Article X

[Scott Daniels]

There has been a lot of discussion regarding Article X on Sanctification going into General Assembly. In your opinion should Article X be left as it is, revised in its current form, or completely re-written?

What do you think, and why (if you have time)?

Below is the article as it currently stands:

X. Entire Sanctification
13. We believe that entire sanctification is that act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made free from original sin, or depravity, and brought into a state of entire devotement to God, and the holy obedience of love made perfect.

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

Entire sanctification is provided by the blood of Jesus, is wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration; and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit bears witness.

This experience is also known by various terms representing its different phases, such as "Christian perfection," "perfect love," "heart purity," "the baptism with the Holy Spirit," "the fullness of the blessing," and "Christian holiness."

14. We believe that there is a marked distinction between a pure heart and a mature character. The former is obtained in an instant, the result of entire sanctification; the latter is the result of growth in grace.

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

[Ryan Scott]

I voted for "re-written," but not necessarily for drastic changes, just to make it flow a little better than it does (although a few changes would be nice).

[Roy Richardson]

I voted for "re-written," but not necessarily for drastic changes, just to make it flow a little better than it does (although a few changes would be nice).

I'm with Ryan on this. It needs to be put into terms that are understandable by the laity. As a practical matter when people read the manual on this, their eyes cross.

[Susan Unger]

It should be written so that a highschool grad [or 8th grade grade] could understand it.

[Hans Deventer]

I voted for rewritten. I agree with Tom and the discussion that followed is quite a detailed answer as to why we really do need a good rewrite, I'd say.

[David Pettigrew]

I don't care so much about the clarity, since all of our articles refer to Mysteries that we will never fully comprehend on this side. I do care that our defining article be supported clearly in scripture, and, as it stands now, you must jump through some pretty convoluted hoops to get you there. So, I voted for completely rewrite it.

[Billy Cox]

As a practical matter when people read the manual on this, their eyes cross.

When I read it, my eyes roll. :rolleyes:

[Crystal Lutton]

Every time I have read this article I've had one very strong thought--it seems to have been written more as a reaction than as a doctrinal position. The word choices in several places are awkward andI wouldn't be able to understand it or explain it based on this article alone. Our very educated board members at the time we became an official COTN congregation scratched their heads and went back and forth over this issue for some time before agreeing to become COTN. It wasn't that they disagreed with it--they weren't at all sure they understood what it was saying so they couldn't agree or disagree at all. In the end we had to ask them to concede it was a poorly written explanation of something we already advocated for (heart purity) and with that assumption they were willing to agree. But every time we explained it we heard, "Then it should say that!"

[Chris Patton]

I have been copying Tom Oord's "Revisioning Article X" and giving it to laypeople in my church. They have mostly affirmed that Oord puts words to the nagging problems they have had with Article X but did not know how to communicate. To me that's a pretty good reason to re-write it. If the laypeople have a nagging suspicion, we ought to communicate it differently

[Paul Tarrant]

I'm for re-writing...
We had another string on this Article a few months back - and I thought we came to some pretty good wording - which then became clouded again in later "theological" discussions... And that will likely be the case for ever, even if we get some school of specialists to do the re-writing: - either "eye-rolling" bemusement; assumption that the words say "pretty much what we believe, but have struggled to put more clearly for years," or total denial, and refusal as "beyond me." Thankfully this last is the case - it is beyond me - a mystery - but available to me, but making the wording simple will probably help - although the simple-minded will find help, the deep thinkers will always need clarification, and mre explanation.
Lets' focus on:
"Work of Grace" - YES; secondary to total consecration - Yes;
Bringing cleansing and power over sin, and for ministry - Definitely;
Mediated by the Spirit of God: Yes, Yes...
Aligning our heart with God's - I hope so.
Preventing need for further slipping - True, but not,
NOT guaranteeing the impossibility of falling and failing, nor of later restoration by that same Gentle Spirit.
Praise God, I'm in...

[Paul Tarrant]

So WHere Can We Take this string of ideas and genuine concern...?
In the Thread on "A New Article X"... some months ago, in response to a series of suggestions on the re-write option, I offered the following:
Our loving God is holy, and desires that we be holy people. Sanctification is that work of God, Father, Son and Spirit, to cleanse and fill the life of the Christian believer who makes himself ready for God’s indwelling presence.
It is God who makes sanctification possible, calling us to respond affirmatively to the invitation to be holy. The invitation is to live lives that continually express Christ-like love and prioritize all the facets of God’s code for living. These include a total devotion and obedience to God, setting ourselves apart for service to Him as He directs; and purity through submission to His cleansing power that leads to perfection.
God’s call to be holy is both individual and corporate. It is in the context of Christ’s body (the church family) that we learn what individual piety requires. Thus God's sanctifying work is expressed in public and dramatic instants, as well as in the increments of personal daily spiritual formation throughout the developing Christian life.
His work of Sanctification requires our persistent agreement to further and deeper works of transformation from that first and initial washing of regeneration. We must seek such transformation to deal with the sinful acts and habits that destroy our lives, to absolve our sense of guilt, and to free us as Christians from living a life oriented toward sin.
Sanctification replaces in us the habits of sin with the character of the Christian life as expressed in the Scriptures, making way for the Spirit of God to form in us the character of Christ (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control, with perseverance, godliness, and spiritual understanding: Galatians 5 and 2 Peter 1). This renewal of heart and mind enables the Christian for deeper devotion to God and for acts of kindness, compassion, giving, love, faith, ministry and service."

Some of you may wish to transfer across to that thread to continue the discussion.... Of course, it will take some District yet to hold it's District Assembly in the next 3-4 months to process this in time for inclusion - Has anyone made steps to do this?

[Jon Bemis]

as it stands now, you must jump through some pretty convoluted hoops to get you there. So, I voted for completely rewrite it.

David,

I agree with you. I am for rewriting it. I wonder if much of the language in Article X reflects experiential positions of the authors rather than being biblically supported doctrinal statements.

[Dennis M. Scott]

How often shall we rewrite it?

Article X, and the whole issue of the distinctive doctrine of the COTN, has always been very subjective. Holiness is dynamic. Does it make sense that our understanding of it would be less dynamic? Perhaps some biblicists would want to get it right once and for always, but that simply is not the nature of humanly penned descriptive documents.

Article X is not only to be descriptive, but experiential. It isn't merely historic. Part of its purpose is to be educational and to influence spiritual growth. When it reflects something other than our own experience, we could say, "This doesn't reflect my experience, so we should change it to make it reflect what my experience has been." An additional consideration might be to say, "This hasn't been my experience. Why not?" There is a long list of possible answers to that question, but the list goes way beyond, "Because it is wrong, and consequently needs to be changed."

[David Pettigrew]

I understand what you are saying, and certainly wouldn't want to set a precedent of revamping Article X every four years, but I still have a problem. I don't want Article X rewritten so it fits my experience. I want it rewritten so I can teach it in a membership class, and not feel like I'm having to "circle the square" in order to do so. As it is written now, I feel a twinge of intellectual dishonesty whenever I attempt (quite feebly) to explain it. Should I just teach what it says, what it means, or what scripture says about sanctification and holiness?

How often shall we rewrite it?

Article X, and the whole issue of the distinctive doctrine of the COTN, has always been very subjective. Holiness is dynamic. Does it make sense that our understanding of it would be less dynamic? Perhaps some biblicists would want to get it right once and for always, but that simply is not the nature of humanly penned descriptive documents.

Article X is not only to be descriptive, but experiential. It isn't merely historic. Part of its purpose is to be educational and to influence spiritual growth. When it reflects something other than our own experience, we could say, "This doesn't reflect my experience, so we should change it to make it reflect what my experience has been." An additional consideration might be to say, "This hasn't been my experience. Why not?" There is a long list of possible answers to that question, but the list goes way beyond, "Because it is wrong, and consequently needs to be changed."

[Hans Deventer]

How often shall we rewrite it?

Till it communicates what we mean to the people who need to hear that.

[Jon Bemis]

How often shall we rewrite it?

The same question could be asked of Bible translations; Why don't we just pick one and stick with it? Of course, some have taken that stand but I don't think that choice serves us well. Language changes, meanings change, and so new translations are needed. In my opinion, when language becomes a barrier it is wise to determine how those barriers can be removed. That is one of the issues I see in regards to Article X.

Another is the subjectivity you refer to. Again, this is my opinion, but the doctrines of our church should be as objective as understanding and language allow. An example is the statement, "We believe that entire sanctification makes believers "free from original sin." What exactly are we trying to say here? I had a fellow pastor once tell me that there are as many interpretations to this phrase as there are Nazarenes.