Eleven Suggestions for a New Article X

[Thomas Oord]

Friends,

As many of you know, I've been spending a great deal of time in the past few years thinking about the Church of the Nazarene's article ten on sanctification. This has also involved speaking to literally thousands of pastors and professors.

Initially, I believed it important to point out what I considered inadequacies in the present formulation. That work culminated in my essay, "Revisioning Article X: 15 Changes." http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesley_conferences/2007/Oord%20Revisioning%20Article%20X%20Paper.pdf

Many of you, my friends on Naznet, have made valuable comments in response to that essay.

I've come to believe that the time for pointing out flaws in article ten must be followed with my suggestions for reconstruction. I don't claim to have any special dispensation. But I do claim to want to be faithful to God and to the denomination to which I am called and serve.

Below are eleven suggestions that I have for how a new article x might be formulated. I offer these as suggestions; they are not meant to be the stuff of stone tablets delivered from on high.

I offer these suggestions in hope that they may, in some way, be helpful as the Church of the Nazarene moves toward a reformulation of its article of faith on sanctification.

Although this post is a bit long, I hope that you all might provide more valuable insights as we all think about how our understanding of sanctification might best be formulated...

Tom

Eleven Suggestions for a Reformulated Article X

The following are eleven suggestions for reformulating the Church of the Nazarene’s article ten on sanctification. These statements are meant to be suggestive, not definitive or authoritative. I offer them as constructive statements in light of my previous fifteen suggestions for what should be changed in the article.

Following each suggestion, a brief sentence is provided as an example of language that might be used to convey the central notion being considered. Effort has been made to make these sentences easily understandable. The assumption is that an easily understood article ten will be more influential in and potentially more unifying of the denomination.

1. A Holy God A doctrine of holiness should begin with a statement about God as the author and exemplar of holiness. Because God’s primary attribute is love and our theological tradition emphasizes the integral relation between holiness and love, the opening statement in the article should express a loving God’s holiness.
a. Ex. “Our loving God is holy, and God desires that we be holy people.”

2. God Acts First A well-formulated article ten should emphasize sanctification as God’s acting first to make possible our response. Sanctification involves divine call and creaturely response.
a. Ex. “God acts to make sanctification possible. God calls us to respond appropriately to the invitation to be holy.”

3. Christ-like Love The themes of love – God’s love for us and our response of loving God and others as ourselves – ought to be the primary focus of article ten on sanctification. This love is best revealed in Jesus Christ. To be holy is to love in a way analogous to how Jesus loved.
a. Ex. “God’s call to be holy people involves calling us to Christlikeness, which means living lives of love.”

4. Other Facets of Holiness The statement on sanctification should acknowledge that the Bible presents many meanings or facets of holiness.
a. Ex. “Biblical writers describe various facets of holiness, including purity, entire devotion, cleansing, being set apart, following codes for living, perfection, etc.”

5. Personal and Communal Our sanctification is best understood as both personal and communal. The statement on sanctification should account for both corporate identity and individual piety.
a. Ex. “God’s call to be holy is both individual and corporate. The Church plays a crucial role in God’s desire that people be holy.”

6. Crisis and Process Language in a reformulated article ten should suggest that sanctification often involves dramatic moments. During these moments, profound transformation instantaneously occurs. But the article should also suggest that sanctification more often involves less dramatic moments. The holy life involves both crisis experiences and the life-long process of Christian formation.
a. Ex. “God's sanctifying work is expressed in dramatic instants, but it is also expressed in ordinary events throughout the developing Christian life.”

7. Secondness The article should implicitly affirm Christians whose lives have been characterized by two definite experiences. But it should regard the two definite experiences as descriptive of some Christians not prescriptive for all. The emphasis should be upon what William Greathouse calls “furtherness” rather than upon secondness.
a. Ex. “God continues to transform Christians beyond the initial transformation that occurs at regeneration.”

8. Sin The article should address the efficacy of sanctification in response to sin. While sanctification should be seen primarily in positive terms, it should also address the sinful acts and habits with which we must deal.
a. Ex. “Sanctification cancels guilt, breaks sinful habits and propensities, and frees the Christian from living a life oriented toward sin.”

9. Empowering to Love Sanctification should be understood primarily as the empowering to love rather than the eradication of a body of sin. But the call to “take off” the sinful habits that destroy should also be understood as part of what it means to become holy.
a. Ex. “The life of holiness involves cooperating with God who empowers us to love and develop Christ-like virtues, while getting rid of the habits of sin.”

10. Virtues and Acts of Kindness An adequate doctrine of sanctification combines an emphasis upon developing the inner life – character formation – as well as doing good to others, including helping the poor and marginalized.
a. Ex. “The holy life also involves the renewal of the Christian’s heart and mind, as well as loving service and giving.”

11. Trinity Statements on sanctification should be implicitly Trinitarian. But the members of the Trinity should not be identified with particular facets or actions of sanctification (e.g., no need to identify holiness with the “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” as if the Father and Son are uninvolved in holiness).
a. (See references to God above.)

[Roland Hearn]

Tom,
I think this is on the right track. I definitely concur with what you have written. I assume that more will be said about many of the points. It is hard to argue against a statement that puts Christlikeness as the the goal.

I think among the discussions we have been having here on the issue there is a reflection on crisis that would suggest that part of the problem has been defining too tightly crisis in terms of the instantaneous. I am of the opinion that when we keep making crisis instantaneous we set it up in opposition to process and we find ourselves struggling to know which to emphasize. The evidence from life seems to be that even the crisis of conversion for some is an event that takes time. The individual knows they are saved and once they were not but they are not sure when it took place. That does stand in opposition to the general evangelical position but it is the observed truth. I think Wesley described ES in those terms saying something along the lines that when you are with someone that is dieing you may not know the moment of death but you know where there once was life and now there is not. Imho it would be helpful to stop talking about crisis in terms of the instantaneous but recognize the dynamic of transformation from one state (if that is the right word) to another is a crisis event. With such recognition we can continue to encourage people to push on to this state of grace and let God worry about the details. This puts crisis firmly in the process model but also recognizes there is in fact genuine and significant transformation that is clearly distinct from maturity.

"Let us take hold of God and not let Him go until He blesses us" should be part of our emphasis. My personal fear is if we continue to polarize process and crisis we actually end up with a situation where we emphasize one over the other and end up in reality with neither. We must be a sanctified people with an emphasis that walks around if we are to have a reason to continue to exist.

[Thomas Oord]

Roland,

I'm happy that you and I agree! And I want to agree further by endorsing your view that the crisis language is a very important factor in the discussion of holiness.

My own way of talking about crisis is to speak of the radical transformation that can occur in dramatic "moments." I call these dramatic moments of radical transformation "turning points." I think almost all of us can look back to particular times when our lives took drastic turns or when we were forever changed in a mighty way.

Take, as an analogy, the turning point in my life when I chose to attend college. I'm a very different person now because of this dramatic moment in my life. That decision didn't GUARANTEE that I'd graduate with a college degree, let alone do well in my studies. But I wouldn't have gone to college had I never made that decision.

Analogously, some moments in the Christian's life are radically transforming. Others are much less so. But the radically transforming moments are noteworthy even if they don't GUARANTEE a long life lived abundantly.

Thanks again, Roland...

Tom

[Mike McVey]

5. Personal and Communal Our sanctification is best understood as both personal and communal. The statement on sanctification should account for both corporate identity and individual piety.
a. Ex. “God’s call to be holy is both individual and corporate. The Church plays a crucial role in God’s desire that people be holy.”


Tom,

I haven't read all of your previous statements about this particular point, but I think this is one specific area that has been largely absent in my growing up.

It was so liberating the first time I heard about communal holiness, that it was not just a Jesus an' Me thing. Someone once told me that you cannot have a sanctified person without a sanctified church. The first time I heard that it sounded so weird, because I have been taught that Christianity and specifically sanctification is to be very personal and private event (which always confused me on what evangelism actually looked like). Other than quoting Ephesians 6, I really do want to hear some constructs of what a holy church actually looks like as opposed to holy people doing individual things for God. This is not to discount personal piety, but all my life I have heard that pp is something we more or less do without a church to be there as a place of support. Hope this does not sound garbled.

[Thomas Oord]

Mike,

Thanks for your good response to the issues of personal and communal holiness. I too heard very little about communal holiness. And I've come to think there are good reasons for this -- not the least of which is that few people were confident that they understood at all what holiness means!

It is fairly easy for me to conceive of a holy people, if "holy" here means something like "set apart for God's use." And I think this is an important factor in holiness. It's more difficult for me to think of a holy people if "holy" means something like "chooses to respond to God's call to live righteously." This latter notion is complicated by the question of whether it makes sense for a body of people to have a collective will. And it seems to me that if we can talk about a body of people not choosing righteousness, it may be that some persons in that community act righteously as prophets despite the unrighteousness of the larger whole. So... it gets complicated.

The main point, however, is that we are not isolated individuals. And God calls us corporately, as well as personally, to be holy. Like you, I would like to see more talk about corporate holiness!

Tom

[Roland Hearn]

Mike,

Thanks for your good response to the issues of personal and communal holiness. I too heard very little about communal holiness. And I've come to think there are good reasons for this -- not the least of which is that few people were confident that they understood at all what holiness means!

It is fairly easy for me to conceive of a holy people, if "holy" here means something like "set apart for God's use." And I think this is an important factor in holiness. It's more difficult for me to think of a holy people if "holy" means something like "chooses to respond to God's call to live righteously." This latter notion is complicated by the question of whether it makes sense for a body of people to have a collective will. And it seems to me that if we can talk about a body of people not choosing righteousness, it may be that some persons in that community act righteously as prophets despite the unrighteousness of the larger whole. So... it gets complicated.

The main point, however, is that we are not isolated individuals. And God calls us corporately, as well as personally, to be holy. Like you, I would like to see more talk about corporate holiness!

Tom

It is hard to escape Wesley's injunction at this point that "there is no holiness without social holiness." While it may be considered in terms of practical involvement in the societies in which we live it is hard to escape the fact that societies are nothing more or less than a complex matrix of relationships. Holiness can not be conceived independent of the idea of holy relationships. Of course I recognize that I am not so much preaching to the choir here but as a choir member speaking to the preacher.

[Thomas Oord]

I agree, Roland. Although I prefer to think of myself as a choir member alongside you!

Tom

[Roy Richardson]

Tom,

I haven't read all of your previous statements about this particular point, but I think this is one specific area that has been largely absent in my growing up.

It was so liberating the first time I heard about communal holiness, that it was not just a Jesus an' Me thing. Someone once told me that you cannot have a sanctified person without a sanctified church. The first time I heard that it sounded so weird, because I have been taught that Christianity and specifically sanctification is to be very personal and private event (which always confused me on what evangelism actually looked like). Other than quoting Ephesians 6, I really do want to hear some constructs of what a holy church actually looks like as opposed to holy people doing individual things for God. This is not to discount personal piety, but all my life I have heard that pp is something we more or less do without a church to be there as a place of support. Hope this does not sound garbled.
Tom,

Good to see a fellow OOZER (http://www.theooze.com) over here as well. I second this thought. I recently preached on Mark 2:1-12 and stressed the communal nature of salvation and holiness. Jesus and Me is killing the body life of the church, and we have some rough sledding ahead as we try to reclaim the communal nature in our denomination.

Thanks for bringing it up. Should I expect to see this on a ballot in Orlando?

[Jamie Wayne]

Tom,

Well done!

I might like to add something about how sanctification is not merely divinization or theosis, but our becoming whole in our humanity, just like Jesus was fully human.

I like your Trinitarian conception (Relational Holiness was awesome; actually, I just ordered one as a Christmas gift just today), but I have been thinking about the Christological implications, too. Jesus was not just fully God, but fully man. As such, since we cannot be fully God in the same way that Jesus was, is it possible that we be fully man? It seems to me that we can only be fully human when we love. In other words, all too often we humans have built walls between us and the "other", and it's only by tearing down such walls with love that we are able to grow. The Levite wouldn't touch the man bloodied at the side of the road because he didn't want to become unclean. The unclean woman touched Jesus' cloak, in effect making Jesus unclean. Yet, there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, free nor slave. To be fully human is to realize that we are the man at the side of the road, that we are the unclean woman. We can no longer think in our typical "tribal" mentality where we repress others in the (failed) attempt at raising ourselves up. Only love can do that, and love doesn't differentiate between Jew and Gentile. Love doesn't take the long way around town to avoid becoming "unclean". We can only become fully human, like Jesus was, when we, too, put aside that which keeps us from loving each other.

Part of what the Holy Spirit does is frees us from our human prejudices and, hence, frees us to more fully love - which is what we were created for. Part of what the Holy Spirit does in this process is to convict us of where we've missed the mark, and often we miss the mark by failing to see the image of God in ourselves and in our neighbors.

When we see Jesus in the beggar, and we consider ourselves unworthy to tie the beggars sandals, then we are entirely sanctified, so to speak...when we see Jesus in our brother - and in those who would otherwise be our enemy.

I don't mean this in any "new age" sort of way, nor by its roots in advaita vedanta; rather, perhaps we have thought too long that Jesus became a man so that we could become gods - when in doing so, perhaps we have overlooked that Jesus became a man so that we might learn to be men fully alive, whole, and fully human.

If I'm not making sense, forgive me...:)

Jamie

[Ryan Scott]

Jamie


He's back and not missing a beat. Apparently Jamie was sabbatical for the remainder of the Church year.

[Jamie Wayne]

Tom's thread is too important to stay silent...first to endorse what he wrote, and second, to add my own twist - however twisted it may be.

[Thomas Oord]

Roy,

I assume your last comment about Orlando has to do with whether these suggestions will turn up as part of an official offering at General Assembly of a reformulated article x. To be honest, I don't know. I talk some with those who are part of the special taskforce set up to consider this issue, but they are understandably tight-lipped about the substance and process of their work. I remain hopeful that something helpful will emerge. But I don't know enough at present to make any kind of evaluation.

Tom

PS. I need to visit the ooze more often. It has been months!

[Thomas Oord]

Jamie,

Thanks for the post! I do think you are making sense -- although I don't claim to be an expert on the "logic" of Trinitarian theology. I do find some parts helpful, and I find your post in particular helpful.

Thanks!

Tom

[Jamie Wayne]

Tom,

Thanks for your comment; I'm glad that you made some sense of what I wrote.

If I'm not mistaken, I think that I've mentioned this to you before, but I so strongly believe that Article X should be written in such a way that all Christians can easily understand it, that I think it's worth mentioning again.

I would urge that any revision of Article X be set forth with the criteria that it be ecumenically minded, so that it can be understood by any Christian. This ties in to what I wrote earlier, because we don't want to promote the CotN as a "tribe"; holiness isn't about being set apart in a tribal manner, it's about being a unifying body. My criteria would be this: any revised Article X should be easily understood by a Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Baptist, etc..., and if it's not, then revise it again.

If sanctification is about that holiness which makes one whole, then any article on sanctification must take a holistic approach which recognizes Christendom beyond Nazarenedom in its conception of sanctification.

That would probably be my biggest suggestion on the revision of Article X.

Thanks for hearing me out, Tom, and please keep at it.

Jamie

[Glenda Harvey]

Jamie,

Welcome back. You've been missed.

[Hans Deventer]

8. Sin The article should address the efficacy of sanctification in response to sin. While sanctification should be seen primarily in positive terms, it should also address the sinful acts and habits with which we must deal.

Article X doesn't stand alone of course. It needs to follow from the articles on sin and redemption in general. Especially our definition of sin is important. Not like the well known one, but further back. What is sin? Rebellion? Then we need to be conquered and surrender. Disease? Then we need the great Healer. Lack of insight? Delusion? Then we need the Truth. Love towards the wrong object? Then we need Someone else to become the centre of our lives. Anyway, the list can be made longer but you'll get the drift. Sanctification is the opposite of sin. So it has to make sense in relation to our root understanding of sin, and I think, go beyond "sinful acts and habits".

[Hans Deventer]

I talk some with those who are part of the special taskforce set up to consider this issue, but they are understandably tight-lipped about the substance and process of their work.

So tight-lipped I didn't even know there WAS a task force!

[Larry Belew]

This is fascinating. Keep the discussion going for my sake, if nothing else. I was raised by dear Nazarenes who used the example of the sin nature being a seed that needed to be dug out so that acts of sin didn't keep sprouting up. Keep in mind, that's how it was explained to a child. As a teen, I made many trips to the altar trying to get sanctified. Finally, when I was in grad school an evangelist explained it in a way that I could admit that I was sanctified. (Don't ask me for a definition, please.) I'm not ready to turn on my upbringing, but am very interested by what I'm reading here.

[Roy Richardson]

Roy,

I assume your last comment about Orlando has to do with whether these suggestions will turn up as part of an official offering at General Assembly of a reformulated article x. To be honest, I don't know. I talk some with those who are part of the special taskforce set up to consider this issue, but they are understandably tight-lipped about the substance and process of their work. I remain hopeful that something helpful will emerge. But I don't know enough at present to make any kind of evaluation.

Tom

PS. I need to visit the ooze more often. It has been months!

Tom,

I'm no manualologist, but I believe a resolution has to start with a district assembly and be sent to the General Assembly. I'll confess I haven't read that section this week.

RE: the OOZE, drop in when you have time. You are always welcome.:)

[Thomas Oord]

Jamie,

Thanks for the additional comments. I too want the article to be easily understood. And I like to stress our similarities with other Christians, even though there may be differences.

Thanks!

Tom

[Thomas Oord]

Hans,

Thanks for your post on the sin issue. There are many with whom I talk who want eventually to rewrite the article on sin. That article is not clear.

(By the way, did you know that the longest article of faith is our statement on sin? Interesting!)

I purposely did not go into detail on the sin issue in my suggestions for a reformulated doctrine of sanctification. I didn't because

a) I think the article on sanctification should primarily be a positive statement about toward whom or what one is oriented.
b) I think the statement on sanctification needs to be kept fairly brief.
c) I don't know that there is wide consensus on how best to talk about turning from sin, even though this aspect of sanctification is important.

If I were to delve deeply into discussing the root of sin, I would talk about sin acts as improper responses to God's call to love and the propensity/habit/inclination to sin as an improper orientation away from the life of love that God desires of us.

Thanks again for your good response!

Tom

[Thomas Oord]

Roy,

Yes, the typical route for a manual change is that it arises from a district assembly. But I presume that a special task force might easily work alongside a district assembly to make a proposal. Furthermore, paragraph 32 of the manual indicates that the General Assembly itself can take the initiative to recommend alterations.

Tom

[Thomas Oord]

Larry,

Thanks for your post on your background and on the issue of the sin nature. There is a great deal of discussion going on right now about the helpfulness of the word "nature." As you rightly note, many preached that this nature could be removed (eradicated). But this was problematic on two main fronts:

a) a "nature" is not a something that can be removed (i.e., not a thing)

b) those who claimed to have this nature removed still committed sin

I personally prefer language about habits or propensities that can be transformed or reoriented. This strikes me as important for solving the two problems noted above, while accounting for the radically changed lives that I encounter as I interact with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Tom

[Ryan Scott]

A proposal can be sent to the General Assembly either by the vote of a District Assembly or by the signatures of (I think) 5 General Assembly delegates. I know Dave got talked into putting his name atop one proposal last time around that came from a group of concerned delegates and not any one district.

Also, judging by the mandate of the last assembly to convene a group of theologians to discuss any future changes to the Articles, a report to the next assembly was required. I suspect it will simply take a motion by someone on the floor to accept the suggestions to bring it before the assembly in an official way.

[Thomas Oord]

Also, judging by the mandate of the last assembly to convene a group of theologians to discuss any future changes to the Articles, a report to the next assembly was required. I suspect it will simply take a motion by someone on the floor to accept the suggestions to bring it before the assembly in an official way.

Ryan,

I'm curious about your statement that the mandate be discussed by "a group of theologians." Is that the exact wording, or are you just speaking off the cuff?

I ask, in part, because I had authored a proposed addition to article 1. But I have not heard whether a group of theologians have addressed the proposal nor if the task force I mentioned in my earlier post (which has very few professional theologians) has been given the task of addressing the tabled proposals from the last GA.

Tom

[Ryan Scott]

I know they took all the provisions regarding the Articles and sent them to a committee. I don't remember the exact wording, but it was something like "composed of theologians representing the interantional scope of the Church of the Nazarene." It also said they were to report back to the next assembly with recommendations.

I would guess that task force is the group. It didn't stipulate professional theologians and I suspect there won't be as many as there should be. I don't have a lot of hope for those sorts of groups, but maybe they will prove me wrong.

[Hans Deventer]

I know they took all the provisions regarding the Articles and sent them to a committee. I don't remember the exact wording, but it was something like "composed of theologians representing the interantional scope of the Church of the Nazarene." It also said they were to report back to the next assembly with recommendations.

Yes. I don't recall that any new amendment with theological content would be referred to such a committee, but on the other hand, if it would happen, I'd very much applaud the General Secretary for acting in the spirit of the last GA.

[Laurie Florence]

Jamie,

Welcome back. You've been missed.

Yes, I was missing the Jamie Wayne perspective on the theology discussions. Welcome back, and Merry Christmas! :)

[Jamie Wayne]

He He He. ;)

[Thomas Oord]

Ryan,

An update on the GA-appointed, revisions review committee:

I spoke with someone who is part of that committee. Apparently it was formed, has met, and was comprised of representatives from several global regions.

The group addressed the proposals from the last GA related to changes in the articles of faith -- including my proposal that "loving" be inserted among the attributes of God in article one. Presumably, their work will now need to be considered by delegates at the next GA.

For what it's worth...

Tom

[Eric Frey]

Jaime wrote: "I might like to add something about how sanctification is not merely divinization or theosis, but our becoming whole in our humanity, just like Jesus was fully human."

Been reading your John Paul 2? That sounds straight out of his emphasis on what it means to be truly and fully human. If you haven't read...you should.

[Jamie Wayne]

Eric,

I loves me some JPII; most recently I've been getting those same ideas from a nefarious retired Episcopal bishop from Newark. Funny how two cats so far apart from each other theologically can come up with some similar ideas, don't you think?

Jamie

[Richard Call]

I have read all the current information regarding the proposed changes to article #10 of our manual. With all due respect to Tom Oord and those agreeing with proposal I submit that I am deeply concerned and fully disagree with these proposals.

First, I am not opposed to change as such. However, I am concerned that these proposals represent a serious compromise to what I have believed was true in the CotN. I took my studies at Olivet in the early 60's under men like SS White. H. Orton Wiley was the theologian of the time. Article #10 was the structure of our belief in ES. When I took my ordination commitments I vowed before God to uphold the doctrines and polities of the CotN. I have faithfully believed and kept this vow.

Now, as I read these proposed changes, I see a church that has lost its identity. When I pastored we could tell the new believers were are a "holiness church" and could define, with distinction, what that meant as stated in article #10 of the manual. Anxiously, we watched that, as we preached and lived holiness as a church, they would become hungry for the purity and freedom from inbred sin. Now it is be proposed that ES longer to be considered an "second definite instantaneous work of grace," and that freedom from inbred sin is to be negated in the new article #10. It is no longer instantaneous, rather full place is given to growing from intial sanctification toward a goal of fullness in Christ that concludes at death. (I believe in maturitional growth after ES is established) This sounds familarly Calvinistic. Are we now to be Wesleyan Calvinists?

These proposals sound like saying we no longer believe what we once believed, but it is so stated that we are saying we believe what we once believed but we don't. That is a paradoxical statement.

I have a different proposal: Let's hold the fort on article #10 and renew our commitment to preaching the full gospel that saves from ALL sin and delivers the believer from the sinful nature. (I read where we cannot change a "nature." Howeve, the sinfulness of that nature can be cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ and it is a new nature.) Let's get on with our original task. Too many of our people in the church have little understanding of the doctrine of ES simply because it has been long neglected within our circles. Anything less than this will take us down the primrose path of further compromise into the unknown world of further theological compromises and soon we will be in the same camp with the liberal churches advocating an encumenical Christ.

Let me say, also, that I read that those of us in the past were guilty of advocating a "Tribal holiness' which is offensive to every pastor who has faithfully taught ES. It was not a "Tribal holiness" rather is was the gospel of a pure heart available to whomsoever will.

Finally, it is very hurtful to me to think that after 31 years of pastoring that what I preached was a "sugar coated lie." Those pastors and evangelists who have advocated article #10, as it is, could be considered guilty of heresy according to the present proposals.

My brothers in Christ, I am not a theologian, but a retired pastor who has a love for the CotN. She has given me a place to minister fully in what I believe is the best place, and message, to which a man could give himself. My children were educated in her university. My oldest son is in heaven because of the influence of the church. How can you take so lightly the truths that have been our key doctrine? Changing article #10 is not the answer. Preaching, living, teaching ES is our mission. God help us to so continue.

[Ryan Scott]

I thank you for your concern in this area and I have two comments. The first is simply, what do we do with people whose lives evidence a sanctified heart, but have never had one instantaneous experience? Are they not sanctified? According to our current definition, they are not. This cannot remain as it is.

Secondly, I am excited that you can explain to people what holiness means based on Article X, because, for the life of me, I have no idea what those words mean. The definition just doesn't line up with the way people think and speak anymore. I know from my experience that sanctification was the moment I gave control of my life to God. I can explain sanctification from my studies and experience, but I can't explain it from Article X, because it seems totally incoherent. It needs to be updated as times change. I don't believe any of the new proposals water down the power of sanctification, but reorient them for a new way of thinking.

Perhaps we need more discussion because I don't believe your summary of current alternative proposals (total sanctification only at death) is accurate.

[Charles W Christian]

Richard,

I would echo some of Ryan's concerns, although I see the importance of maintaining an emphasis upon the sanctified life, and the concept of both "crisis" and "process" in regard to discussing entire sanctification.

The statement itself in Article X seems too "pieced together" though, and if it's going to be a theological statement (which it purports to be), then it needs to at least be more precise.

I think a big reason that people do not preach or teach ES as often is due to the inconsistencies within our own statement and within the attempts that many of our theologians have had in trying to make sense of the wording of Article X as it is currently written.

So, again, I think the twofolk issue that arises is:
1) The danger of trying to force a cookie-cutter experience upon everyone;
and
2) the imprecision of the wording of the article itself, which leads (and has lead) to confusion in regard to what we really mean. Now, I've heard those who have said, "The oldtimers all knew what it meant," but documented evidence shows that this is not entirely so. There have always been divergent ways of presenting and even conceiving of ES, and the tweaks and changes to Article X, and its imprecision, has added to this divergence to the point of confusion.

Frankly, what I hear often (not in your posts, but in many) is more like the guarding of sacred cows rather than a striving for theological/doctrinal precision regarding the wonderful gift of a holy life that God has provided. This troubles me most of all, and this charge does include many active and retired evangelists and pastors, and a theologian or two, in the Church of the Nazarene. Once we stop operating out of fear (which does not lead to holiness!), then we can actually dialogue better. I have seen attempts even in Tom Oord's latest recommendations to be open to other concerns that I was not aware of in some of his initial recommendations, and I applaud this and think it is great progress....

God bless,

Charles

[Roland Hearn]

Richard,
I think what you suggest are legitimate concerns. It certainly seems to me that we are at a cross roads. We run the risk of loosing something very precious, very true and very vital, if we allow our statements to loose an emphasis on ES that marks it as an encounter with God that transforms our lives. ES is not maturity, it is not a long drawn out process at work in our lives until we die. That is progressive sanctification and ES is the work that allows that process to continue unabated in our lives. I am certain we should not run head long into changes that seem theologically accurate but allow an individual to live their lives without ever being confronted with a the possibility of a heart purified by faith.

My own experience, as I have mentioned elsewhere on a couple of threads, was one of instantaneous transformation. I have, however, definitely noticed that for some that same impact takes place over a period of time, however it always seems to me that that time frame has a beginning and an end. So I think to have language that only allows for my type of experience does an injustice to the power of the God's grace. Yet I would say this, those that have had an experience of ES that transpired over a period of days or weeks or months are no less sanctified than I and they are on the same continuum of progressive sanctification that I am.

Having said that if we loose through changes to our language or, more importantly, changes to our experience this message of holiness of which ES is a central and essential component we have in fact lost our reason to exist. I think we do need to find a way of saying that is clear and makes sense in today's world but when we are done we must be saying something that advocates the same quality of Christian life that we have always advocated.

[Hans Deventer]

Richard,

I talked to Tom about this, and it is his concern that we neither lose sight of the crisis, nor of the process. It is, however, not so simple to keep those in proper balance. A balance that isn't in the current statement either.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

For the sake of the discussion I merged the "Concerned Pastor" thread with the "Eleven Suggestions" thread.

[Richard Call]

Ryan, I note in your response to my thread that you asked if those who did not seem to have a second definite experience were truly Entirely Sanctified. My reply is this: there must a moment of entering into this rest. If the person was certain that he could definitely testify to be entirely sanctified, when did he become concious of that fact. There had to be a sense of change of which he is concious. He did not just stumble into it accidentally while he was "unconcious" of his inner self. As you know, sanctification is initial at regeneration. Jesus said those who hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled. Is it possible to have this hunger and thirst and never know the moment that thirst was quenched, or, does one go through life with a perpetual hunger and thirst without knowing the promised righteousness?

You say you cannot explain Entire Sanctification as stated in article #10. Is that the fault of the written statement? Or, could it be that there is a reluctance to accept fully what the statement says? If one can explain what it means to be plagued by the carnal nature, the sinful nature and what it means to be delivered from that plague in simple language then what is the problem? Paul did a good job in Romans 7 & 8. "Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ may Lord. Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

No man is fully capable of giving a conscise, accurate, fully comprehensible statement of the cleansing work of Christ. After the finest theological statement is written as Article #10 it will be woefully short in the full explanation of this wonderful cleansing of the heart of all sin.

Thanks for you comments. May God's very best be yours. RC

[Ryan Scott]

Is it possible to have this hunger and thirst and never know the moment that thirst was quenched, or, does one go through life with a perpetual hunger and thirst without knowing the promised righteousness?

I guess I can't answer this well as my experience was one of crisis. However, there are those who cannot point to one specific time in which they experienced sanctification. I have to take that seriously as many of their lives exhibit a far greater example of holiness than my own.

[Roland Hearn]

Richard,
I would suggest that there are those that have clearly entered into the experience of ES without a clear understanding of the moment. They are aware that they have been transformed, they are aware that the struggle is no longer there, they are aware that they are in a relationship with God through Christ that is reflected in a life lived in holiness. I would say even without a clear sense of the moment they have in fact entered that rest. I think if a person says, "I don't know, I think I am but I never had an experience" probably we should not be too quick to assure them that they are. One that says "I know I am but I can't say when it exactly happen" probably should not be doubted. That is a more dynamic view then currently our article would allow. Still I say we should be slow to change.

[Hans Deventer]

Richard,

I don't know if you read the preceding stuff. Tom's paper at the 2006 NNU conference, describing the problems he sees with the current statement, is here: http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesley_confere...0X%20Paper.pdf

And we had quite a discussion on NazNet on the topic, you can find that here: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=12329

I know it's quite a read, and there is even more. There also a thread on the new Article of Faith relating to ES of the Free Methodist Church, it can be found here: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=15963

[David Pettigrew]

I think Richard's post is representative of the majority of voting delegates that will be present at GAs for at least the next eight years. I don't anticipate a major overhaul of Article X in 2009. My only hope is that we are able to have the discussion.

As someone who agrees wholeheartedly with the eleven suggestions, and would love to see every one of them implemented, I would not like to see it happen in a way that divides the church, and drags those who have given their lives to building it kicking and screaming, or even showing them to the door. That would go against the very theology being proposed.

So, we have a job to do, and it will take a long time to do it. Young Nazarenes must decide if we care enough about the church to stick with it, even if it doesn't change at the rate we think it should.

I choose to remain in the wesleyan holiness movement because I don't know of another group that is even having this conversation. As long as the conversation continues, I'm in, even if no changes are put on paper.

If, however, GA 2009 were to turn into the Southern Baptist convention, with "conservatives" playing politics, and not giving "liberals" a seat at the table, I can't imagine sticking around. The good news is I don't see this happening.

[Roland Hearn]

So, we have a job to do, and it will take a long time to do it. Young Nazarenes must decide if we care enough about the church to stick with it, even if it doesn't change at the rate we think it should.

I would caution against identifying with a crusade for change to any great extent. It seems to me that if our young people are genuinely encountering God at the depth of their being and are experiencing ES in a transformational way - the change will be inevitable, timely and productive. If they "hang around" simply to be agents of change the change will come but the church may as well cease to exist. I say let's keep talking but lets, for God's sake, keep encouraging genuine encounter with grace out of which the changes that may be necessary will flow.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Many sanctified saints have made it to glory with the wording we have now. Just like, many saints have made it through to glory with the KJV, that is full of mistakes, but many of us still love it--and some of us understand the corrections in the NIV and love it, too.
So, if there is no quick change, if we do our part, of being His hand, feet, etc., we will still be able to see the transforming power of the Holy Spirit at work in our midst.

[John Kennedy]

Anne -
I've been out of the church for over 30 years, but having grown up in a Nazarene parsonage (Dad and Mom both preachers), I still have a reasonably fair understanding of the issues involved in this discussion. Whether or not I agree with either side on this issue is immaterial.

But I think you very succinctly stated what should be the primary concern throughout this discussion: that we "do our part of being his hand, feet, ... we will still be able to see the transforming power of the Holy Spirit at work in our midst."

Even though I sometimes find myself in disagreement with you, I like your spirit.

[Charles W Christian]

I would caution against identifying with a crusade for change to any great extent. It seems to me that if our young people are genuinely encountering God at the depth of their being and are experiencing ES in a transformational way - the change will be inevitable, timely and productive. If they "hang around" simply to be agents of change the change will come but the church may as well cease to exist. I say let's keep talking but lets, for God's sake, keep encouraging genuine encounter with grace out of which the changes that may be necessary will flow.

Roland,
I think your words are wise and timely. Issuing edicts of change, even if (in the COTN, especially if!) one has theological degrees, is not the ideal way for change to happen. I think cumulative experience reflected upon by folks (including those of us with theological degrees, ordination certificates, etc.) is a great "partnership for change" that is needed.

Right now, I see battle lines being drawn, but I think once the GA rolls around, we will see the wheels turning slowly, which is frustrating. However, as you mention, the broadening definitions and experiences that are already happening among old and young will eventually help us not only describe but experience the sanctifying work of the Spirit with more and more clarity.

Thanks!

God bless,
Charles

[Ryan Scott]

So, we have a job to do, and it will take a long time to do it. Young Nazarenes must decide if we care enough about the church to stick with it, even if it doesn't change at the rate we think it should.


I'm in for the long haul and I'm getting to where I don't mind a boat that turns slowly. I just hope we don't take a step back before we can take a step forward.



(I'll accept my award for best mixed metaphors sometime after the cows come round the bend.)

[Hans Deventer]

Right now, I see battle lines being drawn

If we can all agree that it is the substance of ES that defines our church, not the formulation, and that the old one isn't perfect nor that the new one will automaticly be an improvement, I don't see reason for any battles to be fought.

We can just quietly read any proposals for change and "calmly consider" if they are an improvement in communicating God's work in us or not.

[Jamie Wayne]

Jaime wrote: "I might like to add something about how sanctification is not merely divinization or theosis, but our becoming whole in our humanity, just like Jesus was fully human."

Been reading your John Paul 2? That sounds straight out of his emphasis on what it means to be truly and fully human. If you haven't read...you should.

Eric,

I might add to my previous post in response to yours, that I just read N.T. Wright say: "...God's authority vested in Scripture is designed, as all God's authority is designed, to liberate human beings, to judge and condemn evil and sin in the world in order to set people free to be fully human. That's what God is in the business of doing."

- N.T. Wright: How Can The Bible Be Authoritative, reprinted in Vox Evangelica 21, 1991, from The Laing Lecture 1989 and the Griffith Thomas Lecture 1989.

It would seem, getting back to Article X, that Entire Sanctification, then, is about being fully human. We can have a moment of being fully human, but we are also, often, engaged in the process of becoming fully human. In a sense, there is the now/not yet concept applied to Entire Sanctification, too, because, it seems to me, that we are only truly free from sin, i.e., able not to sin & unable to sin (posse non peccare et non posse peccare), when we're "in" heaven. Until then, sanctification applies to beings capable of sinning and capable of not sinning, and, as such, consists of individual moments - in some moments we may be "entirely" sanctified, while in other moments we are being "entirely" sanctified. We can have moments of being fully human, yet we can also lapse back, if you will, into moments of becoming fully human. Either way, looking at it from God's perspective (if I may be so bold), I agree with Bishop Wright, that it's God's business to be setting us free to be fully human - God's business, then, isn't so much about a "ticket" to paradise, but the realization of who we really are - and the living of it. Having said that, we might think of such a thing as divinization or theosis, but that's only, perhaps, because we often think of such a being fully human as something beyond our grasp as humans. Article X, then, is really about affirming that it is not only God who can love perfectly, but, in harmony with God, we can too. Perfect love is not only the primary attribute of God, but the primary image of God in us; when we reflect God's image, then, we aren't "like" God, we are what we were meant to be...in this very moment. It is the Holy Spirit who lets us know when we miss the mark, and it is the Holy Spirit who helps us, not by having us dwell on having missed the mark, but by moving us towards the mark itself, which are manifested in the fruits of the Spirit, grounded in love.

Anyway, I thought it interesting that N.T. Wright was saying basically the same thing about being fully human...and it seems like there is room in Article X for this sort of notion.

Jamie

[Ryan Scott]

I'd prefer to talk about it as reaching human potential rather than becoming fully human. Humans are messed up people; it takes God to help us achieve what we can achieve.

It's probably semantics.

[Richard Call]

Ryan, is it possible for anyone to fully surrender himself to God; to experience the glorious cleansing of the sinful nature (having received that nature fully cleansed) and to say the last "yes" to the will of God (accepting the "unknown bundle") and not know when it happerned. The song of an earlier time was right when it said, "I was there when it happened and I ought to know." This is the critera for ES. The cleansing is in a moment; the maturing in holiness is a lifetime.

Article #10, item 14 says, "We believe there is a marked distinction between a pure heart and a mature character. The former is obtained in an instant, (to which some now object or question) the result of entire santification; the latter is the result of
growth in grace.
We believe that the grace of sanctification includes the impulse to grow in grace....etc"

Without the former full cleansing from all sin (the sin filled nature) there will be no growth in grace. To me, this is not causing a "cookie cutter" event but within the diversity of the human soul there must be a full cleansing from the sin filled nature completely. (NO SIN ENTERS HEAVEN) This must be a settled issue. One can enter heaven without a completely mature character. Actually, the human character remains to some degree incomplete until it enters the presence of the Lord. I John 3: 1-3.

No one can fully produce a complete explaination of this truth. It is too deep, rich, glorious, whatever, to fully say it like it is. Article #10 is not a complete theological writing with the finest wording. However, no one is capable of writing iabout ES the way it really is emperically. So, let's get on with preaching, living, teaching ES. That is our mission. If one is not able to do this perhaps he should evaluate where he is at personally on this issue. No one can explain it who hasn't fully experience it. After he has he will still come up short no matter his intellectual ability. I had a hunger and thirst for the fullness of the Spirit and Jesus promise of fullness came to my heart and it is real today. He saves and entirely sanctifies.

[Ryan Scott]

Ryan, is it possible for anyone to fully surrender himself to God; to experience the glorious cleansing of the sinful nature (having received that nature fully cleansed) and to say the last "yes" to the will of God (accepting the "unknown bundle") and not know when it happened?


I answered this once before. I think you come from the same place as I do in which it was a powerful, distinct moment that I will always remember. Because of this experience, I can't conceptualize any other way for it to happen. However, I see evidence of a holy, Christ-like life in others who do not claim the same experience, but evidence the same work of grace. I have taken the position of trust for my sisters and brothers in this fact.

If our only evidence is someone's word on the matter and a life of Christ-likeness, we have to base our analysis on what they say and what they do. It's trivial, but "if it walks like a duck, I'm calling it a duck." My conscience is OK with that, certainly moreso than potentially excluding people.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Well said, Ryan! I really liked what you said about sanctifcation, and how you believe in others that have experienced it in different ways, and their lives exemplify that they have.

[Richard Call]

Dear friends, I am sorry if I come across in a critical way concerning those who cannot give a definite timing to entire sanctification. I too would accept their claim as valid for I am not the judge. However, I would like the opportunity to chat with them about the details that they have experienced. Perhaps I could learn more about what did happen; how they actually came to understand, believe, whatever, that they were enjoying the experience. If they are living the life something has happened, by the grace of God, to cause that life to be lived. The life of genuine holiness cannot be a matter of human duplicity. It is real or sooner or later it will be revealed for what it really is in the life of a person.

[Jon Twitchell]

I'd prefer to talk about it as reaching human potential rather than becoming fully human. Humans are messed up people; it takes God to help us achieve what we can achieve.

It's probably semantics.

"Fully human" is (IMO) a great term, if we understand "fully human" as what Adam & Eve were before the fall... humans created in the image of God.

I detest the phrase "I'm only human..." for precisely that reason. God created humans as the "crowning achievement" of His creation. We are not "only human" or "just human," we are "broken humans" or "bent humans."

I like to say that salvation is about taking the broken pieces of a pot, and instead of throwing them away, putting them back together again. ES is about scrubbing out that pot and filling it with the Holy Spirit. It's about taking bent/broken humans, and restoring them to how God intended them to be-- fully human.

[Ryan Scott]

if we understand "fully human" as what Adam & Eve were before the fall


I don't think that's true. I don't think we can be fully human until we consciously decide to follow God. Being obedient out of ignorance doesn't qualify in my book. I don't think Adam and Eve were any different before they sinned than any of us were before we sinned.

[Jamie Wayne]

"Fully human" is (IMO) a great term, if we understand "fully human" as what Adam & Eve were before the fall... humans created in the image of God.

The problem that I have with that sort of thinking, Jon, though I agree with what you said after this in your post, is that we, too, are created in the image of God. What you wrote in the quote above seems to suggest that Adam & Eve were created in the image of God - before the Fall - as "humans created in the image of God."

Being "fully human", as I'm currently thinking, has more to do with living in harmony with God, rather than living in discord with God. We still are created in the image of God, either way, though; being "fully human" is, then, more about living up to our potential (sort of as Ryan said earlier), yet I think that even that way of thinking isn't perfect, either, as, I believe, Adam & Eve weren't living up to their potential either. What I mean by that is that I believe that Adam & Eve (to use that metaphor) still had room to grow, and, therefore, had more potential - even while being fully human. It is in this sense that I agree with some of the early Church fathers who suggested that Jesus would have come regardless of the Fall, because at some point Adam & Eve would need Jesus to teach them, too. According to this way of thinking, if I understand correctly, we should not think that as soon as we make it to "heaven", that we will understand all things; rather, even "in heaven" there will be growth. It is in this sense, that I see almost infinite potential, and I'm reluctant to think of being fully human as actualizing our full potential. Being fully human, as I see it, has more to do with being in harmony with God regardless of where we are in the progression of actualizing our potential - which may be a never ending process until God is "all in all."

Tying this back into Entire Sanctification, according to Tom's (and/or Mike's) approach in "Relational Holiness", the notion of "perfection" doesn't necessarily mean that the cup is full, so to speak, but simply that the cup holds water. In other words, when we are "entirely" sanctified, it does not mean that there is no more room for growth. According to this way of thinking, which I very much like, I can see a person be fully human while maintaining further potential capable of be actualized.

[Eric Frey]

I don't think that's true. I don't think we can be fully human until we consciously decide to follow God. Being obedient out of ignorance doesn't qualify in my book. I don't think Adam and Eve were any different before they sinned than any of us were before we sinned.

Unpack that a little...especially regarding original sin. We have been taught that original sin is a consequence of Adam and Eve's "first sin." I am not being critical. I have been thinking along these lines and I am intruiged that it has been brought up here. Thanks

[Jamie Wayne]

Eric,

I think that, in a sense, the story of Adam & Eve is our story; it's my story and it's yours. In this sense, what Ryan is saying makes perfect sense, I think. The real difference, I think, between Adam & Eve and you & I is that you & I have been born into a "fallen" world, whereas Adam & Eve were created in a pristine environment - we didn't have that luxury. That's the difference between Jesus and Adam, too; Jesus had it much more difficult than Adam did, because Jesus was born into a fallen world, too.

Jamie

[Eric Frey]

Define Original Sin in that scenario. Did Adam and Eve have original sin?

[James Diggs]

Eric,

I think the idea of original sin as a “consequence” is often overstated and we too often think about it in terms of genetic like inheritance; this reduces sin to almost a physical thing. I sometimes think because of this that we often talk about original sin in almost gnostic ways.

At the same time, I don’t think the idea of “inheritance” is completely off base, because I think the point is that we all share the same capacity for sin and injustice toward others as human beings as all human beings right back to the origins of man. However, I don’t think this capacity best describes the purpose of God and the fullness of life God intends and desires for humanity. In this sense I really believe that sin makes us less human and leaning into the love and justice of the Kingdom of God as we follow Christ as his continued incarnational presence in the world actually makes us more human.

[Ryan Scott]

Jamie got some of it and James answered very well.

I think it goes back to our concept of perfection. The doctrine of original sin was initiated to fulfill the requirements of a Greek philosophical understanding of perfection as without blemish. I think the better and more biblical understanding of perfection is something along the lines of "fit for a purpose." Adam and Eve were perfect in that they were exactly how God created them to be. They were humans, with the ability to make free choices and the inability to live holy lives apart from God.

Sin entered the world through Adam because Adam and Eve were the first people to sin. It's not as if sin is some physical thing that all of a sudden came into existence and is passed down from one generation to the next (as Augustine believed).

We're prone to sin because we're predisposed to selfishness. We attempt to fill the place in our lives that rightfully belongs to God with other things (namely our own desires). I don't see how this is any different than the story of Adam and Eve.

[Jamie Wayne]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence

[David Showalter]

Richard states,

Without the former full cleansing from all sin (the sin filled nature) there will be no growth in grace. To me, this is not causing a "cookie cutter" event but within the diversity of the human soul there must be a full cleansing from the sin filled nature completely. (NO SIN ENTERS HEAVEN) This must be a settled issue.

David asks,

So Richard, is your position and understanding that no one will enter HEAVEN unless they have experienced a second definite work of grace?

[Richard Call]

Every person enters heaven by the grace of God. Scripture, tradition and experience have brought us sufficient knowledge to know God's requirements. No sin will enter heaven means just that. Jesus Christ has provided the full means for our full salvation. Calvary covers all my sin, both willful sin and the sinful (sinfilled) nature. Will we compromise the fullness of Calvary? Is the death of Jesus fully adequate for all our sinfulness? When we as, alledged holiness people, having the full knowledge of full salvation, tamper with the meaning of sin and find a way around it; excusing it for what it really is. Then comes the question: Can anyone get to heaven without ES? If he has the light on it absolutely not! If not, it is in the hands of the Lord. All of us within the umbrella of this form know, or should know, what the full implications of the question of ES means. "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord."

To some this seems a bit too strong. So be it. I say this with the utmost love and hoope that we will turn away from tampering with the idea of ES and get to the business of our calling: telling the world that Jesus saves to uttermost those who come to him by faith.

In Christian love and concern. Richard

[James Diggs]

Richard,

I don’t think this statement is too strong at all, in fact I think the statement "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord" has a much deeper connotation than just “getting into heaven”. I think holiness in this lifetime allows us to see the Kingdom of God and lean into it too the fullest.

I don’t think anyone is “tampering with the meaning of sin” for the purpose of “getting around it”, in fact I believe that those engaged in this conversation are actually more interested in truly embracing holiness rather than trying to get around it. I think that everyone in this conversation is extremely interested in being true to our call that you mention; that is why they are so interested in the topic and exploring what holiness really means for us as we follow Christ.

Peace,

James

[Richard Call]

I agree with your statement, Jim. However, there seems to be somewhat of a tendency to question the basic tentants of the issue of original sin. I am a person who thinks black or white. That may be the problem. Understand, I do not question the sincerity of those who participate in this dialogue. My concern is to hold the line on article #10. If it works, and it does and has in my ministry, then don't try to fix it.

Richard

[Hans Deventer]

My concern is to hold the line on article #10. If it works, and it does and has in my ministry, then don't try to fix it.

That is an interesting statement. It sounds like: "If it works for me, I don't care if it doesn't work for the rest of the world, I don't want it changed". Surely you don't mean this?

[Richard Call]

Why do you personalize this. I said it has worked in my ministry...not only for me in my personal encounter with my spiritual need, but in the lives of the people I pastored. The problem, Hans, is that this doctrine has been long neglected by the very church who has claimed across the past century to be the leader in the espousal of ES, and the other sister churches have followed in the heals of our neglect. It has been a long time since I have heard a strong, clear, anointed sermon that clearly explained ES. It used to happen frequently in our circles. We saw people clearly come into the "blessing." This doctrine, has been so neglected, has now become a theological question mark in our zion. Dr H.V. Lewis has said, if you don't have at least 50% of your people experiencing ES you don't have a holiness church.

Be it known: I am not saying what has been said just because it worked for me per se. I am saying it will work throughout the entire church if we will first have a holiness revival and renew our commitment to ES. It will work as it has in the past. Our church grew when this was our watch word and song. We are now in decline because we have now forsaken our first love and become just another evangelical denomination...a church who has lost her identity and purpose. I say leave article #10 alone and begin to preach it, shout, sing it and live it. Holiness unto the Lord now and forever.

With sincerity of love and heart....Richard Call

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Many precious people have entered into the experience of entire sanctification, not knowing what was happening. One of the most wonderful pastors our family ever had, was sanctified that way. He began trying to tell people in the denomination he was in, about his experience, and was not allowed to preach it. He found out what happened to him, someway, and ended up in the COTN.
He and his wife were 26 and 27 years of age, when they came to SC to pastor the church we attended. I have never seen a man more on fire than he was. He is in his eighties now.
Sometimes, it seems that we talk about the experience and endeavor to better understand it, than preaching it with zeal, and making sure that people understand it.
Even if they cannot understand the process, they can strive daily to be more like Jesus, and daily walk in the light He sheds, as I have tried to say a number of times--and the experience will eventually follow, and I believe, if they are in the process of searching, and walking in all of the light they already have, they will make it to heaven when Christ comes or calls. What more can we do than that? But, it does not make us head perfect. We CAN live above intentional sin, and we are enabled by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. We will continue to grow after the initial experience, just as a baby continues to grow and mature. And one day, we will have "arrived," when we see Jesus.
Pray for the experience. Keep your heart wide open and receptive to His will. You will make it through. But, so many are not willing to make a complete surrender. They put their little petty desires, and things they wish to continue doing above being completely consecrated and "sold out" for the Lord.
People these days are doing and saying things that are nothing like a life of holiness should be. Maybe, we should all check our lives occasionally, and see if there is anything, that we love so much, that we would not be willing to give it up, to follow Jesus.
Then, people start harping on the idea of rules, etc. and being so tied down to them. It is not that. It is being willing to live up to the pure holy life, that our saviour would require of us.
Now, let's not fall back on alcohol, and try to prove that Jesus drank alcoholic wine. Things like that are just crutches, and called rules, to make some people look like a fanatic, carryiing a big stick, ready to hit someone on the head, if they look to the left instead of to the right.
Just do it. Quit picking it to pieces. Live it, preach it, teach it, experience it. It is as simple as a good piece of pie. Seek, and you will find, if you live daily walking in the light that is shed on your path. It is not something hard.
As you mature in the Lord, and in years, you will see that you are not so touchy anymore.

[James Diggs]

I am saying it will work throughout the entire church if we will first have a holiness revival and renew our commitment to ES. It will work as it has in the past. Our church grew when this was our watch word and song. We are now in decline because we have now forsaken our first love and become just another evangelical denomination...a church who has lost her identity and purpose. I say leave article #10 alone and begin to preach it, shout, sing it and live it. Holiness unto the Lord now and forever.


My first love is for Jesus Christ (and though you did not say this I am sure it is your first love too Richard); I just think we need to be careful that we do not elevate a particular type of description for holiness over actual holiness. I also hope that we would not elevate our understanding of holiness as a dogma over the continued pursuit over what is true.

When you say it had “worked” I wonder in what ways there is room to work even more. Frankly when I hear stories about entire sanctification from the “glory days” it at times comes across as just being reduced to personal piety and fails to sound as if it had very much of a communal aspect to it. I think the best times of our heritage and understanding of holiness goes back to even earlier when it was more connected to loving and serving the poor and was more “other” centered than just God keeping an individual “unstained” from the world.

Some of this may be more about “attitude” than the systematic understanding of entire sanctification, but if the this particular view of entire sanctification worked so well I wonder how this bad attitude ever sneaked in to begin with. I am sorry I just think the fruit of a lot of the system you are defending at times almost made holiness a selfish thing as it just talked so often about “personal victory” rather than being filled with the love and grace of God that makes a real impact on others and the world we live in.

I am not saying that some of this can’t be pointed to just a poor understanding of this particular systematic understanding of entire sanctification in the first place, but I think our models, paradigm, and terminology concerning sanctification has some weaknesses and contributed to the lack of it really “working” as much as I think it really could have.

I would love to sing, shout, preach, and live holiness unto the lord forever; and while I think we have had some success in our tradition of truly leaning into what it means to be a holiness people I think there is so much more room to grow and find ways to embrace holiness even more fully.

Peace,

James

[Jamie Wayne]

I just think we need to be careful that we do not elevate a particular type of description for holiness over actual holiness.

I also hope that we would not elevate our understanding of holiness as a dogma over the continued pursuit over what is true.

Amen...and Amen!

[Hans Deventer]

Why do you personalize this.

I'm merely saying what I hear you say. And I wondered if that was correct. In case of doubt, ask the author. Seems like a good plan to me.

I said it has worked in my ministry...not only for me in my personal encounter with my spiritual need, but in the lives of the people I pastored. The problem, Hans, is that this doctrine has been long neglected by the very church who has claimed across the past century to be the leader in the espousal of ES, and the other sister churches have followed in the heals of our neglect. It has been a long time since I have heard a strong, clear, anointed sermon that clearly explained ES.

I never heard it in my almost 23 years in the CotN. Not on my district, not at District Assemblies with General Superintendents preaching, not at the last three General Assemblies, not at Regional Conferences nor at EuNC's conferences. The clearest thing I ever read is John Wesley's sermon The Scripture Way of Salvation, if it comes to the question how to attain to it, and regarding its content, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection
But that is pretty old stuff of course. We totally lack a description of the how and what in 21st century words. And article #10 never helped me one bit.

It used to happen frequently in our circles. We saw people clearly come into the "blessing." This doctrine, has been so neglected, has now become a theological question mark in our zion.

That's true. But the question is of course, why? Because people started to neglect the clear teaching? Or because the teaching wasn't so clear after all? Or had never been? Or because the 2nd generation exchanged the experience for legalism and found out that the next generation is losing both the rules and the experience?
Because the world isn't like the latter half of the 19th century anymore?

Be it known: I am not saying what has been said just because it worked for me per se. I am saying it will work throughout the entire church if we will first have a holiness revival and renew our commitment to ES.

That I do not understand. People are so committed to this issue that they are willing to face a lot of opposition in trying to change the wording into something that WILL communicate to this 21st century. I think that is crucial for the future of our church. If we can't explain what we are talking about, we have a big problem at our hands.

It will work as it has in the past. Our church grew when this was our watch word and song. We are now in decline because we have now forsaken our first love and become just another evangelical denomination...a church who has lost her identity and purpose. I say leave article #10 alone and begin to preach it, shout, sing it and live it. Holiness unto the Lord now and forever.l

Richard, one thing is clear to me: the world is changing. Nothing will be "like in the past". We have to find the ways to communicate the old message in new words. One can't put the ever new wine of the gospel in old wineskins.

As Galadriel said in the intro of the Lord of the Rings movie:

I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, han mathon ne chae a han noston ned 'wilith. (The world is changed; I can feel it in the water, I can feel it in the earth, I can smell it in the air.)

[Richard Call]

Hans, I do not fear being called "unchangable" and not willing to adjust to the present age. At my ordination they sang "to serve this present age, my calling to fulfill." I believe in this but "tinkering" with article #10 will not induce a better understanding of ES and bring about a clearer preaching, teaching of ES. It will reduce it to a minor issue rather than causing a clearer understanding and improving it as our "Cardinal Doctrine." We will go further down the slippery slope of compromise to eventually become no different than the modern liberal churches. The fact that you did not hear the doctrine preached in your various meetings bears out my previous point of it being neglected for probably twenty years to the point that is now largely ignored.

I am sorry but to reach a mutual understanding of this issue seems not to be possible. May the Lord bless you and your ministry. I am retired. My days of service are coming to a gradual end. We will continue to believe as we have herein stated. If the church officially chooses to adopt the suggested changes in our belief about ES I cannot stop it. However, if it came to my District Assembly, after prayerfully considering it, it would make my decision as to how to vote and it would probably be no.

May God's best be yours Hans.

[Hans Deventer]

It will reduce it to a minor issue rather than causing a clearer understanding and improving it as our "Cardinal Doctrine." We will go further down the slippery slope of compromise to eventually become no different than the modern liberal churches.


However, if it came to my District Assembly, after prayerfully considering it, it would make my decision as to how to vote and it would probably be no.


Richard, whether as elected delegate to the GA or at our District Assembly, if the proposed change isn't an important clarification that will help us preach ES better in stead of making it a fringe issue, trust me, I will vote no too!

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

The fleshly, carnal nature is prone to sin, but as I posted also, on this forum, Romans 8 tells us that we are not to live after the flesh. A sanctified person is set aside for the service of the Kingdom. We continue to grow from the little wobbly baby taking stumbling footsteps, as we mature in the Lord. We no longer yield to sin. Yes, it i possible to become luke warm and backslide. but, that is not the devine way that has been prepared for us. If we live after the flesh, we will die. But, as you young people grow i;n the Lord, it is possible to get to the place that sin has no allurement for you.
When we step over into the promised land experience, we are fully surrendering our entire self for His service. We have settled the question, and as we continue in the word, and prayer, it is complete possible to live without intentional sin. Before you get into a pulpit and preach in a way that leaves our wanting to sin, in our nature, you need to spend much time, closeted away from the world in prayer, and settle the fquestion forever. You can live in a way that you do; not yield to tempatation. PLEASE, get the real meaning of sanctification in ;your minds before you endeavor to preach to others, or you will end up, being more like those that believe they sin every day in word, thought or deed. Christ did not die and shed his blood for a watered down Christian, like that. I know you men, are not all that interested in what a lady has to say, but some of them, have experienced far more of the Christian experience and growing in Christ than some of you young men have--even though none of us have arrived to perfect human perfection, so far as our mind is concerned.

[James Diggs]

“The fleshly, carnal nature is prone to sin…”

You know I struggle with this terminology because it makes it sound like our human flesh is twisted and evil. I don’t think this was Paul’s point when talking about “the flesh” in Romans where many of us get this idea from. I don’t think there is something physically bent, twisted, or carnal about our flesh that makes us prone to evil. In fact I think Paul goes out of his way to say that what makes us prone to evil and what gives us a “sinful nature” is not our flesh (which is good- we are not gnostics), but our flesh when it is left to itself without the Spirit of God.

I think the NIV makes a terrible mistake when they translate sarx to be sinful nature, by doing this they tie sinfulness to the flesh in a way that Paul did not intend. I think we do the same thing with the before mentioned terminology. The sinful nature is not synonymous with sarx and flesh, it only describes the flesh under a particular condition of being left to itself with out the Spirit of God.

Maybe this is only a slight semantically difference but I think it plays out in more extreme ways when we look at how the sanctification process works in our lives.

Peace,

James

[Charles W Christian]

I really think that just defending the current wording, when even our own theologians (Dunning, Grider, etc.) have struggled with precise wording over the years gets us nowhere.

Making it clearer and more encompassing of the totality of the Church and of the Biblical witness should be our goal, not some "chiseled in stone" sort of defense of a particular (rather confusing) wording!

Just thoughts....

Charles

[Richard Call]

{When you say it had “worked” I wonder in what ways there is room to work even more. Frankly when I hear stories about entire sanctification from the “glory days” it at times comes across as just being reduced to personal piety and fails to sound as if it had very much of a communal aspect to it. I think the best times of our heritage and understanding of holiness goes back to even earlier when it was more connected to loving and serving the poor and was more “other” centered than just God keeping an individual “unstained” from the world.}

If I remember correctly the whole picture of the holiness movement in the early days it brought about William Booth and the Salvation Army; Phineas Bresee and the mission for the street people in Los Angeles, etc. True holiness is a social holiness. Our motto as a church says it well: "We are debtors to give the gospel to every creature in the same way we received it." That is social holiness. James say it well: "27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." Jas 1: 27, NIV

I believe they are inseparable. However, for this to happen begins not with a corporate body but with the ES individual.


{Some of this may be more about “attitude” than the systematic understanding of entire sanctification, but if the this particular view of entire sanctification worked so well I wonder how this bad attitude ever sneaked in to begin with. I am sorry I just think the fruit of a lot of the system you are defending at times almost made holiness a selfish thing as it just talked so often about “personal victory” rather than being filled with the love and grace of God that makes a real impact on others and the world we live in.}

This attitude to which you refer is a sign of spiritual immaturity not a lack of cleansing from the sinful nature. A person with true "personal victory," if he is genuine, is indeed filled with the fullness of love. Romans 5: 4b, " God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us." This is the beginning of a journey in Christian maturity that is a part of ES. It will be reflected in how he lives out his claim to personal victory.

{I am not saying that some of this can’t be pointed to just a poor understanding of this particular systematic understanding of entire sanctification in the first place, but I think our models, paradigm, and terminology concerning sanctification has some weaknesses and contributed to the lack of it really “working” as much as I think it really could have. }

Any terminology concerning any doctrine has weakness typical of the human writer. There has always been room for improvement in our performance.

{I would love to sing, shout, preach, and live holiness unto the lord forever; and while I think we have had some success in our tradition of truly leaning into what it means to be a holiness people I think there is so much more room to grow and find ways to embrace holiness even more fully.}

I say, sing, shout, preach and live holiness unto the Lord forevermore. Thank God for the success He has used us to accomplish and seek the guidance of the HS to improve....that will not happen by change article #10

Peace,

James


Thanks Jim, may God's best be yours. RC

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

I am well aware, that you men do not want to hear from a lady, but I will try again. What percentage of laymen, would you think ever reads the manuel? I was taught it, when I was growing up. But, how many were taught the Bible and the manuel?

So, if all of the intelligent, enlightened ministers that do understand entire sanctification, old fashionally preached it, in a way to be easily understood, it would not matter whether the wording was changed or not. Now, cleansed, is fine for me, if that means, heart purity, that leaves no room for the sinful flesh to continue to manifest itself, and not be brought into subjection, by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

[Hans Deventer]

I am well aware, that you men do not want to hear from a lady, but I will try again. What percentage of laymen, would you think ever reads the manuel?

Few, very few. (Hey, don't discourage me from updating the translation in 2010! :basic03)

So, if all of the intelligent, enlightened ministers that do understand entire sanctification, old fashionally preached it, in a way to be easily understood, it would not matter whether the wording was changed or not.

Thanks for not including me. I don't understand it. And I understand from Mark Quanstrom's book (http://www.amazon.com/Century-Holiness-Theology-Doctrine-Sanctification/dp/0834121166) that those that do, don't agree.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

What do you not understand about it, Hans? Also, you can experience it, without understanding it. I like the use of the term cleansing. If something is totally cleansed, it is pure, but it can become impure again, if neglected long enough.
Dwayne says that if a person does backslide, and go out into a life of sin, again, they must come all the way back, to the experience they once had. You know, that seems to mean, that you would not go through two works of grace, again--wouldn't it? What do you think?
In justification, we are forgiven of our sins up to that moment, but that does not mean we are to continuing sinning. But, after a while, we may need, to get away to a closet of prayer, and totally commit ourselves, including the unknown bundle to God. It seems that if we have totally surrendered to Him, that when something comes up, we may have a little time of struggle, before we say, "Yes, Lord." But, we know to began with, what our final answer will be.
We are going through a heartbreaking time in our family now. The attacks actually started over three years ago. If you read the article I posted, from our daughter, you will realize, why we are being attacked. I have made up my mind, that old slewfoot, is not going to get a one of us...of course with God's strength to help us.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Hans, we have a very old book by Rev. B. Carradine, first published in 1896.
One illustration that I like was this: A boy got a rock or block of wood, and began rolling it, until he had a huge snowball--then put it under a a dash of waterfall. What is left, after the snow is washed away--an old chunk of wood, or a dirty rock. What does the core of the snowball need now? You can add your own words to this. I would say, that the rock needed to be purified, cleansed, to make it clean.

Then, I got to thinking of the the old refiner sitting by the refiner's fire, 9in Malachi-I am pretty sure), and the silver stayed in the pot, until the refiner, could see his image in the purified silver. Then, it would be fit for the Master's use--but not until it was cleansed thoroughly, and purified, though.

We are born with inbred sin, (singular), and that is not held against us--but, as we grow older, we began to add impurities to our life, by our willful sins (plural). This has to be forgiven, and we later realize that something is still mising. That is the second step, that enables us to totally surrender, our will to His, and that is when He cleanses us, purifies us, enabling us to be fit for the Master's use. The longer we live within this enabling of the cleansing of the Holy Spirit, the easier it is to refuse the temptations of the evil one. But, it is possible, to let things of life, detour and delay us, from our worshipping-praying, studying the word, etc., and as we become weakened, it is possibe for us to backslide. That is where we come to the part, where I said that , we have to come all the way back, to the spot we left--in order to be walikng in all of the light that was previously revealed to us. Anything less than that, is walking against light.

[Hans Deventer]

What do you not understand about it, Hans?

It's the credibility gap between what is claimed theologically, and what I see in people's lives practically. Is see very little of Article X in the lives of people. That would, as I understand it, mean that there would be only love in the life of an entirely sanctified person. But there is no one on this forum in who's posts I haven't seen anger and a clear lack of love at least once, including my own.
But I know that when I write this down, people start to try and explain away it, and then indeed ES becomes incomprehensible.

So I think we either have to rephrase article X in such a way that the experience it describes is clearly recognizable in people's lives, or we have to say that few if any have attained to it (or maintained it). Both would be gain because credibility is regained.

Roland referred us to Brad's first post on the Sin and Holiness thread. There he wrote: "Holiness is finding our worth and identity in our relationship with Christ. No one else is adequate for that purpose. ". That makes sense to me. As does: "We are born with a tendency to look to inadequate sources of self-worth and identity. That is original sin. Every sinful deed then is either a search for worth in some inadequate source, or an effort to medicate the pain of feeling worthless. "

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Hans, I do not believe that every time we discuss something that we utterly disagree with, we are being angry. Sometimes, something frustrates me very much, and I cannot understand why you young people cannot see the truth God has for us in the scriptures on Holiness, and why some of you do things that are not a good witness of Christianity. I may speak firmly to some of you, but I am not feeling angry or mad at you-perse. Many times, we may judge, in a conversation, according to how we are feeling about a situation, and think of it as if the other person is feeling that way. I always know when you are very upset with me, (ha) but I still love you. You may not realize that I am an old mother hen, and will probably be as long a I am able to be--protective over the little young chickens--including the one that crossed the road.
Mike posted many reasons, supposedly, from various people, as to why they thought it crossed the road. But, all I could ever figure out, about it, was that, apparently, it wanted to get to the other side. All of us want to do that, also, even though we may do it differently.

[Richard Call]

Han, I want to put my "two cents worth" in here. I have thorougly disagreed with your proposition for article #10. However, that does not mean I am angry or even showing a lack of love for anyone on this forum. What it does mean, however, is that I love my church and will take up, and defend, the doctrine of holiness as it has been preached and taught for the last 100- years; even in my fully inadequate way.

I'm not sure, Hans, if you know it but I grew up in, and have spent 78 years in, the holiness churches. I have heard the worst of "holiness" preaching, and I have heard the best of accurate, true holiness preaching. If I may say so, I think I know the difference between folk theology and true holiness theology. Also, I have a "heap" of learning yet to do on this issue. However, I will insist that all the changes to the content of article #10 by soundly based on scripture. What I have read so far regarding the changes being proposed has not been backed up by scripture (don't respond to this by posing weak places in the present article #10. I know they are there.) If you are going to strengthen article #10 then please go only to scripture, not philosphy, and tell us how your improvements can make the second definite instantaneous experience of ES more real in the life of the believer.

I know your sincerity. I believe in your good intentions. I lovingly disagree with the contents proposed so far.

[Bill Evans]

Hans,

I agree wholeheartedly that there is a credibility gap between talking the talk and walking the walk. While I am not sure how I would word a new article on entire sanctification, I believe that there is a need for a clearer delineation of the article. But I am also torn by what the motivation for changing the article would be (not your personal motivation, but the general consensus). If we adjust the statement in order to accomodate the practice, then we are doing an injustice to the believer. However, if the practice is a struggle (impossible???) to attain in light of the statement, then the injustice is just as great.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

It seems that some are believing in sanctifcation, to the point of dehumanizing us.
We are humans, but our hearts and intentions can be as "pure as gold." If a person, is ever truly sanctified, they will know it. And, what I cannot understand, is why some think it is so hard to understand. It seems easy to me.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I do not believe that every time we discuss something that we utterly disagree with, we are being angry.

Anne, I don't want to embarrass you. I've seen real anger. And I've seen a lot of love and kindness.

But thank you for including me among the young people. At 50 years of age, that is appreciated!

[Hans Deventer]

If you are going to strengthen article #10 then please go only to scripture, not philosphy, and tell us how your improvements can make the second definite instantaneous experience of ES more real in the life of the believer.

I know your sincerity. I believe in your good intentions. I lovingly disagree with the contents proposed so far.

Richard, for all clarity, the proposed changes have been suggested by Thomas Oord, not by me.

Next, I totally agree we need a solid Biblical foundation of article X. However, as much as the Bible speaks on holiness, it doesn't say much if anything at all on how it is attained. So article X isn't only Biblical, it also describes experience where there simply is no Biblical text. Wesley used experience as one of the sources of theology, and likewise we may do so when we try to explain not the "what", but the "how". The "what" has to be solidly Biblical. The "how" will be strongly related to experience.

So Article X will always be a mixture of Biblical prayers and promises regarding sanctification, and the experience of God's people through time on the other hand. There's nothing wrong with that, but we have to realise the difference.

[Richard Call]

Hans, I wrote to you as a defender of Tom Oord and I respect this. I said our article #10 has some weaknesses. This would be so whomever tries to readjust its content. I just don't want the basic, historical statement changed. It was formed by men of faith, intelligence, who were filled with the HS and sought his guidance, and the delegates of the GA. Every time I have preached it exactly as written people were fully sanctified. Their lives were changed. As the song says, "it is for us all today if we trust and truly pray."

Thanks, Hans. I hear your heart. RC

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Sanctification is supposed to be our cardinal doctrine. It has helped weather many storms, in many people over many years. It is so simple, aside from the fact that it may not being preached as much as it should be, that the simplicity of it is stumbled over, and made into something very inadequate and huge.
There is a type of thought pattern, where one's thoughts or feelings are transferred to the other person. And, that person, may be being firm, but not actually angry. There is where the transferral of feelings are transferred to the other person. If my mother was talking in another room, her voice sounded angry. If we put something in writing, and not with someone, and they can learn to love and understand us, and feel our spirits bearing witness, to one another that we are both children of God, the words come across in a different way, and would even more strongly, for one not understanding sanctificaiton. Their feelings could be being transferred to others...therefore finding it hard to think of them as Christians--or feeling th theysurely are not sanctified. That is where some are trying to dehumanize those that are sanctified.

There was a time that I did a lot of the research, helping Dwayne with material he needed to counsel sexual offenders. This situation that most often deals with rape, is where the person transfers his feelings, to the one he is offending--actually thinking in many cases, that they are doing what the person wants done. They will actually make that statement. This could probably be applied in other situations, also.
If they have molested a child, the others, whom have also committed a sexual crime, hate them. They would rather be locked down,or kept in solitary, because of their fear of being attacked and possible killed.
This is to the extremes of what I am trying to get across, but it is a thought system, that can b applied to the situations, in, of course, a little different way-but still applied, so as the feelings going on inside of the person, is concerned--and their possibly transferring their feelings on to others--thus not being able to accept the thing they drastically need and want.
We receive sanctification, in the same way, we receive justification--through, faith--whether we understand it or not.

[Martijn van Beveren]

Hans, I wrote to you as a defender of Tom Oord and I respect this. I said our article #10 has some weaknesses. This would be so whomever tries to readjust its content. I just don't want the basic, historical statement changed. It was formed by men of faith, intelligence, who were filled with the HS and sought his guidance, and the delegates of the GA. Every time I have preached it exactly as written people were fully sanctified. Their lives were changed. As the song says, "it is for us all today if we trust and truly pray."

Thanks, Hans. I hear your heart. RC

Hello Richard,

What i wonder is; the changes which are suggested, are they also not formed by man of faith? Filled with the HS? and also sought His guidance? read scripture? lived their live? gained experience/knowledge?
I know that there are many who have trouble with the current ES explanation, and there are also many who want to hold onto the ""way it has always been".
The question eventually is: do you want to be right, or do you want to be relational?
If you want to be right, then it is your freedom to be so.
If you want to be relational, than that will mean we have be flexibel to get along, that also means that rewording ES into the current language and culture is VERY important if you want to be relevant to the world. That has consequences for the manual and the church body. I believe it's best to stay flexible and adapt. Not to live without tradition, but to learn from it and grow and gain experience.

peace,
Martijn

[Richard Call]

Martijn, you drew a comparison between right and rational. You mentioned being stuck in tradition.

Is it possible to be right and rational similtaneously? Was Paul right or rational when he told Timothy, "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Perserver in them, because you know you will save both yourself and your hearers if you do." Is this irrational? Is this right? Is this being narrow minded and inflexible?

I know, herein, that Paul was dealing with Gnostics. We in the COTN are also dealing with the issue of the sinful nature and the full cleansing of it. Those who choose to change our stand are also questioning what to do about this issue. As for me, I choose to watch my life and doctrine. To not waiver on the truth of heart holiness. Many people, across the past century, have found what we have taught and preached to be real. I have also found it to be truth.

[Jim Monck]

Martijn, you drew a comparison between right and rational. You mentioned being stuck in tradition.

Is it possible to be right and rational similtaneously? Was Paul right or rational when he told Timothy, "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Perserver in them, because you know you will save both yourself and your hearers if you do." Is this irrational? Is this right? Is this being narrow minded and inflexible?

I know, herein, that Paul was dealing with Gnostics. We in the COTN are also dealing with the issue of the sinful nature and the full cleansing of it. Those who choose to change our stand are also questioning what to do about this issue. As for me, I choose to watch my life and doctrine. To not waiver on the truth of heart holiness. Many people, across the past century, have found what we have taught and preached to be real. I have also found it to be truth.

I was thinking about this the other night. If I had become a Christian at the beginning I would have had to also be a Jew until Paul came along. I would have had to be a Roman Catholic until Martin Luther showed up. Then a Lutheran until Wesley got here and a Methodist until Bressee. For a church that is less than a 100 years old to talk about fear of loosing it's tradition means some of us must be getting old. We were on the other side of the argument not long ago. (Written by a true Monck who is glad he got to get married.)

[Jon Twitchell]

I was thinking about this the other night. If I had become a Christian at the beginning I would have had to also be a Jew until Paul came along. I would have had to be a Roman Catholic until Martin Luther showed up. Then a Lutheran until Wesley got here and a Methodist until Bressee. For a church that is less than a 100 years old to talk about fear of loosing it's tradition means some of us must be getting old. We were on the other side of the argument not long ago. (Written by a true Monck who is glad he got to get married.)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we get to claim Luther in there... I think we're stuck with Henry VIII instead... :) (Not that I mind claiming Anglicanism...I don't... I'm just not sure I want to claim Henry VIII) !

[Martijn van Beveren]

Martijn, you drew a comparison between right and rational. You mentioned being stuck in tradition.

Is it possible to be right and rational similtaneously?


Ehm... Nope, I didn't say that, it was rELational.
Rational is something which can go both ways, right and "wrong" :basic02


Was Paul right or rational when he told Timothy, "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Perserver in them, because you know you will save both yourself and your hearers if you do." Is this irrational? Is this right? Is this being narrow minded and inflexible?

I know, herein, that Paul was dealing with Gnostics. We in the COTN are also dealing with the issue of the sinful nature and the full cleansing of it. Those who choose to change our stand are also questioning what to do about this issue. As for me, I choose to watch my life and doctrine. To not waiver on the truth of heart holiness. Many people, across the past century, have found what we have taught and preached to be real. I have also found it to be truth.

When it comes to inflexibility, I do not think that Paul was wrong, or irrational for that matter, but I bet that he would also be telling us to stay up to date. be "the jew to the jew and the greek to the greek". So Paul was willing to change his lifestyle and teach a clear gospel in different languages and culture. Why can't we do the same? Why stick with an explanation that is formed a loooooong time ago and needs a check up, like a car. It's not throwing the whole thing away, it makes it more relevant, clear and up to date for ministers of todays church and tomorrows. I have not one doubt that dr. Oord has the intention of weakening the text. He and many others want to let the text resonate, make it in tune with the lives of many.

Martijn

[Jim Monck]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we get to claim Luther in there... I think we're stuck with Henry VIII instead... :) (Not that I mind claiming Anglicanism...I don't... I'm just not sure I want to claim Henry VIII) !

I knew when I posted that there would be a better history student out there than I am. What can you expect from someone who learns most of his history from Jeporady 30 minutes each night?

[John Kennedy]

Glad to see that Martijn clarified that he said RELATIONAL, not RATIONAL. It would have been interesting, however, to see what conversation would ensue without the clarification. Talk about 'ships that pass in the night'.

[Richard Call]

Martijn, So, by what you are saying the church should be motivated by culture...is that your take. Doctrine is determined by culture, right? I believe Paul would say keep the doctrine as it was given to us and hold fast to it. Explain that doctrine to the existing culture as i