Entire Sanctification and the Surrounding Culture

[Scott Daniels]

I have been looking back at some of the writing about our early days as a denomination and the fact that so much of our emphasis upon the crisis of sanctification and the "eradication of the sin nature" came from the South and Southeast regions, and it has caused the following struggle for me. I know that there were some important exceptions to what I'm about to say, but it seems to me that many, many of our folk who claimed eradication were also extremely racist.

This is a gross generalization, but I think one could generally argue that the early theology of eradication focussed on issues of sexuality and prohibition and ignored larger social issues such as racism, militarism, economic equity, and social justice.

Which raises all kinds of questions for me. Should we consider those early folk who claimed eradication, clearly not eradicated? Are we held accountable only to be free from the sin that our culture has helped us to be aware of? If the culture we are a part of defines much of what sin looks like, who helps the culture progress?

Those may sound like strange questions but let me give an example. One of my great grandmothers was a deeply committed holiness woman. Those in her Holiness church would have without question pointed to her as the model of one who is entirely sanctified. Yet, she was so racist she wasn't sure that people of color had souls. Now that is incredibly embarrassing to me as her great-grandchild, but whenever I bring it up people will enevitably say, "But, you have to understand the culture of the time..." They make excuses for her racism based upon the cultural perspectives of her generation. In other words they are saying, "Oh, she was a very holy and godly woman, for her day..."

This sort of plays into the post about the developing understanding of God in the OT... Were the people who participated in the genocides of the OT not held morally accountable or not considered less holy because they did things that clearly oppose the character of God?

This whole question of culture raises so many questions for me:
Can I only be as holy as the highest ideals of the surrounding culture of my time?
Can I be really spiritually and morally blind about something (race, economics, sexuality) and still be considered entirely sanctified?
Although some like to point to "the crisis" of the Holiness movement, shouldn't we also be excited that the young Nazarene of today is most likely more economically, racially, environmentally, and relationally Christlike than many of our denominational forerunners (even if their experience of holiness does not always share the same process)?

Just troubled...

[James Diggs]

It does seem to me that “eradication of a sinful nature” would have cut through cultural and generational sin too. Isn’t that what we are talking about, the eradication of the original sin nature we inherited from Adam and Eve? It’s odd that my sinful leanings and nature going back to Adam can be eradicated instantly but it may fail to have instantaneous effect on sinful leanings perhaps just a generation or so back like racism one inherits from the culture of ones own parents.

I am being slightly facetious here but I think you bring up a good point and reason to revisit this idea because it may be off the mark. Personally I have always had trouble with eradication language, not because I don’t believe in the transformational work of sanctification to its fullest but because the term eradication is misleading in regards to the nature of sin and original sin.

I think you also bring up some valid questions as how this relates to a “developing understanding of God in the OT” in regards to what it says about the possibility of holiness being relative to context. I am certain that I can not answer these questions with any amount of absolution but I am happy to wrestle with them.

I’ll put some more thought into and hope others will jump in and flesh out the conversation some and I will jump in again later.

Peace,

[Brian Hammons]

Scott,
I have many of the same questions. Another struggle I have is with the word "eradication." Maybe I need to consider a different definition, but I have always taken it to mean "eliminated from existence." If that is what eradication of the sin nature is, then how is it that it can come back into the life of a sanctified person? I've heard some people actually say that if it comes back to a sanctified person, then they were not truly sanctified in the first place. Hmmm, we don't need 6 degrees of separation from Calvinism in our holiness tradition; just one huge intuitive leap!

I've been through Dr. Grider's Doctrine of Holiness class, and maybe it all was just over my head. Even with scriptural references cited to support the concept of "eradication" no one has been able to answer the question to my satisfaction as to how that "old nature" can come back if has been snuffed from existence. Suppression seems logical to me, but like I said, I've been through DoH, and that's rather near heresy in our tradition.

[Ryan Scott]

I don't think "eradication" is even in our manual statement anymore, is it? I know that doesn't preclude people from still espousing that belief, but it's got to mean something.

[Scott Daniels]

I don't think "eradication" is even in our manual statement anymore, is it?

You are right it's not. I probably shouldn't have used it.

I think I'm just cranky. I think I want those who decry the loss of the 19th Century Holiness verbage, practices, and processes to be more honest about the product of those processes. I'm not sure that the Wesleyan-Relational-Processional-Postmodern-Emerging Holiness person is any less a reflection of the holy nature of God than the 19th Century-Substantival-Instantaneous-Modern-Traditional Holiness person. In fact, if there were a holiness contest (and there is something so wrong about even thinking that thought - just entering the contest would raise questions about one's godliness), but if there were such a thing, I might be willing to say that God is as honored and glorified in the current young generation of Nazarenes as he is/was in the earliest generation (maybe more so).

My question really centers around the question of surrounding culture. Is there a transcendent conception of holiness that everyone should be held accountable to or will our expectations of holiness always be conditioned by our finite understanding and the finite understanding of our surrounding culture?

Can I say, given her culture and upbringing, my great grandmother was an entirely sanctified reflection of Jesus, or do I have to say, she may have used the language and declared the experience of ES, but given the way she lived and thought, it is certain that she was not?

Which also raises the question, what will my great grandkids say about me?:eek:

[Dennis M. Scott]

I'd hope they'd say that your heart was filled with the Love of God.

Some midwesterners in 1908 couldn't figure out how the holiness people from the east coast and the west coast could allow beach parties and really be sanctified, either. I need to remember that the common element was not any kind of behavior or standard, but that they testified to a second work of grace that they even referred to by a variety of terms.

A purified heart will reflect different values in different cultures. Several general assemblies ago there was a hot debate on the floor about electronic media. After some pretty nasty exchanges, a delegate from some third world country dragged an interpretter to a mic and said, "My village is a four day walk from the nearest electricty. My people don't have any temptation to what you're talking about. Our biggest problem, however, is that many people get drunk by chewing chicklee nuts. It would help our church so much if Nazarenes passed a rule against chewing chicklee nuts." He was serious. Suddenly the whole hall got quiet for several minutes, and someone called a recess. Cultural differences make what some of us believe to be holiness behavior irrelevant.

At NTS in the seventies, some of us were taking a doctrine of holiness class under the man who very clearly has written more holiness books than any other Nazarene in history. During his lecture, to illustrate a point I can't even remember, he said, "We could tell right away that there was a n..... in the woodpile." There were about eighty in the class, and you could hear pens and pencils dropping to the floor all over the room. After audible gasps, someone said, "What did you say?" He repeated it, and said, "I don't mean anything by it - it's just an expression." All but about a dozen students literally walked out. He continued to teach, preach, write and herald second blessing holiness. He only recently died. At that time, I happened to be his reader, and had held him in high regard. I have struggled with it I suspect rather like you have about your great grandmother. For the record, he was not from the parts of the country you mentioned.

Holiness of heart ought to be dynamic, and engage the culture. There apparently was a day when geographic regional cultures allowed for distinctive application. The culture in which you and I function is worldwide and nearly instant. Holiness in your heart and mine will have to deal with application differently than any previous generation.

Maybe our cultural generation will come to realize that holiness of heart cannot be evaluated on the basis of behavior. I have the responsibility to respond to the Lord's leading in my own life, but not to judge someone else's heart holiness by their behavior. The same must be true regarding evaluating behavior of previous generations of holiness folk. I can't imagine a seminary prof now using the phrase used by that prof forty years ago. Even at the time a bunch of us were shocked.

A real challenge is to grant leniency to the behavior of other holiness people without demanding such generosity for my own behavior.

[Charles W Christian]

You are right it's not. I probably shouldn't have used it.

I think I'm just cranky. I think I want those who decry the loss of the 19th Century Holiness verbage, practices, and processes to be more honest about the product of those processes. I'm not sure that the Wesleyan-Relational-Processional-Postmodern-Emerging Holiness person is any less a reflection of the holy nature of God than the 19th Century-Substantival-Instantaneous-Modern-Traditional Holiness person. In fact, if there were a holiness contest (and there is something so wrong about even thinking that thought - just entering the contest would raise questions about one's godliness), but if there were such a thing, I might be willing to say that God is as honored and glorified in the current young generation of Nazarenes as he is/was in the earliest generation (maybe more so).

My question really centers around the question of surrounding culture. Is there a transcendent conception of holiness that everyone should be held accountable to or will our expectations of holiness always be conditioned by our finite understanding and the finite understanding of our surrounding culture?

Can I say, given her culture and upbringing, my great grandmother was an entirely sanctified reflection of Jesus, or do I have to say, she may have used the language and declared the experience of ES, but given the way she lived and thought, it is certain that she was not?

Which also raises the question, what will my great grandkids say about me?:eek:

Scott -
I think that part of our quandry is just the historic American-evangelical preoccupation with the individual often at the exclusion of community. Also, throughout American-evangelical history, there are those "exceptions" to their culture who help push the religious culture "forward", if you will, in regard to transcending the cultural norms (some of which were sins!) of their day. I'm thinking of T.B. Maston, the Southern Baptist ethicist who boldly spoke out against the institutionalized racism of his day in the early to mid 20th century. There are Nazarene voices like this, as well, of course. These were indeed "holy people" whose relationship with God allowed them the kind of eyes that see "above the cultural horizon" a bit, it seems. I don't know why this is not normative for "holiness people," but it probably should be.

And, I believe that my progeny will look back and think some of my traits not as holy. To me, though, this is a very biblical motivation (see OT, especially) for seeking God's grace in such a way that transcends as many of my cultural "norms" as possible for the sake of those to come....

Great thread, by the way. Thanks for it!

Charles

PS - By the way, it looks like you're busy guy lately in academic circles! I know that's always been part of your ministry, but I see your name pop up lately. I'm presenting at WTS, too, so perhaps I'll see you at Duke in 08!

CWC

[Scott Daniels]

By the way, it looks like you're busy guy lately in academic circles! ...I'm presenting at WTS, too, so perhaps I'll see you at Duke in 08!

CWC

I suffer from an inability to say "no". I am just a respondant at WTS thankfully, but I am excited to be there and will look forward to seeing (and hearing from you) there.

[David Showalter]

Scott shares,

I think I'm just cranky.


David replies, a clear indication that you indeed need another trip to the altar, as crankiness is definitely not a true reflection, nor indication of genuine heart holiness - ha M)

[David Showalter]

tried to put a smile on that last post, can someone like me know how to accomplish that task - thanks

[John Kennedy]

I suffer from an inability to say "no". I am just a respondant at WTS thankfully, but I am excited to be there and will look forward to seeing (and hearing from you) there.

When I first saw WTS, I had two questions: Why on earth was Scott Daniels invited to appear at Westminister Thelogical Serminary (a possible outbreak of 'Calminianism?) and, why would he go? These question probably stemmed from too much exposure to good solid Dutch Reformed types.

But God, being rich in mercy, enabled me to see that WTS was actually Wesleyan Theological Society. Being thus enlightened (somewhat belatedly) I can, with confidence, arise tomorrow and look east with an expectation of seeing the sun rise. (Which will, wondrously, occur just a few minutes later in Pasadena.)

[Hans Deventer]

This whole question of culture raises so many questions for me:
Can I only be as holy as the highest ideals of the surrounding culture of my time?
Can I be really spiritually and morally blind about something (race, economics, sexuality) and still be considered entirely sanctified?

I don't think we can totally escape our culture. And I do believe holiness will always be shaped in cultural forms. Because the heart filled with love, is still my heart.

As much as Amos spoke of the "cows of Bashan" while Isaiah described to detail all those women were wearing. Their words were different, the message similar and, as we believe, inspired.

So I think people can be blind to issues and still be sanctified. I mean, the church gladly supported slavery for 1800 years!

Ultimately, holiness is about the intentions, about love.

I once preached about the great commandment and said that God asks from us to love Him with all of our hearts, minds etc. The commandment is perfectly adapted to me.

That does not mean I have no responsibility to have my eyes opened, or as Brian McLaren would say, my ring snipped. But that might take time, and I may remain blind for some issues that only my great grandchildren will have a clear view of.

[Roland Hearn]

One problem I have with this question is its tendency to equate sanctification with perfect performance rather than perfected heart. It actually takes a true visionary to step beyond their culture and experience and even then education probably plays an important part. To require a level of understanding that steps beyond what a person knows is creating a standard of holiness that is not ultimately tenable. The shaping of society by the idea of love is one step building on another - across time change comes. I wouldn't judge former generations by mores of our current culture, I certainly think that there are plenty of things that we can address in the current ways the church relates to culture without worrying too much about former generations.

[Scott Daniels]

Roland, You know that I tend to agree with you in most everything, but let me play devil's advocate on a couple of things.

One problem I have with this question is its tendency to equate sanctification with perfect performance rather than perfected heart.

That sounds like something I want to agree with, but it also sounds sort of spiritualized to me. Ultimately our inner dispositions and our outer actions are linked in ways that keep us from being able to separate them cleanly. I think we act and speak out the abundance of the heart, but I also believe that we act (through practices, disciplines, etc.) ourselves into a different heart.

So, to keep using the example of racism, the racist hearts of many Christians has at least in part to do with the fact that they are products of churches that have failed to immerse them in practices of intentional diversity. Our racism, sexism, class-ism, etc. are products of worshiping in white, male-led, middle-class churches (no matter how many altar calls they had :cool:).

I wouldn't judge former generations by mores of our current culture, I certainly think that there are plenty of things that we can address in the current ways the church relates to culture without worrying too much about former generations.

At some level that is true, although I would want to avoid a complete cultural relativism whether contemporary or looking back historically. We judge Nazi Germany and don't just say, "Well, that was just the way things were in the 30s and 40s."

I think I'm mainly irritated at a couple of things that I've read today that (a) glorify the theology, methods & processes of the past in the CoN while (b) taking pot shots at the theology, methods, and processes of the contemporary current church under the assumption that the denomination has lost this great thing that we need to get back. There were certainly incredible people of faith in the past, but there were some MAJOR flaws.

I think our churches and schools are helping to produce some of the most Christlike young people in the denomination's history who may very well lead the way in cultural and global change.

[Anita F. Henck]

I think our churches and schools are helping to produce some of the most Christlike young people in the denomination's history who may very well lead the way in cultural and global change.


I agree. It is sometimes more heartening to work with younger people than those my own (advanced) age or older. We have a bright future!

On a different note (and not to digress). When I quickly read your reference to "ES" above, I wondered, "Why is Pastor Scott espousing Eternal Security?" Ironically, the same initials summarize two very different belief sets!

[Roland Hearn]

Roland, You know that I tend to agree with you in most everything, but let me play devil's advocate on a couple of things.



That sounds like something I want to agree with, but it also sounds sort of spiritualized to me.

Well I certainly apologise for sounding like that - there is few things that irritate me as much as spiritualising problems away.


Ultimately our inner dispositions and our outer actions are linked in ways that keep us from being able to separate them cleanly. I think we act and speak out the abundance of the heart, but I also believe that we act (through practices, disciplines, etc.) ourselves into a different heart.

I could not agree more Scott. I absolutely believe that or actions follow our hearts. I guess it is a James thing to say we have a pure heart that is not reflected in our actions is to say something meaningless. However my point was that people are in fact captured in their cultures and it takes a unique person to transcend them.


So, to keep using the example of racism, the racist hearts of many Christians has at least in part to do with the fact that they are products of churches that have failed to immerse them in practices of intentional diversity. Our racism, sexism, class-ism, etc. are products of worshiping in white, male-led, middle-class churches (no matter how many altar calls they had :cool:).



I guess I wouldn't want to push too hard on the concept that actions and idea are completely excused by their environment, I certainly don't believe that. I guess I was responding to the picture that you painted of a genuinely godly women that was appearing convoluted at best and perhaps sinful at worst. My college president spoke of his grandmother saying things like, coloured people will be turned white when they get to heaven and we were all a little shocked by the blatant racism but willing to accept the idea this was simply unprocessed stuff in people's lives.

My struggle is that it is apparent to me that the vast majority of people I meet have unprocessed issues and blind spots that really ought to be taken care of by an encounter with God but apparently aren't. There has to be room for progressive sanctification to work on something. One of my hot buttons is people in leadership looking to their position for personal validation. I see their insecurity, as I see my own, and I see people that ought to be giving encouragement and support seeking their subordinates affirmation in everything. I see it more in the church then probably anywhere else. While it may not be as overt as racism it still is an issue that can and should be processed but apparently these people can fail to process that, fail to give adequate support to people that need it, make unrealistic demands of those they lead for their own validation and still be sanctified. So I think I have to be able to let God keep working in those areas because I have them too and I want to have room to have them worked on.



At some level that is true, although I would want to avoid a complete cultural relativism whether contemporary or looking back historically. We judge Nazi Germany and don't just say, "Well, that was just the way things were in the 30s and 40s." Yeh that is a good point.



I think I'm mainly irritated at a couple of things that I've read today that (a) glorify the theology, methods & processes of the past in the CoN while (b) taking pot shots at the theology, methods, and processes of the contemporary current church under the assumption that the denomination has lost this great thing that we need to get back. There were certainly incredible people of faith in the past, but there were some MAJOR flaws.

I think our churches and schools are helping to produce some of the most Christlike young people in the denomination's history who may very well lead the way in cultural and global change.

I stand completely with you on that issue Scott. It drives me nuts that we look back to glory days and look at our present reality like we are about to come apart at the seems. Yes we need God's grace today but that has always been the case.

Growing up in the 70's when teenagers stood condemned for the destruction of global morality at an unprecedented scale I swore on my life to not convey the same concepts to my children and their friends. Apparently the world survived the '70s. We'll get through this too. What our young people need is the kind of leadership that allows them to grow wings and soar. I believe we are closer to revival in this day then we have been in a hundred years and much of it will be because of our children. I might quickly add that there is nothing destined about the revival I see, I think we can destroy its potential by failing to walk with our children and giving them access to the kind of grace that can inspire them to be what God is calling them to be. Keep up the good work Scott and fly the flag for this wonderful generation that is emerging.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Heart holiness must be something that transcends cultural blindness, tragic errors in judgment, unenlightened thinking, and physical/emotional trappings. Yet it is pretty worthless if it doesn't engage and challenge culture.

It still seems appropriate that we disagree with earlier holiness folk who apparently just didn't see some things that seem so obvious to us now. We also can find a number of things that holiness was touted as being able to take care of that in retrospect just weren't so. That's not new: earlier generations of holiness students did that, too. Our task is to identify what holiness is for us, in light of scripture, culture and history.

The contemporary holiness scene still has a punchlist of issues. Racism remains, economics, continued abuse of political power in the church, sexual addiction (What does it mean about the sanctified life when apparent high percentages of holiness people are addicted to pornography?), and other inequities - iniquities, too - become even theoretic problems. We've got our hands full engaging our own cultures.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I wish that I had more time to interact around here, but I can't. I do want to reiterate Charles' point about community though.

Someday like in 80 years or something, I still hope to write extensively on this topic: that holiness can only be understood in community. A direct corollary to this is that sin is defined by the community (with the leading of the Holy Spirit). It seems to follow the OT communal law and the picture of community in Acts. We want so badly to believe that the law is so clearly defined by the mouth of God. But when the rubber hits the road, we find that it's just not that simple - we must understand living in holiness together.

Really, this is how we practice things anyway (i.e.: we have manuals). But we don't seem willing to acknowledge that the specific time-bound definitions of sin are humanly decided. That seems so godless (...but it's not).

[Anita F. Henck]

Growing up in the 70's when teenagers stood condemned for the destruction of global morality at an unprecedented scale I swore on my life to not convey the same concepts to my children and their friends. Apparently the world survived the '70s. We'll get through this too. What our young people need is the kind of leadership that allows them to grow wings and soar. I believe we are closer to revival in this day then we have been in a hundred years and much of it will be because of our children. I might quickly add that there is nothing destined about the revival I see, I think we can destroy its potential by failing to walk with our children and giving them access to the kind of grace that can inspire them to be what God is calling them to be. Keep up the good work Scott and fly the flag for this wonderful generation that is emerging.

I thoroughly agree, Roland. I have greater confidence in the church of our future (having worked with college students for nearly 3 decades) than I have in some of the aspects of the church of our past. The church of the past was sometimes built on blind trust in people and positions, rather than emphasizing a personal, vital relationship with God, along with both individual and corporate accountability.

This generation (those in their 20s) asks questions, seeks their own truth, and focuses on community together.

Nonetheless, I have to also watch "our generation" (those in our 40s and 50s) for its cultural biases. Just like racism, sexism, and insensitivity to matters of social justice identify some aspects of the past, we will also have blind spots that will define our era. And, one of them may be the cocooning and protection that our children's generation has experienced. The term "helicopter parents" was coined to explain hovering parents who believe their children have limitless potential even when their beliefs didn't match reality. As a result, we are developing a generation that doesn't handle failure and setback well.

So, could it be that a cultural blindspot of this era is that, while we prepare our children for a bright future with much potential, we don't prepare them for working through difficulties? If so, one of the implications for the church is that, rather than working through difficulties, people will change churches and denominations more frequently than my grandfather would change brands of cars (being a Ford man, he couldn't envision anything other than that for his whole family).

How do we find that balance -- in terms of influencing the development of our children's reality and their potential? This is more than a psychological and developmental issue. It has implications for the future development of the church (universal and denominational).

[Tami Martin]

So, could it be that a cultural blindspot of this era is that, while we prepare our children for a bright future with much potential, we don't prepare them for working through difficulties? If so, one of the implications for the church is that, rather than working through difficulties, people will change churches and denominations more frequently than my grandfather would change brands of cars (being a Ford man, he couldn't envision anything other than that for his whole family).



Great post Anita!

I wonder if part of this issue you've described might be tied in to the "self" mentality that even worms its way into the church? Young people today are more likely to see the world as dog eat dog. Every man/woman for him/herself.

In my father's generation even, you could easily see that employees had loyalty to their employers and vice versa. That's just not the case these days. I can see different ways that mentality has seeped into the church and our communal "spiritual" minds.

[Anita F. Henck]

Great post Anita!

I wonder if part of this issue you've described might be tied in to the "self" mentality that even worms its way into the church? Young people today are more likely to see the world as dog eat dog. Every man/woman for him/herself.

... I can see different ways that mentality has seeped into the church and our communal "spiritual" minds.

Well, in the interest in taking the log out of our own (collective) eyes before focusing on the speck in the eyes of past generations, we have to be aware that each group, generation, people has their own "log". Perhaps this is (one of) ours!

==anita==

[Roland Hearn]

Anita you are certainly right, the problem with being human is we just find it very difficult to get the balance right. I love talking with young people and seeing how much better they are at processing stuff then I was at their age but by the same token there is a much greater willingness to see the world in terms of meal being fed to them rather than something to be hunted down. I'm ok with that for the most part because I think necessity triggers something in humanity. We are incredibly adaptable creatures and the pendulum will swing back.

I want my children to know what makes them tick, I want them to be able to process that in the observations of others. I want them to be able to observe the world around them and not be starry eyed but neither be depressed by their circumstances. We have spoken together a lot about those issues across the years and they are doing pretty well with it. My oldest daughter is studying psyche and she is in her first year and the coolest thing is she finds very little difference with the models that are being presented as the most helpful and the values that she has been raised with. It has been a very validating experience for her. I think the world is doing ok, not great, but ok. I think the church can do a whole lot better at touching that world.

[Linda Schroller]

Interesting thread!!!

My mentor and I were talking last night about what is REAL holiness. We both know two people who could not be more different.

One is a pastor and leader at the state level in his denomination. He truly is a gifted evangelist. Sad to say, a colder hearted, more conniving, more likely to cheat you financially person would be hard to find. Yet the world sees him as holy.

A person in my neighborhood is a drug addict, alcoholic, extremely obese, extremely physically filthy believer. The world calls her "sinner" and "strange". And yet, I have never met a more caring, sharing, giving, evangelizing person in my life. To look in her eyes is to see the love of Jesus looking back.

Both are need of repentance, dare I say it, sanctification, and some major lifestyle overhauls. But I would heap rather be or be around her kind of holy anyday.

[Richard Call]

To all concerned writers: May I suggest that we do not use the term "eradication." It has been replaced by "cleansing" (Article #10: 13.) Dr S.S.White, in his class on ES , in essence, said this: Some ask if the sinful nature is eradicted how does it return? He continued: The sinful nature is not an object or a physical condition. It is a heart condition (which Jesus acknowledged, Matthew 5; 28; 12: 34.) and it is cleansed by the blood of Jesus. It is like a fever that when treated with proper medication it is healed. The fever can return and when we dabble with God's will in disobedience it can and will return.

ES does not take away our human frailties. We are talking about "Christian" perfection, not absolute perfection. This makes room for many cultural errors which, I believe, the HS will correct as we mature in Christ.

Can one be Entirely Sanctified and have some of the ideocincracies of culture. Yes, but he must obey the Spirit's correction when they become known as wrong to him.

[Dave McClung]

I have been looking back at some of the writing about our early days as a denomination and the fact that so much of our emphasis upon the crisis of sanctification and the "eradication of the sin nature" came from the South and Southeast regions, and it has caused the following struggle for me. I know that there were some important exceptions to what I'm about to say, but it seems to me that many, many of our folk who claimed eradication were also extremely racist.

This is a gross generalization, but I think one could generally argue that the early theology of eradication focussed on issues of sexuality and prohibition and ignored larger social issues such as racism, militarism, economic equity, and social justice.

Which raises all kinds of questions for me. Should we consider those early folk who claimed eradication, clearly not eradicated? Are we held accountable only to be free from the sin that our culture has helped us to be aware of? If the culture we are a part of defines much of what sin looks like, who helps the culture progress?

Those may sound like strange questions but let me give an example. One of my great grandmothers was a deeply committed holiness woman. Those in her Holiness church would have without question pointed to her as the model of one who is entirely sanctified. Yet, she was so racist she wasn't sure that people of color had souls. Now that is incredibly embarrassing to me as her great-grandchild, but whenever I bring it up people will enevitably say, "But, you have to understand the culture of the time..." They make excuses for her racism based upon the cultural perspectives of her generation. In other words they are saying, "Oh, she was a very holy and godly woman, for her day..."

This sort of plays into the post about the developing understanding of God in the OT... Were the people who participated in the genocides of the OT not held morally accountable or not considered less holy because they did things that clearly oppose the character of God?

This whole question of culture raises so many questions for me:
Can I only be as holy as the highest ideals of the surrounding culture of my time?
Can I be really spiritually and morally blind about something (race, economics, sexuality) and still be considered entirely sanctified?
Although some like to point to "the crisis" of the Holiness movement, shouldn't we also be excited that the young Nazarene of today is most likely more economically, racially, environmentally, and relationally Christlike than many of our denominational forerunners (even if their experience of holiness does not always share the same process)?

Just troubled...

Scott, go back a bit farther in history and consider the life of St. Peter. Our theology is based on how St. Peter was sanctified during the upper room experience when the "fire fell." But, until the 6th Chapter of Acts, Peter remained a racist.

Logically, there are only two possibilities -- either Peter wasn't sanctified in the upper room, or sanctification does not eradicate racism. So to answer your question, yes, Peter was blind to the issue of racism until the Lord convicted him.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Dave, what you said about Peter was very helpful, and to the point. It goes back to the fact, that people have to be enlightened, and come to the understanding of some things, before they change, in that particular area of their life. It is simple as ABC, if we don't try to make it into something difficult.

[Hans Deventer]

Scott, go back a bit farther in history and consider the life of St. Peter. Our theology is based on how St. Peter was sanctified during the upper room experience when the "fire fell." But, until the 6th Chapter of Acts, Peter remained a racist.

And the most interesting thing of course was that the vision he received went against the Torah itself! Makes one wonder where we are holding on to old commands that need to change nowadays.

[Scott Daniels]

ES does not take away our human frailties. We are talking about "Christian" perfection, not absolute perfection. This makes room for many cultural errors which, I believe, the HS will correct as we mature in Christ.

Can one be Entirely Sanctified and have some of the ideocincracies of culture. Yes, but he must obey the Spirit's correction when they become known as wrong to him.

To be the devil's advocate and to admit I struggle a little bit with this kind of language... Sometimes I feel like this "cleansing" view of sanctification has either (1) allowed a lot of people to claim holiness while justifying sin as due to cultural or famililial influence, or as personality traits.

Or, (2) if we equate sanctification with cleansing (which I assume means forgiveness since there is still the proclivity to participate in cultural, familial, personality sin, etc.) that then leads to growth in grace, how is that different than justification and regeneration?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Psalms 51:7 Does this signify purity within?

[Richard Call]

Question: Scott---does the blood of Jesus cleanse us from all sin? If so, does it not also cleanse the sinful nature of all sin? There is a distinct difference between forgiveness and cleansing; justification, repentance, and sanctification. I am sure you know very well what these differences are. I am forgiven for culpable sins for which I am responsible when I am saved, regenerated, born again. Without forgiveness there can be no salvation. Sanctification (entire sanctification) deals with non culpable sin -- the sinful nature for which I am not responsible for having but accountable before God for its continued exitence within me. Example: the RCC teaches that a baby must be baptized immediately after birth to rid it of the sinful nature; to cleanse it by water baptism. I cannot be forgiven for the sinful nature. I am not culpable for its existence. It must be cleansed. The song says it well: Are you washed in the blood in the SOUL CLEANSING blood of the Lamb are your garments spotless are they white as snow are you washed in the blood of the Lamb." Jesus said: Blessed are the PURE IN HEART...there is a definite cleansing in ES. The sinful nature is cleansed of its inherited pollution after the fact of regeneration in a second definite instantaneous work of grace. We then enter the growth process toward maturity.

Why is it that after all these 100 years of teaching, preaching, singing about, and hopefully living ES, we are now having doubts and questions. We should be able to sing: "I have settled the question, hallelujah..." Or, It's real, Praise God the doubts are settled and I KNOW IT'S REAL. The sinful nature can be cleansed and we can have freedom from all sin, but we have a heap of growin' to do.

[Bob Evans]

Scott and All

I am not sure we should call the traditional Nazarene eradication ideas as not sanctified. I think people need to be ushered into new understandings of what it means to be Christ in the world.

When I worked public relations for the missions I did an event at a large Awanas group and an independent bible church. The kids had a penny drive to help feed the poor and homeless inour area. I gave my little presentation and then allowed the kids to ask questions. It was very cute and the kids asked great questions.

Near the end though an older gentleman raised his hands and asked the most amazing question I ever heard in that kind of setting. He asked me how Mel Trotter Ministries could continue to call themselves a Christian organization because we took mney form the kids to give to men who would just smoke, drink, and use drugs. The room got deathly silent. And breathing a quick prayer on the spot was because someone needs to tell the smokers, drinkers and drug users about Jesus.

Later on the pastor called me and apologized for the man. He assured me that that wasn't the attitude of the church and he invited me to come and preach on compassion for the poor in America. And now 6 years later the church has never been the same. They opened a compassionate ministries center in their neighborhood and are heavily involved in outreach to the poor in our area. And by the way the man with the bad question now drives homeless mem to job interviews and doctors appointments.

If we ignoring the big issues then someone needs to lead the way. And perhaps some Matthew 25 and Isaiah 58 should be a regular part of our preaching schedule and mission planning.

[David Rhone]

Growing up in the Church of the Nazarene in the same generation of Scott's father and graduating from the same Nazarene college, I feel that somehow I have survived the church (the small "c" is intentional) with its faulty teaching of the sanctified life. It is my opinion that all of the preachers who professed eradication of their sinful natures did not possess that experience.

It was the great hope of early Nazarenes that their particular brand of holiness would Christianize Christianity and that the eradication of our sinful natures would be a world-wide experience. Reality has taught us differently.

I am thankful to God that although I still retain my sinful nature, it is under the control of the Holy Spirit and I am free to live above the old patterns of sin. I am free and I choose to live and be fruitful in that freedom. My sanctification is real. It is all of Christ and none of mine. My life was not worth all that much, but it was redeemed. And I gave that redeemed life, with all of its bumps, bruises and imperfections back to the One who redeemed it. That is all that matters. That is sufficient for me.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

The generation before people mine and Dwayne's age, acted (some of them) as if sanctifcation made one perfect But, I learned some things from my mother being much like that, so I veered away, and think of it as a perfect heart. My every intention is to be Christlike, and to do His will, hers was too, but my human may make some head mistakes. But, God looks on the heart, and does not impute sin against me, when sinning was no where near my thoughts and intentions. So, I am not a sinner. I am a Christian because of the shed blood of Christ and His resurrection. I despise to hear a holiness believer call themselves a sinner, when I thought a real Christian ceased from intentional sin. So you have to go on back past mine and Dwayne's 68 and 69 year old believes, to find sanctifiction believed in a different way, than we believe.

But, many of those people were really sanctified and spirit filled, and believed it the way they had been taught, even though they actually lived a spirit filled life.

Mother was not easy on us, but she was on others--looking past to their home environments, etc.
And, post modernism. There have always been people that loved God, and worked in various ways to win others to the Lord, besides a church environment. Our parents did.
So, let's not bundle everyone up into a bundle of the last generation. Just realize, that the younger generation, are sort of catching on to what many Chrsitians have been doing for years, and hope for it to fully catch on.

We need to give credit, where credit is due. I ask for people to read what our daughter wrote, so, maybe Dwayne and I actually accomplished something in raising our children. Many people read it, but I would have liked more comments, as to what effect their methods will have, etc.

[Hans Deventer]

Why is it that after all these 100 years of teaching, preaching, singing about, and hopefully living ES, we are now having doubts and questions.

Because it turns out that many, if not most, of those professing ES, were racists still. That's the very question Scott is asking about. What does it mean to have been sanctified when there is still sin in you, though people at that time, didn't see it as such? What sin could then be left in us that we don't recognize as such?

The blood of Christ cleanses from all sin, yes. But it does not change our cultural understanding of what sin is, it appears to do so within the cultural framework we live in.

So that is what after "100 years of teaching, preaching, singing about, and hopefully living ES" we are now wondering about. If this be the case, then what does it mean to be sanctified? And we can't just say, let's keep article 10 as it is. It fails in explaining this and answering the questions we ask today.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I'm not so quick to dismiss the testimonies of those who've gone before, or those who are "falling" seemingly left and right around us. Additionally, on one hand we have those who are crying that we've changed our position on ES over the last hundred years, and on the other are those who call for us now to change considerably what we proclaim. So what do we do with, "May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it." I Thess 5:23-24. ? Can we say it can't be true because in our own judgement those who've gone before obviously didn't have it, and by our own experience we're convinced we don't have it either? Not having it, should not we then seek this promise of God until we do have it? (That is highly characteristic of the words of a previous generation - who claimed to have sought it until God did something they absolutely couldn't deny - hindsight of critics decades later notwithstanding.)
So, what is this that Paul urges us to seek? The questions raised are good, but that doesn't mean that our initial answer is equally appropriate.

[Richard Call]

Because it turns out that many, if not most, of those professing ES, were racists still. That's the very question Scott is asking about. What does it mean to have been sanctified when there is still sin in you, though people at that time, didn't see it as such? What sin could then be left in us that we don't recognize as such?

The blood of Christ cleanses from all sin, yes. But it does not change our cultural understanding of what sin is, it appears to do so within the cultural framework we live in.

So that is what after "100 years of teaching, preaching, singing about, and hopefully living ES" we are now wondering about. If this be the case, then what does it mean to be sanctified? And we can't just say, let's keep article 10 as it is. It fails in explaining this and answering the questions we ask today.

Hans, racism is a sin if the person has been challenged by the HS and he doesn't change his attitude. As you know the Wesleyan definition of sin is a "willful transgression of the known law of God." This is a scripturally founded fact. Adam and Eve did not, could not, sin without prior knowledge. If you grew up in the American Old South and were taught segregation and disdain for the black person it would take the light of the HS to teach you to love the black person as your neighbor. This discussion of racism as it relates to ES seems to lack real substance when applied to all persons who profess ES. Professing and possessing are to different realities. Cultural influences will be changed by the HS in a person after he has made his full surrender to the will of God. That is called maturing. As long as the sinful nature is nurtured by the believer he cannot grow in the Lord. It seems that some would have us nuture the sinful nature than to seek for the full cleansing from all sin. We remain in Romans 7 under those conditions. The glorious news of ES, as it has been practiced and taught over the last century by those really possessing it, is there is freedom from all sin. The heart is, and can be, made pure (absolute perfection is not the case) but the motive to love God with all my being, and to love my neighbor as myself is God's will for all of us..but this involves maturing in Christ.

By the way, changing article 10 is not the solution to our problem. ES with the full cleansing from all sin is the answer. Let's get to it. Do it and it will work!

[Scott Daniels]

As you know the Wesleyan definition of sin is a "willful transgression of the known law of God." This is a scripturally founded fact.

That is NOT the complete Wesleyan definintion of sin. That is one of Wesley's descriptions of sin, but Wesley also recognized that sin is the term we use to describe the pervasive brokenness that exists in principalities and powers, nations, cultures, communities, families, and individuals. The whole creation growns for a complete redemption not just for a renewing of human will toward the good.

Part of the problem in this discussion is that (like so often has happened) we have ignored sanctification as being "set apart for divine purposes." Things or people that are sanctified in the scripture are made holy not for their own sake but in order to be used for divine purposes.

We get caught up in all of this sin nature discussion and overlook the purposes for which we are being cleansed. Isn't what we found (and continue to find) attractive about Wesley and Bresee's holiness teaching that it sent the holy (the saints) back to the world to change its sinful systems and structures? And on the other side, isn't what makes us uncomfortable about some of our history is our tendency toward isolationism that ignored (or ignores still) patterns of classism, racism, nationalism, militarism, patriarchialism, etc.

My problem is not that I don't think God's grace is sufficient enough to transform a human heart. My problem with some of our past doctrine of holiness is that when you stop transformation at "known sin" or at personal will, those hopes are not big enough for me. I believe that God wants to sanctify the whole creation.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Romans 8 tells us the rest of the story.
Another thing about men, that I have noticed, they don't seem to feel that what a lady has to say on the scriptures bear much weight. That has been my experience.

[Ian Gentles]

Well ES was Wesley growing in understanding, we still grow. Was racism right? most definatly not. But God brings too us things one at a time!

[Charles W Christian]

Hans, racism is a sin if the person has been challenged by the HS and he doesn't change his attitude. As you know the Wesleyan definition of sin is a "willful transgression of the known law of God." This is a scripturally founded fact. Adam and Eve did not, could not, sin without prior knowledge. If you grew up in the American Old South and were taught segregation and disdain for the black person it would take the light of the HS to teach you to love the black person as your neighbor. This discussion of racism as it relates to ES seems to lack real substance when applied to all persons who profess ES. Professing and possessing are to different realities. Cultural influences will be changed by the HS in a person after he has made his full surrender to the will of God. That is called maturing. As long as the sinful nature is nurtured by the believer he cannot grow in the Lord. It seems that some would have us nuture the sinful nature than to seek for the full cleansing from all sin. We remain in Romans 7 under those conditions. The glorious news of ES, as it has been practiced and taught over the last century by those really possessing it, is there is freedom from all sin. The heart is, and can be, made pure (absolute perfection is not the case) but the motive to love God with all my being, and to love my neighbor as myself is God's will for all of us..but this involves maturing in Christ.

By the way, changing article 10 is not the solution to our problem. ES with the full cleansing from all sin is the answer. Let's get to it. Do it and it will work!

Richard -
I think your intentions are good here, but let me add a couple of quick critiques:
1) A main point of the original thread, it seems to me, is the difference you speak of between "professing and possessing," meaning, lots who (based upon a short-sighted view of ES) thought they "possessed it" apparently did not, at least to the extent they thought they did. Hence, further reason for a need to clarify Article X and our applications of the doctrine in general, in my opinion....

2) Your last sentence is actually a partial and clearer re-stating (albeit a short, overview one) of Articles X. How can we indeed "get to it" without being able to restate it (as you have done) in a more understandable way?? Again, Article X of the Manual is NOT "holy writ" in the same sense as Scripture, and it is indeed subject to re-wording, and if necessary in such a young denomination as ours (we are infants compared to many other denominations!) re-interpretation!

3) Many of those, in the Old South for example, thought that their "two trips to the altar" made them "single-minded" in their piety. However, that attitude also made them feel that they had no need for further development of certain prejudices and actions since they were "saved and sanctified." They knew how to "get blessed", but they did not know how to stand up against the oppressive social structures of their day, to embrace blacks for example, and to proclaim the intent of God to have a society that reflected His diversity and love! If Article X had been more explicit about this, I don't know if it would have helped, but it wouldn't have hurt! The same is true today....

4) NO ONE is talking about "nurturing the sinful nature". Rather, we are talking about being honest about sin and its effects upon the whole person and upon society! Any statement about ES will have to address this more clearly than our current article does, it seems to me (and to many). So, again, no one is questioning the majority of those who claimed and experienced a second work of grace in our lives, necessarily! Rather, some of us are questioning whether or not an understanding that is too reductionistic has pervaded our circles in the short time we've been around (not quite 100 years)!!

Blessings,
Charles

[Richard Call]

Charles, thanks for your input. You stated: "some of us are questioning whether or not an understanding that is too reductionistic has pervaded our circles in the short time we've been around (not quite 100 years)!!"

By this statement I am assuming that you are saying that ES is too complicated because it has been put into simplistic language; into terms difficult to understand. Is this correct? That we have taken the doctrine if ES and reduced it to, say, the equivalent to 2x2= something beyond our understanding.

What I am reading in this attempt to revise article #10 is that it is so ill written, so simplistic in language; so complicated that no one understands it. At least, that's what I seem to read. Is this correct?

If the above two statements are true where is the reduction. If it is too simple, so simple no one understands article #10 wherein is it complicated and beyond understanding? How do you feel your revision will improve it....will you produce the "4?"

What is so difficult about understanding that to say one is entirely sanctified means that he has made a full surrender of his will to Jesus Christ?
What is so difficult about understanding that we have a sinful nature that must be cleansed from the propensity to sin?
What is so difficult to understand that this work of grace has been active since Pentecost and the disciples, and all those in the upper room, received it? See Acts 15
What is so difficult to understand that ES empowers one for service? Enables him to serve his present generation?
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that ES is not an appendage to salvation but a deepening in one's relationship to the Lord? (an incomplete completion, if you will)
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that a pure heart is essential to seeing God?
What is so difficult to understand that one continues to mature in grace after he receives the "blessing?"

You call this reductionary? So be it. That is exactly what article #10 says and means.
I, frankly, don't think you can improve it. Any attempts I have seen only dilutes it to suit those who would like to think that we as humans are capable of some goodness in ourselves and would detract from the real truth that without the cleansing of the heart from all sin no one will see God. (not my words but the words of Jesus)

My hope and prayer is that we will have a reawakening of holiness preaching in TCOTN.
A revival of life changing, heart cleansing, holiness.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Dave Rhone, That is quite a statement to believe those ministers that grew up in the church when they believed in eradification of the sinful nature were not sanctified. I grew up in that age, and I knew some of the most godly sanctified ministers, male and female "that ever walked on two feet."
Many times, the people back then, even prayed their food in, each day.
In what years would you consider that to be, that our ministers were not sanctified?
The word cleansed is fine with me, if it is cleansed to the point of being purified.
It seemed to me that they were not as quick to get upset about little things as many of the ministers do today.

My husband's dad and mother are two of the most godly people I have ever known. He is 89 years of age now. I have been in the family nearly 49 years, and I have never seen any carnal, fleshly actions from him. Many of the older ministers were truly sanctified when we were growing up.
My husband is an ordained elder, 69 years of age, and he is one of the most Christlike people that I know. He believes in loving his wife as Christ loved the church.
Maybe you were raised around a very different kind of holiness than I was.
I saw your picture in the Grow Magazine.

[David Rhone]

Many years ago, in the old Herald of Holiness, Dr. Purkaiser (I'm sure I've spelled his name incorrectly) edited a column of questions from readers. If my memory serves me right, it was called "The Answer Corner".

At the time of the first human heart transplants, a saint from somewhere posed the following question to the good Doctor:

"If a sanctified Nazarene had a heart transplant and recieved that heart from a non-sanctified person, whould that Nazarene need to be re-sanctified?"

The students at Pasadena College were certain that the question had come from Bethany and I suspect the Bethany kids thought it from Trevecca.

It's been a bunch of years. But this comical quesiton reminds me some of the rhetoric surrounding this issue of the eradication of the sinful nature that we are reading in this thread.

Hey folks---the situation was spoken to and the vast majority of voters decided to remove that non-starter from the official glosserary of Nazarenedom. But, did the removal of the term remove anything of the work of Christ in any of our hearts. I think not.

As for me and my house, we will still keep walking in the light, boys and girls, not the least concerned what some others from other parts of the country or even some of those in our own fellowships think about the matter. My sanctifier is as mighty as his result in my life. My cleansing is a complete as the work of the Cleanser. The propinsity to sin has been wrapped in in the love of Christ and I am fully motivated to hang on to Almighty God, allowing Him to complete the work that He began in me in June 1960

And, if some choose to read into my remarks some imaginary words that would question the sanctification of some in the past who claimed, but never experienced the eradication of their sinful natures---so be it. I choose to believe that they were walking in the light they had and held on to it. For us today, that light penetrates a little more deeply and has opened up those once hidden problems of race, gender and justice-- and as God has dealt with our lives, we have responded.

And so, dear lady, who thinks I have disparraiged all of the holiness pastors in her past because they believed in "Eradication" because that's what the little black book told them to believe---fear not. I absolutely believe that we were all sanctified, and all, to a degree, a little nutty in that belief, as we shunned Blacks, failed to evangelise in ethnically diverse neighborhoods and, in too many cases, did our best to keep those nasty old sinners outside of our church.

Truce. Peace in the name of Jesus. If we were Native American, we could break out the old peace pipe. But, the ones who smoked it could be considered to have lost that slipperly old sanctification experience.

I remember when Pasadena College had its first Black basketball player. His name was Ben. Ben was a powerful addition to our starting five. I recall going to a game at Cal Poly in Pomona, Californa and hearing one of our professors in the Department of Religion say to a friend, "I hope our nigger is better than their nigger". He wasn't, by the way.

These were "sanctified" men who moved in their relationship with Christ in the freedom of their personal cofidence that their original sin had been eradicated at a trip to an altar, subsequent to their first.

Actually, this gives me hope.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Dave R. That was funny about the lady wondering if a person would still be sanctified if they had a heart transplant. ha I have mitra valve prolapse, where the valves do not fit together correctly. Do you think that my sanctification might seep out? ha
Speaking of ministers calling blacks by the "N" word, is terrible. My mother didn't like that. We knew better.
Mother use to try to get them to come in and eat at our table, when they knocked on the back door, and ask for food. I called her once from Memphis, and said, "Mother, a black family moved in beside of us yesterday." She said, "They won't hurt you." We would put our babies in our playpen together to play.

All of you know how Dwayne and I feel about black people. There is a big chance that the church in Arkansas, where Dwayne has been speaking on Sunday mornings will get a black minister. They are all white, but are very receptive to the idea. of course, that thrills us.

[Charles W Christian]

Charles, thanks for your input. You stated: "some of us are questioning whether or not an understanding that is too reductionistic has pervaded our circles in the short time we've been around (not quite 100 years)!!"

By this statement I am assuming that you are saying that ES is too complicated because it has been put into simplistic language; into terms difficult to understand. Is this correct? That we have taken the doctrine if ES and reduced it to, say, the equivalent to 2x2= something beyond our understanding.

What I am reading in this attempt to revise article #10 is that it is so ill written, so simplistic in language; so complicated that no one understands it. At least, that's what I seem to read. Is this correct?

If the above two statements are true where is the reduction. If it is too simple, so simple no one understands article #10 wherein is it complicated and beyond understanding? How do you feel your revision will improve it....will you produce the "4?"

What is so difficult about understanding that to say one is entirely sanctified means that he has made a full surrender of his will to Jesus Christ?
What is so difficult about understanding that we have a sinful nature that must be cleansed from the propensity to sin?
What is so difficult to understand that this work of grace has been active since Pentecost and the disciples, and all those in the upper room, received it? See Acts 15
What is so difficult to understand that ES empowers one for service? Enables him to serve his present generation?
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that ES is not an appendage to salvation but a deepening in one's relationship to the Lord? (an incomplete completion, if you will)
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that a pure heart is essential to seeing God?
What is so difficult to understand that one continues to mature in grace after he receives the "blessing?"

You call this reductionary? So be it. That is exactly what article #10 says and means.
I, frankly, don't think you can improve it. Any attempts I have seen only dilutes it to suit those who would like to think that we as humans are capable of some goodness in ourselves and would detract from the real truth that without the cleansing of the heart from all sin no one will see God. (not my words but the words of Jesus)

My hope and prayer is that we will have a reawakening of holiness preaching in TCOTN.
A revival of life changing, heart cleansing, holiness.

I would not want to change any article simply for the sake of changing it. On the other hand, as I said before, I don't believe Article X is infallible, nor is it spoken directly from the mouth of God, etc. It is a good summation of the doctrine of entire sanctification, but it is not the only valid Wesleyan rendering of the doctrine, and I think it can be clearer, and if we can come up with a way to make it clearer and a more precise addressing of sanctification in general, including entire sanctification, then I think we should.

We can just agree to disagree on that, though.

I know that we should always emphasize the goal of the Christian life being more than just being forgiven. Rather,we should emphasize the joy that can come with being empowered by God's Spirit....


Thanks,
Charles

[Richard Call]

Thanks, Charles...the joy of the Lord is my strength. Praise be to his holy name!!!!

[Jim Monck]

How much difference is there in saying something has been eradicated and saying something is entirely sanctified?

[Jim Monck]

I would not want to change any article simply for the sake of changing it. On the other hand, as I said before, I don't believe Article X is infallible, nor is it spoken directly from the mouth of God, etc. It is a good summation of the doctrine of entire sanctification, but it is not the only valid Wesleyan rendering of the doctrine, and I think it can be clearer, and if we can come up with a way to make it clearer and a more precise addressing of sanctification in general, including entire sanctification, then I think we should.

We can just agree to disagree on that, though.

I know that we should always emphasize the goal of the Christian life being more than just being forgiven. Rather,we should emphasize the joy that can come with being empowered by God's Spirit....


Thanks,
Charles

I agree Charles, but can we say this is our distinctive doctrine? Isn't being Christlike the goal of a lot of churches?

Could it be that sanctification is no longer OUR distintive doctrine and reason for being but rather we are a part of the body of Christ and our reason for being is more Calvinism vs. Wesleyan theology if theology is the issue?

[Charles W Christian]

I agree Charles, but can we say this is our distinctive doctrine? Isn't being Christlike the goal of a lot of churches?

Could it be that sanctification is no longer OUR distintive doctrine and reason for being but rather we are a part of the body of Christ and our reason for being is more Calvinism vs. Wesleyan theology if theology is the issue?

I don't know, Jim. I think, for example, that being Christlike and ES are NOT mutually exclusive! As Dr Tom Noble once said: Sanctification is not just about affirming a doctrine; it's about a PERSON, Jesus Christ! The ultimate goal (according to Wesley) is living in constant fellowship with God through Jesus Christ. This is at the heart of who we are supposed to be as a holiness church, it seems to me. Entire sanctification describes the means by which we achieve (by God's grace) the ultimate goal!

As far as your last question, I'm not quite sure what you're meaning. Wesleyan approaches to things are distinctive in many areas in comparison to Calvinism, that's for sure. Both Calvinists and Wesleyans (and those who are a mix of both and are neither!) seem to understand this. And, by the way, it seems that theology is always an issue! :-)

Blessings,

Charles

[Jim Monck]

I don't know, Jim. I think, for example, that being Christlike and ES are NOT mutually exclusive! As Dr Tom Noble once said: Sanctification is not just about affirming a doctrine; it's about a PERSON, Jesus Christ! The ultimate goal (according to Wesley) is living in constant fellowship with God through Jesus Christ. This is at the heart of who we are supposed to be as a holiness church, it seems to me. Entire sanctification describes the means by which we achieve (by God's grace) the ultimate goal!

As far as your last question, I'm not quite sure what you're meaning. Wesleyan approaches to things are distinctive in many areas in comparison to Calvinism, that's for sure. Both Calvinists and Wesleyans (and those who are a mix of both and are neither!) seem to understand this. And, by the way, it seems that theology is always an issue! :-)

Blessings,

Charles

It seems that many times when we talk about theology in the context of the larger church community we usually find ourselves in a conversation about eternal security (Calvinism vs. Wesleyanism) rather than sanctification, Christlikeness, etc. It is hard to attend a good church that doesn't urge their people to become more like Christ; so is sanctification really our distinctive? Entire does enter into a discussion but isn't that what we really are struggling with to define as a denomination?

Sometimes statements like "we are a holiness church," "we believe in being entirely committed to Christ" leave us looking less Christlike than more. Is Billy Graham a holy man; does he live a life entirely committed to the Lord?

I guess what I am trying to say is that we do have some distinctives in beliefs but many times they are more of the head than the heart. Doesn't our holiness call us to face that?

If I'm way off track let me know. I guess I struggle sometimes not only with Entire Sanctification and the surrounding culture but also our attitude toward the Christian culture we are a part of.

[Hans Deventer]

How much difference is there in saying something has been eradicated and saying something is entirely sanctified?

A lot. "Eradicated" sounds as if there is something changed in the core of our being, that cannot be undone. The image is incorrect and the word isn't Biblical.

"Entirely sanctified" keeps open the idea that it is really the quality of our relationship with Christ. "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." That's a continuing process in which we keep being purified, as we keep walking in the light. That is Biblical.

[Jim Monck]

Hans, are you sure that is how we use the words, Entire Sanctification"? That sounds more like continual sanctification.

I know this is a discussion that is taking place in other forums and in the church at large, but I am thinking of it in regard to the surrounding culture.

How can we say it is the distinctive doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene as you defined it. Wouldn't many churches preach it as you have defined it? In fact, can any doctrine be distinctive to one denomination if it is basic Bible truth.

For instance we would not say "salvation" is our distinctive doctrine.

It seems to me that our church history shows we were defined by what we didn't do as much as what we did believe. So, we didn't go to movies but we didn't beleive all men were created equal by God. So it was not hard to be a racist as long as you didn't go to movies.

Forgive me for getting two groups involved here; surrounding culture and church surrounding culture but some early Nazarenes felt about Catholics about the same way they felt about blacks. I guess what troubles me sometimes is that our view of holiness can lead us to feel superior and it comes out in a number of ways.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, are you sure that is how we use the words, Entire Sanctification"? That sounds more like continual sanctification.

Well, I've always understood that the Greek here speaks of a continuing process. That does not mean one grows into ES or that there is no crisis, but it does mean that it's "state" is to be maintained by walking in the light.

How can we say it is the distinctive doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene as you defined it. Wouldn't many churches preach it as you have defined it?

You may have misunderstood how I defined it. To me, the verse explains that holiness is thoroughly relational. We have no innate holiness, without Christ's purifying love, we'd be devils the next moment. I thought that was what John Wesley already explained so yes, in my view, that is part of our message.

It seems to me that our church history shows we were defined by what we didn't do as much as what we did believe. So, we didn't go to movies but we didn't beleive all men were created equal by God. So it was not hard to be a racist as long as you didn't go to movies.

That's right.

I guess what troubles me sometimes is that our view of holiness can lead us to feel superior and it comes out in a number of ways.

Ah! But feeling superior is contrary to love and hence to holiness.

[Jim Monck]

Hans said, "You may have misunderstood how I defined it. To me, the verse explains that holiness is thoroughly relational. We have no innate holiness, without Christ's purifying love, we'd be devils the next moment. I thought that was what John Wesley already explained so yes, in my view, that is part of our message."

Hans, but why are so many people not devils? We often talk about people who are not Christians as doing no good. That is not true. We often talk about people who are not Christians as not being able to face trying situations, but they do?

I'm glad I'm a Christian and I believe that is very important in regard to eternity but when we give the impression we are the only good guys here on earth or the only people that can deal with serious matters because we have Christ I think people question us and rightly so.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, but why are so many people not devils?

I've heard of prevenient grace. Why should we presume that the Holy Spirit works in Christians alone?

Jim, I have to admit I'm feeling some irritation grow. I try to answer you seriously but you're running in any direction with what I'm saying. What exactly is your question, what exactly do you want a reaction to?


I reacted to your question: "How much difference is there in saying something has been eradicated and saying something is entirely sanctified?"

And now all of a sudden we are discussing why so many people are not devils? That's quite a stretch, I may have missed a few stops along the line here.

[Jim Monck]

I've heard of prevenient grace. Why should we presume that the Holy Spirit works in Christians alone?

Jim, I have to admit I'm feeling some irritation grow. I try to answer you seriously but you're running in any direction with what I'm saying. What exactly is your question, what exactly do you want a reaction to?


I reacted to your question: "How much difference is there in saying something has been eradicated and saying something is entirely sanctified?"

And now all of a sudden we are discussing why so many people are not devils? That's quite a stretch, I may have missed a few stops along the line here.

"the devils" part was quoting you.

I think I will take a stab at how we got here. Does our doctrine of "entire sanctification" lead us to a feeling of superiority or humility?

This forum started asking questions about Entire Sanctification and the Surrounding Culture.

[Hans Deventer]

"the devils" part was quoting you.

John Wesley, actually.

I think I will take a stab at how we got here. Does our doctrine of "entire sanctification" lead us to a feeling of superiority or humility?

I don't know. The experience itself should lead to humility if it is real, the doctrine is merely an attempt to explain it. Are you saying the doctrine is leading to a specific kind of experience rather than merely trying to explain it?

Reading article X by the way, I see that the only mention of "love" is within the context of obedience. That's pretty meagre.

This forum started asking questions about Entire Sanctification and the Surrounding Culture.

Yes. But I replied to a specific question. Can't process all of it in a single reply.

Jim, I apologize. I should have immersed myself in the thread more. I thought I could reply to a simple question. I couldn't.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

The Holy Spirit convicts sinners of their sins. I have always heard that the only prayer God answers for a sinner is for salvation.