanks, Wilson, for making a clear observation concerning some of Randy's remarks. But I do think we need a more biblical description and a clearer and concise statement of our various beliefs.

[Kevin Rector]

I read the paper just after it was put online, and I really liked it and agree with many of Oord's assertions. I'm still mulling what I want to say about point 1 though.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I'm fine with changing as proposed in #1. I understand Dr. Oord's concerns, but I also understand Roland's call for something else to fill what most talk about when explaining "entire" these days (which, as I read it, Oord notes as well).

I'm not sure this post has anything of construction, but I guess I wanted to give input to show that I'm very interested in this thread.

By the way, I've made note to Dr. Charles Christian about this thread. He began http://manualarticleten.blogspot.com, which has seen little discussion. I hope this thread generates much discussion (at least as much as a thread on homosexuality can...if not, something's wrong).

[Dennis M. Scott]

For a hundred years we (they) have honestly worked with this concept. While using scripture alone as our base is an honest part of that process that is presently popular and worthy, it is also pretty difficult. We each approach scripture with perspective and experience - in some cases absence of experience. We even bring appropriate motives, i.e., a stong desire to be helpful to others' understanding or experience. These are likely appropriate, but perhaps it would be helpful to recognize that earlier workers on the topic have had similar convictions. If we for the moment assume the strong desire for scripture to serve largely our basis, we would do well to remember that from time to time there has been an even stronger desire to help people understand what the scripture meant. Especially in the era when the KGV was the most widely available rendering, constructing theological concepts likely seemed more helpful than it may today. Hence, the term "entire" was enlightening only alongside other terms within a much broader discussion of sanctification - initial, process, growth, prevenient, completed, final, etc.. And for the prooftexters, there was at least one passage that seemed to identify it. In a process that seems to work a few days at a time once every four years, it appeared to be a milestone. Immediately we embarked on the challenge of what parts of entire were included.

Just as previous generations approached the task encumbered with the trappings of their perspective, so do we. How else is there? Joyously, the contributors are even more broadly scattered culturally, educationally, and likely experientially. Presumeably there is a more solid base of understanding of scripture. Certainly there is a much more widespread allegiance to scripture than anyone's Manual. You don't have to be very old to remember the time when the litmus test was to preach something it had to be in both scripture and the manual. There was an attitude that if the theologians had put it in the manual it must be true, because "I" don't know as much as they know. Some thinkers are still influenced by that concept, but it simply isn't the norm.

So we boldly - perhaps a little arrogantly - go where none have gone before. Or do we? Likely at least some of our steps have been trod by others of similar spirit. But go we must, and in a spirit I think has sometimes been absent. Many will be more convinced of our message by the way in which we proceed than where we ultimately wind up.

[Hans Deventer]

Many will be more convinced of our message by the way in which we proceed than where we ultimately wind up.

Now that's a line worth quoting!

[Jerry Frank]

Thank you, Hans. I will have to bookmark that for my Lutheran pastor friends. :-)


Jerry

[Billy Cox]

I sincerely hope that a major overhaul of Article X can lead to a rediscovery of sanctification beyond the clergy and the academy. However, I don't know that our fascination with generic evangelicalism has run its course yet.

[Charles W Christian]

Hi, folks -
By the way, I have a blog about this if you want to participate there, too.

It's:
http://manualarticleten.blogspot.com

God bless,

Charles

[Martijn van Beveren]

At the http://wesley.nnu.edu/ website there is a paper by Thomas Jay Oord, the co-author of Relational Holiness, with the title Fifteen Changes in the Church of the Nazarene’s Article on Entire Sanctification (http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesley_conferences/2007/Oord%20Revisioning%20Article%20X%20Paper.pdf)

I would love to discuss that paper but in order to avoid discussions on all the 15 proposed changes at the same time, I would like to start with #1 and move on to #2 after we finished it and so on.

I'll post his introduction here, and then in a second post, the current article and the proposed change #1.


Well, let me first of all tell you ppl that I'm not a professional theologian, as you might have noticed in my earlier posts and so. So I'm just trying to capture these thoughts and hope that I understand them rightly.:basic05

I've read the paper and I'm quite fond of the approach of Thomas Jay Oord. Article X has always been one difficult to grasp, and this explanation and rephrasing is more than welcoming for me. we've been living with this article for about 80 years now, and is in need for a good "bath" in order to get the focus right and to make it feel more connected to our life. 'Cause that's what this is all about. It should function to help us, not to delude us and make our striving a bridge too far. So I'd say, drop the "entire".

Marty

[Dennis M. Scott]

Article X has always been one difficult to grasp, and this explanation and rephrasing is more than welcoming for me. we've been living with this article for about 80 years now, and is in need for a good "bath" in order to get the focus right and to make it feel more connected to our life. 'Cause that's what this is all about. It should function to help us, not to delude us and make our striving a bridge too far. So I'd say, drop the "entire".

Marty

If we are to some limited extent sanctified at our conversion, should we not distinguish that from the subsequent sanctification? Article X seems to not make sense without that distinction. I admit training and enculturation allow it to seem that way to me.

[Roland Hearn]

The Wesley's noticed something wonderfully evident in the lives of people that were serious about their faith. With deep personal soul searching, endless biblical research, borrowing extensively from church history and using their brilliant reasoning minds they began to recognize that there really was an experience with God that took one deeper into His love. They could find no greater expression than that of "perfect love." Revival swept England under their ministry, the time was right. The revival moved off shore and touched the US and Europe. A new church was born much to the Wesley brother's ambivalence . It seemed they or at least their followers needed a certain amount of autonomy to represent adequately this bold new understanding of grace.
By the early 1800's however this powerful message had been lost to the intricacies of bureaucracy and formalism. The church was looking for acceptance rather than transformation. However, you cannot hold down the fires of grace and soon all across the US a new movement sprung up, in Methodist churches, in Presbyterian colleges, in Baptist camp meetings, and in many other places. Holiness unto the Lord came their rallying cry and a movement of God took place. I think they were running so fast to keep up with what God was doing in their lives they got entirely ahead of their theologians. I think they put emphasis in the wrong places sometimes, they said things badly or oversaid them at least sometimes, I think they were overwhelmed with optimism that may have been misplaced. But they were in the center of God doing something remarkable.
As one of my profs once said "Systematic theology is the head catching up with the heart." Or at least it should be.
As those fires began to burn across the USA a remarkable never before seen thing took place. People, rather than dividing, came together around a common vision. They disagreed on many things but they agreed on the only significant thing. God in His grace can transform the human heart to the uttermost consistent with the promise of scriptures. They used the phrase Entire Sanctification to describe something real and wonderful and not seen broadly but seen often in church history. Those people came together to form the Church of the Nazarene. I think we've grown since then, I think we probably do a better job of articulating the whole story these days, maybe. As we move forward however I would hate if efforts to clarify left us with the malaise of the methodists, having thoroughly correct theology and very little life.
I've heard preachers preach holiness correctly and they have done it with the imagination of a trailer park and it wouldn't inspire a thing. I have heard preachers get their words muddled and say things badly but when they are done your heart is stirred to believe for something more.
I want a vibrant transformational faith much more than I want a correct one. Having said that I repeat from a previous post I think we can survive loosing the word "entire". I would however love to see our church leaders and teachers putting as much energy into clearly grappling with the grace of God in their own lives so that the transformation was obvious to all they touched as they do into getting things right.
And I reaffirm what Dennis said, "Sanctification" implies a process much broader than the phrase "Entire Sanctification" does. So we better be sure we still believe that in the midst of God's transformational process that begins at salvation there is an encounter with God where an individual's very ego lies surrendered to His love.

[Hans Deventer]

I want a vibrant transformational faith much more than I want a correct one. Having said that I repeat from a previous post I think we can survive loosing the word "entire". I would however love to see our church leaders and teachers putting as much energy into clearly grappling with the grace of God in their own lives so that the transformation was obvious to all they touched as they do into getting things right.

It is a pity that I can only rate a thread. If I could rate a post, this one would get all the available stars.

[Martijn van Beveren]

If we are to some limited extent sanctified at our conversion, should we not distinguish that from the subsequent sanctification? Article X seems to not make sense without that distinction. I admit training and enculturation allow it to seem that way to me.

Hi Dennis,
I'm not sure what you mean by, enculturation, but could you mean: acculturation? If that is so than I understand.

Well we might want to work out a different explanation. The danger in entirely is that when someone says/thinks he/she has reached it that it might have serious consequences in the perception of this person. It's like "I've made it!" when in fact it just doesn't end there, but it could lead or might imply to a certain way of (there goes my limited English) laziness.:eek: We can still fall back. Since there are many people who grow and fall or stand still (I don't know any person who no experience with this), myself included. I've had a time where I thought I was entirely sanctified, but when I look back and see all the wrong turns after that, I really think I wasn't there yet.
I mean, could it be that this explanation of "entire" might give people a certain assumption? or give people the sense of an unreachable goal?

here's a suggestion: drop entire and go for maturing sanctification.
After our first true conversion our heart wants be more filled with God. But that's just the beginning, we need to grow, reap, become mature Spirit filled persons who do want to follow God and God alone, even aware of un-pure thoughts, and leave those behind.
It's just an idea. Not to say that I have the answer or something, but I want to think and grow with you friends. I think it concerns us all so my hope is to see this article also maturing as is our denomination on a international note. This concerns not just the US, this goes worldwide.

In His grace,
Marty

[Martijn van Beveren]

Wow!

when I read this it's like I'm just at the kiddygarden.
Thanks for the words.

Marty

[Roland Hearn]

Marty,
You are touching on some key issues here. Let me have a go at responding to some of the things you say.

Well we might want to work out a different explanation. The danger in entirely is that when someone says/thinks he/she has reached it that it might have serious consequences in the perception of this person. It's like "I've made it!" when in fact it just doesn't end there, but it could lead or might imply to a certain way of (there goes my limited English) laziness.:eek: We can still fall back. Since there are many people who grow and fall or stand still (I don't know any person who no experience with this), myself included. I've had a time where I thought I was entirely sanctified, but when I look back and see all the wrong turns after that, I really think I wasn't there yet.
You are absolutely right Martin, that is what happens. The problem is a failure to grasp what is being expressed by the terms. No one term referring to the encounter with God we call "entire sanctification," is actually adequate. When you look at the phrases, "perfect love," "Christian perfection," "The deeper life," "the higher way," you start to see two things. Firstly language struggles to adequately reflect the quality of relationship that we are talking about. Secondly there is a need to say something because human experience with God suggests it is possible to encounter God at a level beyond what we expect when we first come into a saving relationship with God.


I mean, could it be that this explanation of "entire" might give people a certain assumption? or give people the sense of an unreachable goal?
Once again we have so slipped from what we were originally trying to express with this phrase that your observation is correct. When we allow entire sanctification to be sinless perfection on the one hand or a warm fuzzy on the other we have either over stated the case and made it unattainable or understated the case and made it meaningless. Our real need is genuine experience and genuine preaching.


here's a suggestion: drop entire and go for maturing sanctification.
After our first true conversion our heart wants be more filled with God. But that's just the beginning, we need to grow, reap, become mature Spirit filled persons who do want to follow God and God alone, even aware of un-pure thoughts, and leave those behind.
But there is the problem it isn't maturing sanctification. There has been a great struggle within holiness circles to get the right balance. The more we push toward instantaneous encounter the more we loose sight of the process. The more we push toward process theology the less meaningful the process itself becomes. It looses power, becomes about discipline and rules and we wander off into a Christianity that has lost its miraculous wonder filled joy. The encounter we have with God that brings about what has been described as entire sanctification actually refers to the point where we completely submit our distorted sense of self and its willfulness to shape its own destiny to the love of God and his power to shape us in His image. There is accompanying joy, peace and love that sustains us through the process of the rest of our lives where our minds are shaped after His will. There is both process and encounter and to loose sight of that is to rob ourselves of the best of God.

It's just an idea. Not to say that I have the answer or something, but I want to think and grow with you friends. I think it concerns us all so my hope is to see this article also maturing as is our denomination on a international note. This concerns not just the US, this goes worldwide.
Amen to that. It is a great issue and you are doing well. This is the very struggle that helped define our identity at the beginning.

[Hans Deventer]

There has been a great struggle within holiness circles to get the right balance. The more we push toward instantaneous encounter the more we loose sight of the process. The more we push toward process theology the less meaningful the process itself becomes.

Yes. I think we will end up with something paradoxal, like Phil 2:12-13 "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."

We have to create some tension in the article, otherwise we will indeed get off balance.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Hi Dennis,
I'm not sure what you mean by, enculturation, but could you mean: acculturation? If that is so than I understand.

Well we might want to work out a different explanation. The danger in entirely is that when someone says/thinks he/she has reached it that it might have serious consequences in the perception of this person. It's like "I've made it!" when in fact it just doesn't end there, but it could lead or might imply to a certain way of (there goes my limited English) laziness.:eek: We can still fall back. Since there are many people who grow and fall or stand still (I don't know any person who no experience with this), myself included. I've had a time where I thought I was entirely sanctified, but when I look back and see all the wrong turns after that, I really think I wasn't there yet.
I mean, could it be that this explanation of "entire" might give people a certain assumption? or give people the sense of an unreachable goal?

here's a suggestion: drop entire and go for maturing sanctification.
After our first true conversion our heart wants be more filled with God. But that's just the beginning, we need to grow, reap, become mature Spirit filled persons who do want to follow God and God alone, even aware of un-pure thoughts, and leave those behind.
It's just an idea. Not to say that I have the answer or something, but I want to think and grow with you friends. I think it concerns us all so my hope is to see this article also maturing as is our denomination on a international note. This concerns not just the US, this goes worldwide.

In His grace,
Marty

Acculturation it is.

Absolutely yes to the need to mature, but would want to maintain a distinction between maturing sanctification and that which happens in an instant. About forty years ago, when there was a renewal in preaching emphasis of the growth part of sanctification, I quizzed popular Nazarene educator and author, Dean Bertha Munro - then in her eighties - as to what some saw as neglect on the part of even earlier preachers to speak of the growth part. She said, "We assumed that in the search for the instantaneous, the growth would occur. I have noticed, however, that doesn't always happen."

"We maintain there is a marked distinction between a purified heart and a mature character. . .". When this verbage was added in the seventies there was an almost audible sigh of relief that the two considerations had been recognized and seemingly reconciled.

I think Roland might remind us that "love must be enough", but terms like "perfect love" or "love made perfect" while sometimes used have usually required further understanding or explanation: as has "entire sanctification".

I also remember a time when there was a movement away from embracing either Wiley or Wesley to opt for a more direct scriptural interpretation. In those days there was resistence to Wesleyan thought mainly because it seemed to that of those Methodists. Fortunately, that sentiment seems to have lessened.

An aside is that there was in those days also a respectful wishing that Bresee and Wiley had still been around to add to the discussion. Similar observations could now be made about the Taylors, Grider and Wynkoop. Greathouse still strongly influences.

[William Hunter]

I continue to look at Oord's revisioning. Again, the two books "When Love Bends Down" by Lodahl and Willard's "The Great Omission," continue to make me wrestle with the idea of a clearer Articles of Faith for us. I think we need them, but I think we need more input from authors (books) like these to help us think this process through.

On the holiness issue, entire sanctification, I wonder if we are trying to define something without a larger view of what the Scripture says to us. I agree with Willard that the church has for generations been good at making Christians and very poor at making disciples. Yet the New Testament knows nothing of being a Christian without being a very dedecated disciple as we find discipleship defined in the New Testament. The word "disciple" is found 269 time in the New Testament and the word "Christian" found only 3 times.

Look at Matt. 5:6 and Matt. 6:33 as a beginning point. I think what we are talking about when we Nazarenes talk about holiness would be better described as spiritual formation. Spiritual formation is the redemptive process of forming the inner human world so that it takes on the character of the inner being of Chriist Himself. This has profound effect on our outward living, choices, and behaviors.

For me, the old Methodist missionary E. Standley Jones had it right. He wrote a book after a severe stroke titled, "The Divine Yes," copyright 1975. As I listen to him teach on holiness I began to see sanctification as coming to the place where I have said yes to God, no matter what. After that, everything that comes in life is a process of bringing life more fully under that yes. The yes is settled. I think some of the old timers had the right idea that sanctifcation involves a "unknown bundle" of life we bring to the altar and leave there, saying yes to God that covers all the rest of life. While that yes for a Christian is said in a moment, the living of life is a process, and in that process we bring life as we live it under that settled yes.

Gal. 4:19 tells us we are to let Christ be formed in us. How do we do that? A major part of that is the proper disciplines that help Christ be formed in us, being transformed. Willard says, "...the tranformation of character comes through learning how to act in concert with Jesus Christ. Character is formed through action, and it is transformed through action, including carefully planned and grace-sustained disciplines. To enter the path obedience to Jesus Christ---intending to obey Him and intending to learn whatever I have to learn in order to obey Him---is the true path of spiritual formation or transformation." To do so requires a point for the Christian where he comes say a "divine yes," no matter what.

Read Col. 3:1-4. Then, what's the next move? Does anyone know? Now read Col. 3:5-10. Willard calls this "an incredible sweeping change of mind. NOw read Co. 3:11-16. What do we see here about living a holy life? It finally ends with the summery command and statement, Col. 3:17. How do we live out vs. 17 without having had a heart made pure, having said a divine yes to God, no matter what?

I am trying to rethink Oord's challenge. I think we need to take a wider look at Scripture to help us. Thus, I try to add to this thread and I hope this gets our discussion here that Hans started, back on track. It is very much worth our time. Thanks, Hans, for starting a potentially great discussion if we can keep it on track.

[Hans Deventer]

X. Entire Sanctification
13. 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 the holy obedience of love
made perfect.
It is wrought by the baptism with 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.
Entire sanctification is provided by the blood of Jesus, is
wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration;
and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit
bears witness.
This experience is also known by various terms representing
its different phases, such as “Christian perfection,” “perfect
love,” “heart purity,” “the baptism with the Holy Spirit,”
“the fullness of the blessing,” and “Christian holiness.”
14. We believe that there is a marked distinction between
a pure heart and a mature character. The former is obtained
in an instant, the result of entire sanctification; the latter is
the result of growth in grace.
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.

Oord writes:

2. Drop the language in the article that implies that sanctification is a singular, completed work (e.g., “that act of God”). Because…
a. There is little biblical support for the idea of a single, completed work that has no subsequent divine work.
b. If God continually sanctifies, why call entire sanctification “that act,” which is singular?
c. Article ten contradicts itself – it is internally incoherent – when it speaks of one act securing sanctification in the first paragraph “that act” and then speaks of sanctification as involving growth in grace in later paragraphs. We must aim for more precise language to avoid furthering confusion about holiness.

[Hans Deventer]

2. Drop the language in the article that implies that sanctification is a singular, completed work (e.g., “that act of God”). Because…
a. There is little biblical support for the idea of a single, completed work that has no subsequent divine work.
b. If God continually sanctifies, why call entire sanctification “that act,” which is singular?
c. Article ten contradicts itself – it is internally incoherent – when it speaks of one act securing sanctification in the first paragraph “that act” and then speaks of sanctification as involving growth in grace in later paragraphs. We must aim for more precise language to avoid furthering confusion about holiness.

I don't think I agree here. The problem is that if we focus mainly on the process, we'll be missing something very crucial and valuable. Though prevenient grace leads to the new birth by a process, there is such a thing as the new birth. Likewise, though God's sanctifying grace is at work in any believer (process), experience shows very clearly that there are moments in which God will "circumcise thy heart" (crisis). Certainly from that point on, people (should and can) continue in grace (process), and both are real.

There is both an act of God and a continuation. I would agree the article needs to do a better job in explaining, but I would like to maintain the tension.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Oord writes:

2. Drop the language in the article that implies that sanctification is a singular, completed work (e.g., “that act of God”). Because…
a. There is little biblical support for the idea of a single, completed work that has no subsequent divine work.
b. If God continually sanctifies, why call entire sanctification “that act,” which is singular?
c. Article ten contradicts itself – it is internally incoherent – when it speaks of one act securing sanctification in the first paragraph “that act” and then speaks of sanctification as involving growth in grace in later paragraphs. We must aim for more precise language to avoid furthering confusion about holiness.

I think Oord is overstating the "incoherent" aspect here.

I believe the language is intended to mean that we grow (mature) toward ES, and after ES there is still more growth (or maturation) but there still remains an "act" which we call ES.

It makes me feel a little "narrow-minded" but I still accept that there is an act (in a moment) that creates a real change. The early disciples left the upper room differently than they entered it on Pentecost. I believe that each individual Christian can experience a "personal Pentecost" (which we call ES).

Oord's complaint here is perhaps better addressed by his #1 recommendation, namely, that we rethink the term, "entire." The idea of growing or maturing before and after doesn't mean that a specific act doesn't take place in the process. Calling it "entire" does confuse the issue.

Wilson

[Dale Cozby]

I am going to give a vague answer to this. I sometimes give a more scriptual and theological answer, but I am going to ramble for a minute. Bear with me.

I believe at the heart of the second work of grace is the completion(up to that point in time) the work the Holy Spirit wishes to acomplish in a believer's life. At that moment in time the term "entire" means "perfect" or lacking nothing for the work the Spirit wishes to accomplish in us.

Oh I can agree that Sanctification is still a process, but at that instant, that crisis experience, that moment of surrender and empowerment, the believer is full of God's grace in a way that is "entire" for the work at hand.

I believe the Bible clearly shows examples of the Spirit working in special ways in the lives of those who had clearly entered the realm of being called a believer long before they received an in filling of the Spirit and were set apart/sanctified/empowered.

The very nature of a "crisis" is temporary in nature. It is a moment in time which requires the believer to cross a threshold. A place of surrender to which a non-believer cannot freely walk. Thus, it is an action which takes place after intial faith in Christ.

I don't mark my crisis experience in sanctification like I do my salvation experience. Sanctification felt more like a level of surrendering to God and empowering BY God that I had not been prepared to accept when I threw myself on His mercy for salvation.

If God had said to me at salvation, "Oh and by the way, I want you to leave your life as you know it and be a minister .." I would have been unprepared to handle such a demand from God. He knew it and I knew it.

But in His time and after many baby steps of faith, I arrived at a place where God could give me a blessing of "entire" sanctification. For me it led me into fulltime ministry. So we can call it whatever, but the infilling was still the same, and it happened years after I was saved.

I have said before that when God saved me, I learned to trust Him and how much He loved me. But when I was sanctified, I learned how much I could love God back, namely entirely.

I have to keep reminding myself it isn't about meeting some systemitized formula someone thought up, but rather about the Father/Creator of the Universe and our relationship.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

You know, I totally believe that a person from the catholic Church, Methodist. Baptist, etc. will at one time in their life make a total committment to God. They will realize after that, that they feel more empowered for His service, better able to rresist temptation, etc. They will know that a wonderful spiritual experience has happened to them, but they don't know what to call it. They will know that things are different, and they are a stronger Christian, and more dedicated to God, than they were before. their life is more holy. They have a stronger desire to please Him, etc. If they just live a life of earnestly praying and striving to be more like Christ everyday, they will eventually be faced with a possible crisis position in their life, where they will completely surrender themselves to Christ.
I do not say that I have totally arrived, or that I am perfect, but I am nothing like I was as a young Christian. I am not tempted to do things that I know to be wrong. So, satan comes at me in different way. For three years, he has been striving to tear our family apart. That means, the thirteen people, including son in laws that are of the Dwayne and Anne Hood family. They are Hood's, Brays and Smiths. Sometimes, it has been so hard on me, considering my heart contion, and other things. Not once have I felt like throwing yp my hands and giving up on Christ. Our family is going through a valley right nowe, and have been for nearly two months, but satan is NOT going to win.We claim every daughter and their family, ourselves, and our son for Christ Jesus. I wnt to serve old slew foot right now, that he had just as well tuck tail and run, because through Christ and the comfort and help of the blessed, we and our family will come out as pure gold. I, personally could not hold up, and take it, if I did not have His Holy Spirit within me. but, I firmlyu believe, that a new babe in Christ has any idea of what all they need to surrender to God. If they did, they would be terrified. I never thought of wanting to be a pastor's wife, and it has been extremely hard on me. but, I did not have to know that was in my future, when I was a babe in Christ. Even, thought I was sanctified byt he time Dwayne ansered his call, I still went to the altar to place that on there, also. It was part of the unknown bundle that had to be surrendered at the time His spirit came to dwell within. I did not know our baby would die, and satan would accuse in so many ways, and even tried to make me pray for Kent to come back alive. That was part of the unknown bundle that I surrendered many years ago. I have told that too very few people. I was not crazy, but I would have ended up being, if I had listened to old Lucifer, and prayed that way. After the baby's death, I went through a time that he would try to plan things in my mind to do to myself. I would talk out loud to him, and say "NO." I would end up llosing my soul and possibly my entire family would lose theirs too--including Dwayne. Can you imagine the burden he would be carrying if I would do any of the things satan wanted me to do? But, I had the Holy Spirit in His fullness protecting me at that time, when my mind and body were so terribly weak.
I could go on and on, but that would probably not help anyone to undestand, how there is not way, that we could begin to know how to fully surrender ourselves complete to God, at the time of justification. At that time, we are forgiven of our sins, up to that moment--and we go away thrilled, and rejoicing. after a while, old slew foot comes around and starts putting doubt in mour mind, and tempting us, etc. Hopefully, we throw ourselves at the foot of the cross for however many hours, days, months, etc. we have to, until we surrender it all to Christ---including the unknown bundle of the things we have no idea of what we will someday face.
Some of you would be shocked, if you knew what all I have been through in this life. But, here I stand today, on the day that we commemorate the day we use as the anniversary of Christ's ressurection from the death, and proclaim to you---This has been the most wonderful, spirit filled Easter Season that i havae ever experienced in my entire 68 years. Say what you may, it will not phase me one ounce. Oh my, as I told Hans once, if I was a shouter, I would be shouting. Don't ever try to tell me anything any different from what I know that I know that I know. Not spell checked. AMEN--so let it be.
Do you have anything else to say?

[Roland Hearn]

You guys have both said that well. I do think that what he says about being internally consistent is good but to the extent that he means by that a moving away from a transforming encounter as both a result of and a precursor to process I would have a great deal of difficulty with because it simply is the reality of too many believers.
Some of what I said in my post to Randy applies here. I actually do think, and I stand a heretic for saying it I know, but I think entire sanctification eludes the systematic theology approach. John Wesley actually never wrote a systematic theology and everyone that has tried since Adam Clarke has not been able to effectively eliminate the "oh but what about.." Not that that is a problem with just Wesleyan theology. All theological camps suffer from that at some point and more than we do for the most part. Wesleyanism has an advantage though, we have never had a fundamental commitment to explaining God, our first commitment is to experiencing him. So this is a tough struggle for the theologians, I'm just happy to let them struggle over it. When it is all said and done I'm happy with the phrase Entire sanctification and the debate that goes along with it. I think we are richer for it. If we had a phrase that satisfied all of the questions maybe people would stop searching it out for themselves. Just a thought.

[Billy Cox]

Having chatted from time to time with Nazarenes with a range of convictions and background, I have realized that there is not even one Article of Faith without some degree of ambiguity or logical tension between two or more divergent positions.

I'll take ambiguity over theological totalitarianism any day.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Sanctification does not mean that "we have arrived." It is both instantaneous (sp). and progressive.

[Ryan Scott]

I'm not sure I can totally agree with you on that one. It really depends on how you define "entire sanctification." I am one who can claim a "crisis" experience that I would call "sanctification," but I wouldn't cling to any definition of "entire" that I've ever heard. After that moment my life has been radically different, but I just wouldn't say it was the way I had grown up hearing a sanctified life would be.

I get what Oord is saying here and I think the "entire" language can mislead people into thinking they have to be perfect, which can be major stumbling block for some.

In my experience, there was a process both before and after the crisis and I'd much rather focus on the process than the crisis, especially when there are so many out there who can't claim a crisis moment.

[Kevin Bowser]

I have realized that there is not even one Article of Faith without some degree of ambiguity or logical tension between two or more divergent positions.

Perhaps that is one of the key things that makes them articles of FAITH. If it were painfully clear to any and all who read them, there might not be any amount of faith needed to abide and uphold them.

[Billy Cox]

Oord writes:

2. Drop the language in the article that implies that sanctification is a singular, completed work (e.g., “that act of God”). Because…
a. There is little biblical support for the idea of a single, completed work that has no subsequent divine work.
b. If God continually sanctifies, why call entire sanctification “that act,” which is singular?
c. Article ten contradicts itself – it is internally incoherent – when it speaks of one act securing sanctification in the first paragraph “that act” and then speaks of sanctification as involving growth in grace in later paragraphs. We must aim for more precise language to avoid furthering confusion about holiness.

Perhaps Article X is internally incoherent due to its attempt to systematize a highly subjective experience. Even the Bible doesn't set out to show a one-size-fits-all formula for salvation, let alone sanctification.

Can we do better? I believe we can...by acknowledging that sanctification is a work of grace that is highly experiential. Perhaps the doctrine needs to be drawn larger and with far more dotted lines. If done properly, such a doctrine would please all but the most diehard legalists. (and those for whom holiness apologetics puts food on their table)

[Billy Cox]

I believe at the heart of the second work of grace is the completion(up to that point in time) the work the Holy Spirit wishes to acomplish in a believer's life. At that moment in time the term "entire" means "perfect" or lacking nothing for the work the Spirit wishes to accomplish in us.


I think your definition of 'entire' is very helpful, but I have this one question.

Could we not say that salvation is also the completion of the work the Holy Spirit wishes to accomplish in a believer's life at that point in time?

[Hans Deventer]

Could we not say that salvation is also the completion of the work the Holy Spirit wishes to accomplish in a believer's life at that point in time?

Sure. But salvation is such a broad concept, that people felt the need for other words to describe parts of the process.

[Hans Deventer]

X. Entire Sanctification
13. 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 the holy obedience of love
made perfect.
It is wrought by the baptism with 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.
Entire sanctification is provided by the blood of Jesus, is
wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration;
and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit
bears witness.
This experience is also known by various terms representing
its different phases, such as “Christian perfection,” “perfect
love,” “heart purity,” “the baptism with the Holy Spirit,”
“the fullness of the blessing,” and “Christian holiness.”
14. We believe that there is a marked distinction between
a pure heart and a mature character. The former is obtained
in an instant, the result of entire sanctification; the latter is
the result of growth in grace.
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.

Oord writes:

#3. Affirm the experiences of Christians whose lives have been characterized by two definite experiences, but regard such experiences as descriptive of some Christians not prescriptive for all. Because…

Although the language of a “second” work in article ten ought to be dropped, the notion that sanctification includes events subsequent to regeneration should be embraced. This notion of the continued transforming work of God in the lives of Christians seems to be at the heart of scripture and the theology of John Wesley.
The language of subsequent events or experiences, which should be included in article ten, can account for the experience of some who point to two distinct experiences. Yet it can also account for the experience of others who point to multiple distinct experiences of sanctification.
The language of secondness undermines the expectation of additional powerful movements of God in the lives of believers.
The language of secondness inclines some to seek theologies (e.g., some Pentecostal theologies) suggesting that a third movement is more important than first two.
Incidentally, there is no mention of “second” in the current article ten.

[Hans Deventer]

I agree. As Mildred Wynkoop did, we need to distinguish between the "substance" and the "circumstance". As she wrote:

The substance of doctrine meeting the crucible of life must adjust its abstractions to the flowing dynamic of life.

and

Doctrine in life may look like a straight rod in a container of water-bent and wavering in the restless liquid and changing perspectives. Wesley knew that the logical simplicity of theology always undergoes an alteration when it meets the complexity of human life. He could not be as dogmatic about the reactions of the human psyche to grace as he was about grace itself. (A Theology Of Love, p 337-338)

Still, she does argue for "second", but with an explanation:

There is a profound significance in the structuring of the Christian life into more than one" moment." The definite number, rather than the indefinite "many blessings," is also highly significant in the Wesleyan way of thinking. It must be granted that the number-two-is not directly derived from Scripture. But this is the point: The meaning of "second" is not in the mathematical sequence of blessings. What is called" second" points to a different kind of step in the process of redemption, a "depth" relationship for want of a better term.
[...]
"One" and "two" simply as a mathematical sequence misses the biblical emphasis of salvation. When viewed as two related kinds of human response in moral experience-privilege and responsibility-the errors of regarding grace nonhistorically, that is, non-relatedly to actual human experience, are avoided.
[...]
In these two kinds of response to God lie all the crisis moments, major and minor, and the processes in grace which characterize responsible Christian experience. (ibid, p 347)

I don't suppose Oord would disagree with what Wynkoop writes here (if i understand him correctly), but it seems we need to explain that the secondness indeed is not mathematical.

[Ryan Scott]

I think this one has too much to do with the last one, so I'm going to post what I wrote about #2. It seems to fit here as well.

I'm not sure I can totally agree with you on that one. It really depends on how you define "entire sanctification." I am one who can claim a "crisis" experience that I would call "sanctification," but I wouldn't cling to any definition of "entire" that I've ever heard. After that moment my life has been radically different, but I just wouldn't say it was the way I had grown up hearing a sanctified life would be.

I get what Oord is saying here and I think the "entire" language can mislead people into thinking they have to be perfect, which can be major stumbling block for some.

In my experience, there was a process both before and after the crisis and I'd much rather focus on the process than the crisis, especially when there are so many out there who can't claim a crisis moment.

[Hans Deventer]

I think this one has too much to do with the last one, so I'm going to post what I wrote about #2. It seems to fit here as well.

Ryan, does a deletion of the word "entire" automaticly lead to deletion of the idea of secondness? I don't think that Oord is suggesting that.

[Ryan Scott]

I was referring to the idea that even though I can claim a "second" experience, I'd prefer not to use language like that in describing sanctification because of the abuses that it enables. I have experienced God's grace on numerous occasions. Who is to say how many or which ones are described as "works" of grace?

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Incidentally, there is no mention of “second” in the current article ten.

Since "second" isn't actually there, I don't think we should have too much trouble dropping it!

Seriously, the phrase "subsequent to," already adequately covers some of the issues he raises. It's ambiguity allows for multiple spiritual experiences (including Bresee's fireball). It says nothing about other experiences so it does not rule them out. It doesn't say that ES is the second and last to the exclusion of all other spiritual experiences. It simply says that says that after initial salvation something deeper can (and should) be experienced.

Note this example: "Subsequent to high school I went to NTS." The fact that between NTS and high school I went to ONU, or the question of whether or not I might pursue doctoral studies somewhere else in the future, simply isn't addressed. It is the same with saying ES is "subsequent" (as opposed to "second" which we've already established isn't even there).

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

Since "second" isn't actually there, I don't think we should have too much trouble dropping it!

That is true, technically. But of course the article does talk about "one experience" that is "subsequent to regeneration". As I understand Oord (and Ryan points towards that too) he would like to have something in the article that allows for more flexibility regarding the "one experience" when it comes to the way that "one experience" is experienced (how's that for a nice sentence :basic03 ).

[Wilson L. Deaton]

... But of course the article does talk about "one experience" that is "subsequent to regeneration". As I understand Oord (and Ryan points towards that too) he would like to have something in the article that allows for more flexibility regarding the "one experience" when it comes to the way that "one experience" is experienced (how's that for a nice sentence :basic03 ).

I understand that and agree. I just think the existing language is only inflexible in that regard if it is read into it by those who happen to think that way.

Perhaps a rewording would prevent such a narrow interpretation.

Wilson

[Roland Hearn]

Wilson, I entirely agree with your perceptions here. I think we are straining a little too hard to make sure we don't say what we don't want to say.
I of course think Wynkoop is brilliant. I have maintained for a long time if we could order our theology and practice to reflect her articulation of it we would be in a much better place as a church. Most people recognize she has something of value to say but I am not sure we have given her anywhere near the place in our movement that she deserves.

[Hans Deventer]

X. Entire Sanctification
13. 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 the holy obedience of love
made perfect.
It is wrought by the baptism with 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.
Entire sanctification is provided by the blood of Jesus, is
wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration;
and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit
bears witness.
This experience is also known by various terms representing
its different phases, such as “Christian perfection,” “perfect
love,” “heart purity,” “the baptism with the Holy Spirit,”
“the fullness of the blessing,” and “Christian holiness.”
14. We believe that there is a marked distinction between
a pure heart and a mature character. The former is obtained
in an instant, the result of entire sanctification; the latter is
the result of growth in grace.
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.

Oord writes:

4. Describe sanctification as a component of and not an addition to salvation.
Because…
a. Unfortunately, most pastors and laity in the Church of the Nazarene talk about being saved and then sanctified. But sanctification is part of salvation.
b. Jesus didn’t split the notion of salvation from sin and the notion of living the holy life. Rather, he understood them to be joined.

[Hans Deventer]

4. Describe sanctification as a component of and not an addition to salvation.
Because…
a. Unfortunately, most pastors and laity in the Church of the Nazarene talk about being saved and then sanctified. But sanctification is part of salvation.
b. Jesus didn’t split the notion of salvation from sin and the notion of living the holy life. Rather, he understood them to be joined.

This is an easy one for me. I agree.

[Roland Hearn]

Yeh, no discussion that is spot on.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

This is an easy one for me. I agree.

Maybe I'm not understanding something, but this was not so easy for me.

I happen to believe that a person can be "saved" but not "entirely sanctified."

Of course there is a sense in which both are part of our "salvation" but with Oord's language the two are tied to strongly together opening the door for some problems (mis-understandings).

Using "component" language seems to imply too much of a "package deal." Saved and sanctified become synonymous. Certainly the two are tied together and both are part of our salvation. This language, I believe, would create some misunderstandings. For example, I believe there are people who have been "saved" but have not been "entirely sanctifed" (as we offiically use the term). How do we express that? Should we start talking about them missing a "component?" Should they no longer seek anything because it is a "component" of what they already have? Why some people have this "component" while others do not?

I think I agree with Oord's thought (mostly) but I really don't like "component" language.

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

I happen to believe that a person can be "saved" but not "entirely sanctified."

So do I. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to use two words.

Of course there is a sense in which both are part of our "salvation" but with Oord's language the two are tied to strongly together opening the door for some problems (mis-understandings).

Using "component" language seems to imply too much of a "package deal."

Well, it actually is a package deal. Salvation contains initial sanctification, entire sanctification and glorification. I have always understood that it is Biblical to say: "I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved".

And good thing about the "package deal" is that we get to understand that salvation doesn't end at the sinner's prayer, but goes on! But we're not going on like "And now, for something completely different" but we continue on the path of salvation, we keep "working it out" because "God is working in us".


Saved and sanctified become synonymous.

I don't think so. We've always said in our theology that at the new birth, initial sanctification has begun. I have never heard people got that mixed up.

Certainly the two are tied together and both are part of our salvation. This language, I believe, would create some misunderstandings. For example, I believe there are people who have been "saved" but have not been "entirely sanctifed" (as we offiically use the term). How do we express that?

By stating that salvation is never finished. By talking about "the most excellent way" (1 Cor 12:31). By preaching about entire sanctification as you have always done.

Should we start talking about them missing a "component?"

No! That would indicate as if they weren't saved yet. They are! But salvation is an ongoing process that implies growth. And there are crisis moments in that process, where God's grace and our readiness and submission meet one another. Which is all part of the salvation process.

Should they no longer seek anything because it is a "component" of what they already have?

Wilson, your are talking way too statically about salvation here. I don't have salvation. Never had, never will. I am being saved. Surely you'll remember your Greek: "if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). "Purifies" is a continuous process here, dependent on our "walking in the light".


Why some people have this "component" while others do not?

Wesley believed it had to do with a person being ready or not. In theory, one could be sanctified entirely at the new birth. In practice, it is always later. It is the way God seems to work with people, seems to have to do with what we can deal with. But surely you knew the answer to that question!

I think I agree with Oord's thought (mostly) but I really don't like "component" language.

Well, call it "part of". That's OK :basic03

[Ryan Scott]

I think a lot of the confusion we have is the faulty way our denomination (or its local representatives) have portrayed the relationship between salvation and sanctification. We've kind of taken an attitude of "we'd love for all of you to be sanctified, but so long as you're saved, you're ok."

That seems like the focus is on the one time decision, when it seems that the focus of our Wesleyan Theology should be on a daily decision, on living a life that moves towards Christ-likeness. If we can frame the explanation in this way, I'm not sure the connection (or lack thereof) between salvation and sanctification becomes as important.

At some point in my life, I made a conscious decision to follow God and confessed my sins. We tend to describe that as "being saved." I'm not sure that's the right way to look at it. Salvation was won for me 2,000 years ago with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have to choose, not just once, but every day to participate in that salvation and if I am sincere in that endeavor, I will move closer and closer to Christ-likeness. This may result in one or more additional "crisis" experiences throughout my life as I am sanctified.

The unique distinction of our Nazarene theology is the emphasis on a holy life. I think we compromise that in some way by focusing on specific events, whether it be "salvation" or "sanctification." Those crisis events are just a small part of both salvation and sanctification.

[Roland Hearn]

Wilson,
Hans has said it very well, this is probably redundant. The confusion comes because we talk about the salvation moment as, "I have been saved." We then add entire sanctification to that moment, giving us two crisis experiences. In truth however Wesley saw salvation as from the moment of first birth through to the moment of entering glory. When we step into eternity is the rightful time of salvation as a completed act. Sanctification happens during that whole process. New birth is initial sanctification, entire sanctification is the moment of utter surrender to the character of God whereby our hearts are aligned with His so that He becomes the center of all we are, progressive sanctification is the constant tinkering on our minds that the Holy Spirit does getting us more and more like Him and ready for our ultimate salvation.
The moments are a part of the process but the process must have the moments.

[Hal Kreps]

For example, I believe there are people who have been "saved" but have not been "entirely sanctifed" (as we offiically use the term).
Wilson

Are you indicating that a person who is saved and not sanctified (entirely or not entirely) is going to come up short of going to heaven?

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Are you indicating that a person who is saved and not sanctified (entirely or not entirely) is going to come up short of going to heaven?

No.

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

Wilson, thinking about images, I think the image of marriage might be a helpful analogy.

Compare dating with getting to know the Lord. The wedding with baptism. But then you actually get to live together and you start to learn about submission, about putting the other first. More often then not, there is a crisis you need to work through before you can really seek the other's well being first and you start to find out that exactly when you do that, you'll find more love than you could have hoped for. The two actually start to become one.

Now you have been married all the time. Everything that happens is part of the deal, a component, whatever you call it. But it is an essential part of it, or phase, if that is a better word. In a healthy marriage, you need to get there.

Or use the image of a journey. We're starting somewhere, we know where we are going and somewhere along the way, we need go through a desert and just as experiences along the way change us, likewise passing through this desert will have profound influence on us. We need to find the springs there and we will never be the same having found them and having gone through the experience. John Bunyan's book comes to mind.

Likewise with entire sanctification. It is all part of God's purpose with us, and thus of the salvation process, the journey. One needs to get there, but usually it is later than baptism.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Hans,

I continue to agree with the concept but the language (which is what this thread is about) stills troubles me.

Prevenient grace, being born again, growing in grace, ES, more growing in grace, glorification.... it's all part of our "salvation." I get that.

However, in the phrase, "saved and sanctified," which Oord takes issue with, we aren't using "saved" as a synonym for the whole of salvation. We are using "saved" in the narrower sense as a synonym for the "born again" part (or component).

Thus, being "saved" is a component of salvation. Being "entirely sanctified" is a component of salvation.

Thus it is valid for someone to say, "saved and sanctified." And it is valid for someone to say they were "saved" when they were 12 and entirely sanctified when they were 17.

If anything, it seems that the real issue here is that we should should broaden the general understanding of "saved" to be salvation, and find another term for the "born again" part. (Of course, we could just call that part, being "born again." ;) )

Journey analogy: If I take spring vaction and go to Orlando, I pass through Indianapolis and Nashville. (Indianapolis = "born again," Nashville = ES) I can call the whole thing my "spring vacation," (salvation) but I can also say, "I went to Indianapolis and Nashville." They were both part of the same trip but I can still distinguish between them.

I don't mind saying that "saved" and "ES" are both components of salvation but I have a problem saying that ES is a component of being "saved" because we just don't usually use "saved" in that broader sense.

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

I don't mind saying that "saved" and "ES" are both components of salvation but I have a problem saying that ES is a component of being "saved" because we just don't usually use "saved" in that broader sense.

I think he's trying to accomplish just that, to use the word in a broader sense, which I think is the more Biblical sense anyway.

[Ryan Scott]

Thus it is valid for someone to say, "saved and sanctified." And it is valid for someone to say they were "saved" when they were 12 and entirely sanctified when they were 17.


While I won't say those experiences didn't happen or weren't valid, I think its irresponsible, in light of our theological heritage, to promote this kind of language. As I said in my earlier post, it's more about the lifelong process of moving towards Christ-likeness, at least that seems to be the major thing that distinguishes our denominational tradition from any other. We emphasize the lifestyle of holiness.

Using the "saved" and "sanctified" language can be confusing, especially when those are the two things we stress the most. I used to say I was saved at the age of eight when I prayed with my Dad. I remember it vividly, but what I realize now is that, more important than the event itself was the fact that it was the first time I really understood what it meant to follow Christ, to move towards Christ-likeness. I'd rather say that this particular moment was the start of my lifestyle of holiness. As I grew older I would say that there were points in my life that I questioned things and didn't move towards Christ-likeness. Through this period I had several crisis experiences where I made decisions of various kinds. I don't believe any of them were more or less important or "eternally meaningful" than any others. Ultimately I can say that at the age of 22 I had another crisis moment that fits most closely to sanctification, where I committed my life to unquestioned obedience to God. It's not that I hadn't had similar experiences in my life with similar commitments, it just so happened that this one actually stuck.

I don't dislike the idea of speaking of crisis experiences "saved" and "sanctified," but I wonder why we continue to promote them when they aren't (or shouldn't be) the focus of Nazarene teaching.

I also have come to the realization that in my own life, if I hadn't been predisposed to the "saved and sanctified" language, I would never come up with that sort of language to describe my spiritual journey.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Much of what has thus far been said in this discussion is old ground. "Being saved" began before the foundation of the world, and it is the process of being made holy, or sanctified. Neither will be completed this side of heaven: God has been reconciling Himself to man. That has been recognized by Nazarenes for more a century. In fact, that is largely the reason Article X has been rehashed and restated for that long. The difficulty is that recognizing it as such a long process doesn't help explain it briefly or distinctly. The broad understanding isn't well explained in a short single phrase - it always requires explanation. When the Manual has attempted to say it briefly, there has always been an outcry demanding that it be a little more defined - either as to what it is, what it does, or isn't and doesn't do. Each generation seemingly needs to work through not only the experience, but the expressing of it. That's one of the reasons I personally don't find it unsettling that Article X has been modified so many times over the years.

Notice how we even have to break into smaller parts the discussion and review.

[Hans Deventer]

X. Entire Sanctification
13. 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 the holy obedience of love
made perfect.
It is wrought by the baptism with 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.
Entire sanctification is provided by the blood of Jesus, is
wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration;
and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit
bears witness.
This experience is also known by various terms representing
its different phases, such as “Christian perfection,” “perfect
love,” “heart purity,” “the baptism with the Holy Spirit,”
“the fullness of the blessing,” and “Christian holiness.”
14. We believe that there is a marked distinction between
a pure heart and a mature character. The former is obtained
in an instant, the result of entire sanctification; the latter is
the result of growth in grace.
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.

Oord writes:

Describe sanctification in light of a relationship between God and creation; God initiates sanctification, but we must properly respond. Because…


Affirm the heart of the Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace, by which God lovingly acts first to empower us to respond. The first phrase of the current formulation of article ten does not reflect prevenient grace. It says that, “We believe that entire sanctification is that act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made free of original sin, or depravity, and brought into the state of entire devotement to God, and the holy obedience of love made perfect.” This suggests that God does ALL the work.
Affirm the Wesleyan dynamic of salvation at play in verses such as “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for it is God who is at work in you?” Affirm the Pauline notion that creatures have an essential role in sanctification when he exhorts believes to “sanctify yourselves.”
Interestingly, the first paragraph of article ten gives the impression that entire sanctification is solely the act of God. But the final paragraph says that entire sanctification “includes the impulse to grow in grace” and “this impulse must be consciously nurtured.” Here, humans are said to require a response.
The article as currently formulated includes a strange irony. That is, unless one purposefully endeavors to give “careful attention to the requisites and processes of spiritual development and improvement in Christlikeness of character and personality,” the grace of entire sanctification apparently provided solely by an act of God can be “frustrated and ultimately lost.” This implies that through no act of our own God entirely sanctifies, but through our actions this entire sanctification can be undone. Remnants of the Reformed tradition’s understanding of divine sovereignty, total depravity, and predestination seem at play.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Oord writes:

Describe sanctification in light of a relationship between God and creation; God initiates sanctification, but we must properly respond.

I'm good to go with this one, but finding good wording will be difficult.

We affirm the truth of Ephesians 2:8-9. We also affirm that we must respond (consecrate, nurture the impulse, etc.). Writing a statement that affirms both at the same time is not easy to do.

Wilson

[John Kennedy]

In light of the discussion on the proposed changes in the Articles of Faith, I thought some might be interested in someof the addresses and papers delivered at the Revisioning Conference at NNU (http://wesley.nnu.edu/).

[John Kennedy]

For some reason, the link posted above doesn't work - it may have been the parentheses. Sooooo, I'll try again - http://wesley.nnu.edu/.

[John Kennedy]

Presumably the parentheses posed a peril to the posting.

[Ryan Scott]

I agree. I think it's a necessary refinement, but as Dennis noted on the thread for #4, finding the right wording is probably the far more difficult task.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm good to go with this one, but finding good wording will be difficult.

We affirm the truth of Ephesians 2:8-9. We also affirm that we must respond (consecrate, nurture the impulse, etc.). Writing a statement that affirms both at the same time is not easy to do.

I agree. Perhaps Randy Maddox's "Responsible grace" could make it into the article. I really like that phrase, it keeps the two in balance while maintaining the initiative of God's grace.

[Hans Deventer]

X. Entire Sanctification
13. 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 the holy obedience of love
made perfect.
It is wrought by the baptism with 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.
Entire sanctification is provided by the blood of Jesus, is
wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration;
and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit
bears witness.
This experience is also known by various terms representing
its different phases, such as “Christian perfection,” “perfect
love,” “heart purity,” “the baptism with the Holy Spirit,”
“the fullness of the blessing,” and “Christian holiness.”
14. We believe that there is a marked distinction between
a pure heart and a mature character. The former is obtained
in an instant, the result of entire sanctification; the latter is
the result of growth in grace.
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.

Oord writes:

6. Affirm necessary roles for both the church and the individual in the initiating and ongoing experience of sanctification. Because…

a. Currently, the role of the church in sanctification is woefully
underemphasized. The importance of the church practices and liturgy in the
nurturing of holiness should be affirmed.

b. As important as language is for describing what we mean by sanctification,
we must acknowledge that holy experience of the saints will never be
adequately formulated in language.

[Hans Deventer]

Oord writes:

6. Affirm necessary roles for both the church and the individual in the initiating and ongoing experience of sanctification. Because…

a. Currently, the role of the church in sanctification is woefully
underemphasized. The importance of the church practices and liturgy in the
nurturing of holiness should be affirmed.

b. As important as language is for describing what we mean by sanctification,
we must acknowledge that holy experience of the saints will never be
adequately formulated in language.

I like both points. I don't see what they have in common, but I would agree with both. In fact, it would be good to include something like "b" in the article.

[Ryan Scott]

This is eerily similar the the thread on "fallen" leaders. I think those evidences presented show us how important the Christian Community is in affirming and supporting the sanctification of individuals.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

a. Currently, the role of the church in sanctification is woefully underemphasized. The importance of the church practices and liturgy in the nurturing of holiness should be affirmed.

The term, "the church," carries way too much baggage for this kind of statement. The idea of being part of a nurturing community of the body of Christ (for instance, the earliest disciples in the upper room on Pentecost) is a far cry from the image most people get from this kind of statement. We are once again back the issue of whether we are called to go to church or to be the church.

If this is going to be mis-interpreted to mean that holiness means buying into the standard church culture (everything from 2 hymns and a sermon on Sunday to the youth group wearing "clever" Chrsitian t-shirts) then I don't like it.

If this is properly formulated to imply that holiness includes "being the church" (being in community and carrying out the mutual "one anothers," etc.) and not a lone ranger then I think it's a good idea.

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

X. Entire Sanctification
13. 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 the holy obedience of love
made perfect.
It is wrought by the baptism with 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.
Entire sanctification is provided by the blood of Jesus, is
wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration;
and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit
bears witness.
This experience is also known by various terms representing
its different phases, such as “Christian perfection,” “perfect
love,” “heart purity,” “the baptism with the Holy Spirit,”
“the fullness of the blessing,” and “Christian holiness.”
14. We believe that there is a marked distinction between
a pure heart and a mature character. The former is obtained
in an instant, the result of entire sanctification; the latter is
the result of growth in grace.
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.

Oord writes:

7. Conceive of sanctification as God’s empowering to love and to avoid sin, not as the removal of a body of sin. Because….


Wesleyans should affirm that Christians can be freed from the habits and lifestyle of sin. Freedom from sin involves God’s empowering to love and the breaking of cycles and habits of sin in our lives.
However, the claim that Christians are freed from original sin is suspect for several reasons.

Original sin as commonly conceived derives from Calvinist/Augustinian roots.
The manual language of “made free from original sin” often leads to preaching against a nature of sin that can be removed. But removing a nature is a strange way to talk.
We should follow the example of Wesley who did not try to identify the way sin is transmitted or offer a comprehensive explanation for why all have sinned. Rather, he devoted his teaching to calling people to respond to God’s call and thereby develop habits of holiness.

Unfortunately, the language of “made free from original sin” suggests that Christians have something removed or eradicated. When the Christian
commits sin subsequent to the experience of entire sanctification, the temptation is to regard these lapses as “mistakes” not sins. And one wonders
why a Christian would voluntarily sin if sanctification frees that Christian from original sin.

[Hans Deventer]

7. Conceive of sanctification as God’s empowering to love and to avoid sin, not as the removal of a body of sin.

I like that approach, it reminds me of Romans 13:10.


Because….

[...]

Unfortunately, the language of “made free from original sin” suggests that Christians have something removed or eradicated. When the Christian
commits sin subsequent to the experience of entire sanctification, the temptation is to regard these lapses as “mistakes” not sins. And one wonders
why a Christian would voluntarily sin if sanctification frees that Christian from original sin.

I think this is the strongest point. I believe the change is relational, not ontological.

[Ryan Scott]

I think the language of change is better than removed. We believe in a transformational gospel, which seems more relevant to me than removal, which reminds me a bit of surgery.

[Hans Deventer]

X. Entire Sanctification
13. 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 the holy obedience of love
made perfect.
It is wrought by the baptism with 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.
Entire sanctification is provided by the blood of Jesus, is
wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration;
and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit
bears witness.
This experience is also known by various terms representing
its different phases, such as “Christian perfection,” “perfect
love,” “heart purity,” “the baptism with the Holy Spirit,”
“the fullness of the blessing,” and “Christian holiness.”
14. We believe that there is a marked distinction between
a pure heart and a mature character. The former is obtained
in an instant, the result of entire sanctification; the latter is
the result of growth in grace.
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.

Oord writes:

8. Offer a doctrine of sanctification that is Trinitarian but not tritheistic. Because…

By this, I do not mean that a full-blown concept of the Trinity must be proposed in article ten. Nor do I mean that each member of the Trinity needs to be mentioned in the article. Nor do I mean that the adjective “Triune” should be placed prior to each mention of God.
Rather, I mean that the doctrine must not single out some aspect of sanctification that is the sole domain of one person of the Trinity. A
tritheistic approach sometimes designates redemption to the Son and sanctification to the Spirit. A Trinitarian notion of sanctification assumes
that the whole Godhead is present in all aspects of sanctification.
One of the many problems with using language about the baptism of the Holy Spirit is that implies that the third person of the Trinity is responsible for sanctification while the other persons are not.

[Hans Deventer]

8. Offer a doctrine of sanctification that is Trinitarian but not tritheistic. Because…

By this, I do not mean that a full-blown concept of the Trinity must be proposed in article ten. Nor do I mean that each member of the Trinity needs to be mentioned in the article. Nor do I mean that the adjective “Triune” should be placed prior to each mention of God.
Rather, I mean that the doctrine must not single out some aspect of sanctification that is the sole domain of one person of the Trinity. A
tritheistic approach sometimes designates redemption to the Son and sanctification to the Spirit. A Trinitarian notion of sanctification assumes
that the whole Godhead is present in all aspects of sanctification.
One of the many problems with using language about the baptism of the Holy Spirit is that implies that the third person of the Trinity is responsible for sanctification while the other persons are not.


It seems #2 is the main point. I have to admit that I have something like, oh well, sure, I guess that's right. It's no hot issue for me. Sorry, Tom!

[Ryan Scott]

I guess, maybe this question might be answered since he's been known to at least read these boards, but I'd be interested in what this triune statement might look like. It's rather difficult for me to conceptualize the language of it in a concrete way.

[Hans Deventer]

X. Entire Sanctification
13. 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 the holy obedience of love
made perfect.
It is wrought by the baptism with 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.
Entire sanctification is provided by the blood of Jesus, is
wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration;
and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit
bears witness.
This experience is also known by various terms representing
its different phases, such as “Christian perfection,” “perfect
love,” “heart purity,” “the baptism with the Holy Spirit,”
“the fullness of the blessing,” and “Christian holiness.”
14. We believe that there is a marked distinction between
a pure heart and a mature character. The former is obtained
in an instant, the result of entire sanctification; the latter is
the result of growth in grace.
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.

Oord writes:

9. Delete mention of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Because…

See above. (#8)
While this phrase has legitimate uses, it is much misunderstood. Fighting the battle to rehabilitate the phrase isn’t worth the effort.
The phrase was never used by Wesley. It has been the source of unnecessary wrangling with our Pentecostal sisters and brothers.

[Hans Deventer]

9. Delete mention of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Because…

See above. (#8)
While this phrase has legitimate uses, it is much misunderstood. Fighting the battle to rehabilitate the phrase isn’t worth the effort.
The phrase was never used by Wesley. It has been the source of unnecessary wrangling with our Pentecostal sisters and brothers.


As I wrote regarding #8, that isn't much of an issue to me. I agree with the misunderstanding. I guess the question is, do we really need that phrase in the article? I guess the answer is no. And it is much more of an AHM concept than a Wesleyan concept indeed.

[Kevin Rector]

I would drop it simply because we should not be confusing in our communication and this phrase does cause confusion.

[Hans Deventer]

X. Entire Sanctification
13. 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 the holy obedience of love
made perfect.
It is wrought by the baptism with 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.
Entire sanctification is provided by the blood of Jesus, is
wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration;
and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit
bears witness.
This experience is also known by various terms representing
its different phases, such as “Christian perfection,” “perfect
love,” “heart purity,” “the baptism with the Holy Spirit,”
“the fullness of the blessing,” and “Christian holiness.”
14. We believe that there is a marked distinction between
a pure heart and a mature character. The former is obtained
in an instant, the result of entire sanctification; the latter is
the result of growth in grace.
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.

Oord writes:

10. Delete the phrase “different phases” from the paragraph listing various terms of sanctification (e.g., “Christian perfection, perfect love, heart purity, baptism of the Holy Spirit, Christian holiness”).
In today’s English, a “phase” refers to a period of time in a larger sequence, as in “phase one,” “phase two,” etc. My office dictionary offers the following definitions of phase:
i. A distinct stage of development
ii. A temporary manner, attitude, or behavior
iii. An aspect or part
None of these definitions fits with the notion that there are many legitimate
terms for talking about holiness and sanctification. The way the paragraph is
currently formulated, one gets the impression that Christian perfection is the
first phase of sanctification, followed by perfect love as the second phase,
followed by heart purity as the third phase, etc.

[Hans Deventer]

Seems like a very obvious improvement to me. I don't know how the word "phase" got there anyway.

[Mike McVey]

Seems like a very obvious improvement to me. I don't know how the word "phase" got there anyway.

I agree that this would be an improvement. We just need to add an "r" and say phrase? :p

That seems to make a little more sense doesn't it?

[Hans Deventer]

I agree that this would be an improvement. We just need to add an "r" and say phrase? :p

That seems to make a little more sense doesn't it?

Yes, it does. Makes you wonder if it isn't simply a typo.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I admit that due to the context, I have always read this to mean phrases rather than phases. The oldest Manual I have is 1928, and it also omits the "r". I am somewhat personally embarrassed that I have misread this for so long.

I will be majorly institutionally embarrassed if it turns out that such has been a typo for nearly a century.

[Doug Kitchen]

I admit that due to the context, I have always read this to mean phrases rather than phases. The oldest Manual I have is 1928, and it also omits the "r". I am somewhat personally embarrassed that I have misread this for so long.

I will be majorly institutionally embarrassed if it turns out that such has been a typo for nearly a century.

ok - i just read it carefully (probably for the first time). I've probably read it many times without thinking about it. It isn't a typo because if it were "phrase" then that would be redundant. "This experience" (which must refer to baptism of the Holy Spirit) is known by various terms. Those terms represent different phases (not phrases).

for clarity, "this" should be clarified - what experience in the previous paragraph is being referred to?

The article implies that entire sanctification goes through phases and is known by many different phrases. Yet it is subsequent and instantaneous. I think the wording implies that we will know the experience by many different terms and therefore is subject to revisioning and revising as languages change.

Well off to Sunday School...

Doug

[Ryan Scott]

I always assumed that the word referred to different phases as in parts of experiences of sanctification. I just assumed they did this because no one could agree on language or an exact definition for any of the phrases.

I'm all for removing it; we are talking about just one thing after all.

[Brad Mercer]

I always assumed "different phases" meant "different facets" of the experience. Th