Our distinctive doctrine

[Nelson Bradford]

I, as a 3rd generation Nazarene, but member of our beloved Zion by choice,
believe in sanctification as the definate second work of grace - subsequent
to regeneration (I think that's the way it used to be cited in our Manual) -
as a one time dying out to self, being filled with the Holy Spirit, and then
growing from there.

But that 2nd work, received by faith, is what keeps our soul from the "want
to" of sinning - that leaning toward sin - for the Holy Spirit cleanses our
hearts and very inner being from inbred sin.

We are born with inbred sin (because of the fall of Adam), it's what makes
babies kick and cry until they get their own way, a "me first" attitude and
until we are delivered from it, we ARE in fact, like our Calvinist brothers,
going to "sin every day, in word, thought, or deed."

I've just finished reading "A Century of Holiness Theology" by Mark
Quanstrom.

And what I read there concerns me - greatly.

He summarizes on page 180 with these words:

“The problem with these redefinitions for the denomination was that they
effectively emasculated the promise of entire sanctification, at least as it
had been understood at the beginning of the century. The promise of a
gloriously transformed human nature, so vividly proclaimed by late 19th
century authors, was for the most part missing at the end of the 20th
century."

(Copyright by Beacon Hill Books)

I've got a question. Or more.

a) Is HOLINESS, as a definate second work of grace, preached in your church?

b) Have you, personally, sought and found that experience and can you
testifiy today as to its effectiveness in your life in defeating the powers
of sin and Satan?

c) Or am I just another old geezer who should keep still? And recognize the
fact that Holiness preaching and living went the same way as the kerosene
lantern? (Am not going to mention the hymns of the church).

d) OR I should have posted this note on the theology board, however, I do
not feel worthy of treading there.

I'm discouraged.

If our young preachers - both women and men - are not being taught the basic
doctrine of HOLINESS, then where is our beloved church headed?

May God help us all.

Nelson

ps - Isn't God good?!
~~~~~
I am now going to attempt to paste some of the comments/responses to the original post which were lost...w/o the author's permission - I hope this is okay.

[Nelson Bradford]

Response by Scott Cundiff from his BLOG page.
~~~~~~~
Preaching Second Blessing Holiness
Sermon mode: ON
I have been preaching a series of messages on the "Deeper Life." It is a
careful approach to our cardinal doctrine of entire sanctification.
The thing that comes to mind is how powerfully this message resonates in the
lives of people. There is such a hungering for God -- a longing for a deeper
relationship with him.
Also, I have had such a strong sense of being "carried along" by the Holy
Spirit as I preach along these lines. Numerous people have remarked on this
anointing. I think the Lord is pleased with this theme.
Over the years I have envisioned the Nazarenes in town being known as such
positive things as being the "praying church" or the "loving church" or the
"caring church." I certainly want all these things -- but once again I have
been reminded that, before all else, we are a holiness church. Without this
distinctive we find ourselves just blending into the religious background.
All my life I have heard it said that the Church of the Nazarene was raised
up to preach second blessing holiness. Today, at 33 years of ministry and
counting, I am more convinced of that than ever.
We need to preach it carefully, correctly, and faithfully!
Sermon mode: OFF
Thanks for reading!
~~~~~~
William Hunter has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to
entitled - Our distinctive doctrine - in the NazNet Community Discussion
forum of NazNet Community.
This thread is located at:
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=379&goto=newpost
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
I preach our distinctive doctrine regularily. How can we claim to be
holiness preachers and a holiness church if that is not preached and taught
on a regular basis in the church? I also use the old Biblical terms, for
they are Biblical. I take time to define those terms, etc. The idea is not
to change the term and often only end up watering it down, but to help my
people expand their vocabulary and their understanding of the Bible.
***************
Joel Merrill has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled -
Our distinctive doctrine - in the NazNet Theology Discussion forum of NazNet
Community.
This thread is located at:
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=379&goto=newpost
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
These are all good questions, Nelson.
I do hear holiness preached often and it is practiced in my church however I
am no longer a Nazarene.
Yes, I can say that I am entirely sanctified. I have to say that it took me
22 years after I became I Christian. Maybe I'm slow but sin had a strong
pull on my life and I had a hard time getting a handle on holiness. I never
have been into so called "deep sin" but sin is sin. I think part of the
problem was that I was confused by some preachers and evangelists who made
holiness out to be something that it is not. I was raised in a very
legalistic home and heard a lot of legalistic preaching. Legalism all boils
down to trying to do it on your own and it leaves out the power of the Holy
Spirit. You are doomed to fail. I wonder if those legalism preachers ever
read Romans chapter 7. I also had a great deal of trouble with the "name it
and claim it" crowd. I would go to the alter and they would quote and few
scriptures, slap me on the back and say "name it and claim it" as if they
were preforming some kind of magic spell. I'm sorry but some of us need to
die out and that can't be rushed.
You are not an old geezer and holiness is just as important today as it
always has been. Society constantly changes and we need to constantly look
for ways to keep our message fresh and up to date with todays generation but
the message is the same.
I have to be honest here and say that I worry about the Church of the
Nazarene. I don't travel to different churches so I don't know what it
being preached but almost every church I know on this district is having
problems. People are fighting over control and money and legalism. There
are clicks and gossip and other problems that are all caused by carnality.
Either holiness isn't being preached or it isn't being preached effectively.
I'm on the outside looking in now so I don't know for sure why this is
happening.
There is something I would like to add here. It is a little off the topic
but not completely. You mentioned sanctification taking the "want to" away.
I agree in that God has delivered me from powerful habits and temptations
but I am still tempted. I have also noticed that if Satan can't get us to
do the outward sins we used to do, he will work on our inside. We can
become proud, judgmental, critical, bitter, angry, and a long list of other
things. I know lots of older Christians who probably were sanctified once
upon a time but now they are a hindrance to younger Christians seeking
holiness. There was a retired preacher in one church I went to. He was a
Hell fire, name it and claim it, follow my rules, holiness preacher. He was
well respected in the church and on the district. Yet he never wasted an
opportunity to insult me. I don't know what I did to him but his message
was ruined by his actions. So I guess what I'm saying is that holiness is a
daily thing that must be kept up to date. It is a starting point not an
arrival. We don't dare become stale.
I probably haven't said anything that you all don't already know so I better
quit.
Joel
***************
Edith S. Thurmond has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to
entitled - Our distinctive doctrine - in the NazNet Theology Discussion
forum of NazNet Community.
This thread is located at:
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=379&goto=newpost
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT post. Thank you....
***************
Billy Cox has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Re:
Our distinctive doctrine - in the NazNet Community Discussion forum of
NazNet Community.

This thread is located at:
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=309&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
The term 'second blessing holiness' strikes me as being archaic religious
language akin to 'gullywasher' or 'bringing the glory down'. Although I
understand what these expressions mean, they have fallen into disuse.

It seems to me that the best thing for holiness theology would be for us to
think up some new terminology that communicates to today's
believers...without throwing out the original meaning.

I believe that biblical holiness is as relevant as it has ever been, but the
packaging (language) does not communicate anymore.
***************

[Terri Knoll]

you are right, it's somewhere in the middle of the fundies and libs.
but the "second work" or "baptism in the Holy Spirit" is very real and I love to tell people about it. even nonbelievers are amazed!
the old hymn writers Amazing Grace and the new praise writers Amazing Love knew/know that Love. I just know they had to!

Praise God!

[Terri Knoll]

:basic05

but you got it right on son!

to answer your question:
yes, the "second work" is still very real and powerful! being 3rd gen too, I remember. I was well into my 30's before God revealed himself to me and healed me of all grief! and I love to tell the story! boldly!
sin...eh ain't so worried about that, but I am concerned about sharing the love of God with others!

great thoughts, love, kudos!

(poppin off for emergency response team to the hurricane affected areas so won't be around for a few days. be blessed!!)

[Bruce Carriker]

I tried to respond, but don't know if it worked.

[BobHunt]

My roots were in another denomination, but I still believe in two works of grace as Nelson stated. However, there are many churches that do not teach it or if they do it is something thats on the back burner.
I know that I have the second experience. It is the trade mark of the Holiness churches. In fact it should be one of our best known characteristics "to spread Holiness across the world."
There are many churches where there is fighting over who will have control of this office or that, or who is the most popular, or so many other items. I really feel that if we are sanctified, that all the attention will not be on trying to get the most important place or the most attention, but on the lost world who needs Jesus. This isnt a popularity contest. This isnt to see who is most important, or who is the best educated, or who is the best teacher or leader. The way up with God is to be humble and go down before the Cross. There, the ground is level and we are all the same, sinners but for the grace of God.
Read men like Beverly Carridine, AM Hills, Samuel Logan Brengle, Daniel Steele, CW Ruth, Martin Wells Knapp, and dig in to their theology and you will see what I am talking about. Or GC Bevington, RG Flexon and it goes on and on.

[Bruce Carriker]

In addition to the writers cited by Bob, I'd also recommend William Greathouse (Wholeness in Christ is a contemporary classic), H. Ray Dunning, Randy Maddox, Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, Rob Staples, and, of course, John Wesley. Although a Lutheran, Dietrich Bonhoeffer had a great handle on tranforming, sanctifying grace. There are passages of The Pursuit of God by A.W. Tozer that are classic holiness statements.

My earlier response was lost when the data base crashed, and I'll not try to recreate it. For those who are interested, I'm attaching a paper I wrote that addresses the current discussion/division in the church over process and crisis. There is a section of the paper where I address what Dr. Wynkoop called "the Credibility Gap"...professing what one does not possess.

As regards what we want to call holiness, how about we just call it holiness? Something we must absolutely get away from is transactional holiness...name it, claim it...altar theology...whatever you want to call it.
Our focus must change to holiness that is relational and transformational.

[Bob Carabbio]

I've got a question. Or more.
From the AoG perspective -
a) Is HOLINESS, as a definite second work of grace, preached in your church?

The "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" as a "second act of grace" is preached but the emphasis of that in the U.S. is waning (although it's not overseas where our real membership is). In DeSoto AoG there's an uncommon emphasis on it. Naturally we don't ascribe to the "elimination of the sinful nature" since that's (in our view) a component of salvation (Our Old nature died WITH Christ on the cross according to Romans), although the experimental realization of it may take some time. We also carry a broader view of "SIN" - which goes WAY past the "willful transgression of a known law".

b) Have you, personally, sought and found that experience and can you
testifiy today as to its effectiveness in your life in defeating the powers
of sin and Satan?
Since I've been saved for over 40 years, and "spirit filled" for the last 30, at the age of 63, the Lord has worked MANY changes in me which were often painful (sometime TERRIBLY so) and in HIS power alone, many of the sin and "Self" isues I had when I was less mature (I was a really dried up legalistic pharisee for quite a few years) are history. Naturally we see the process of "sanctification" (which term we normally don't use) as progressive and essentially the product of Romans 8:28,29. - "HE who has BEGUN a good work - etc."

c) Or am I just another old geezer who should keep still? And recognize the
fact that Holiness preaching and living went the same way as the kerosene
lantern? (Am not going to mention the hymns of the church).
Geezers unite!! But "holiness" hasn't gone anywhere - it's a "work in progress". There's a growing emphasis on it in many churches as we speak. It's my opinion that the original concepts of the "Second blessing" (which has been common in most religious groups for a few hundred years - the Southern Baptists called theirs "Perfect Submission") were flawed, and narrow in definition, and are therefore subject to modification.

The Wesleyan concept tended toward "experimental holiness" the Baptist tended toward a full surrender to the Lordship of Christ, the AoG tended to major on 'power for ministry and evangelism". Naturally it's ALL of the above, and essentially part and parcel of being "Filled with" (completely motivated by) the Holy Spirit. I've known quite a few NAzarene folks in the 63 years that I've been alive and sentient, and to be honest, I never noticed that they "acted" any differently that any other church goer, although in the old days they did dress differently. Some of 'em still do here in rural Texas - plain dresses, no makeup, and 6 tons of hair in massive bee-hives. Naturally the men looked like - men. The AoG used to pick on the ladies too.

I'm discouraged.
I wouldn't be - paradigms come and go, but the Church - the BODY OF CHRIST! - rolls on toward her wedding. and she's "on schedule, and In budget". I just found out that the Christian church in Mongolia has increased in about 13 years from 4 known Christians to over 25,000 - and THEY'RE sending missionaries into China at their own expense when the normal wage is approximately $65/month. THAT's significant.

Oh - and the "Distinctive docrines" in the AoG are changing too. We don't let 'em get in our way. 20 years ago an AoG church would be FULL of AoG folks. NOW, there are all KINDS of different paradigms in there. A GOOD thing, I think.

[Billy Cox]

From my limited perspective, I have observed that churches are moving away from distinctive doctrines to a more generic evangelical set of agreed upon beliefs based on Scripture.

That may be good for the Kingdom, but it's bad for denominations that don't necessarily like finding themselves in bed with groups from the 'wrong' side of the Calvinist - Arminian divide.

Some people have also realized that there is a certain amount of arrogance involved in saying 'Holiness or Hell', since the holiness movement wasn't even a glimmer in a preacher's eye until about 1800 years after Jesus' ministry on Earth.

I think we have to continue to let our doctrine be informed by Scripture and not be swayed by a desire to preserve a relatively young doctrinal tradition.

Holiness is scriptural, but the support for a second crisis event is a bit on the manufactured side. That does not deny the existence of such an experience, but neither does it mean that everyone should have the same experience.

[Ian Gentles]

Totaly agree, the COTN is becomming just another evangelical church without a distinctive. We discuss sanctifiacation a lot without experiancing it.

[Joel Merrill]

I've heard a lot of deep holiness preaching and been to and even lead Bible studies where we dug deep into the word. Many of us love theology. Naturally a person is going to find holiness quicker if they hear it preached and understand it. However if a person is just obedient to the Holy Spirit they don't need to know theology to be sanctified. I've often said that a child can be sanctified.

I live in a town full of Calvinist churches. They do not believe in second blessing holiness. They believe that we sin in word, thought and deed daily. Yet I know many who are genuinely sanctified. They don't know what to call it. I usually hear them say something like, "I came to a time when I rededicated my life." They not only didn't hear the holiness message, they were taught to disagree with it. Yet in their sincere search for all that God had for them, they found it, or rather, the Holy Spirit found them.

I think sometimes we forget that we have God's Holy Spirit on our side, or rather, we are on his side. Sometimes we even get in the Holy Spirit's way trying to do it all by our selves or by rushing people into it. But more often we don't take the Holy Spirit into consideration and we give up too easy. WE need to become more in tune with the Holy Spirit ourselves. When we pray we need to listen too. This too takes practice. We are in such a hurry now days that we even hurry when we pray. We fire off our prayers like an email and don't take the time to really have a conversation with God. I pray when I first wake up in the morning. One of the things I like about working nights is that I am not rushed to get up. I can pray as long as it takes.

Joel

[Bruce Carriker]

Totaly agree, the COTN is becomming just another evangelical church without a distinctive. We discuss sanctifiacation a lot without experiancing it.


But historically, that's been a major part of our problem. We preached it a lot without experiencing it - claiming something we did not have. Read A Theology of Love by Wynkoop, particularly the chapter where she addresses the "credibility gap".

[Ian Gentles]

Yes I agree on that, remember too many testemonies from folks claiming sanctification when they obviously hadnt.

[Bruce Carriker]

And it wasn't just those preaching it who hadn't experienced it that caused a problem. It was the way we preached it...as transactional, rather than relational.

Ask in faith and it's yours.

So, if you didn't experience it, then CLEARLY the problem was with your individual faith. You didn't have enough faith to be sanctified.

Pray through. Just stay down on your knees till God gives you the blessing.

So, if you pray, but don't pray through, what's wrong with your prayers? If God's not answering, there's something wrong with you, because obviously there's nothing wrong with God.

By reducing it to a one-time, name it and claim it, ask in faith believing and its yours, transaction with God, we made a total wreck of the doctrine of holiness.

And if preachers younger than 55 or so have a problem preaching holiness like Richard Taylor, I think that's the biggest part of the reason why.

[BobHunt]

It seems there are a few people at least that have the notion that it is not a second crisis experience, that you have to grow into it little by little and day by day. I am not sure what gives you the hint when you finally arrive and are fully sanctified. When I remember Peter, and what a weak scared person he was before Jesus died, and then I see him getting up and boldly and bravely preaching a message proclaiming who had died, and 3000 people were converted, I cant believe he did that with his own power and charisma or only being a saved unsanctified person.
I cant believe that we have to wait to experience this until maybe our later years, when Paul said, "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love." The question is asked "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me..." Deliverance is an action that takes place at a certain time.
By pointing out that the COTN doesnt practise this doctrine anymore, you would think there would be a sense in the same people of a lack, a void, a weakness, a not having all God intended for us to have, but it seems as if they are content to leave it that way.
If imbred sin died with Jesus on the Cross, then why do we still expereince the effects of it in our heart? Why do babies know how to throw tantrums when no one has told them how? Why are we naturally selfish? Why do we naturally always want to get even? Why arent all these items gone already? They surely can not make us more like Jesus.
"I will purge away your dross." Isa 1: 25
I"I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh" Ezek 36:26
Words such as "cleanse" or "purge" or "purify" can hardly describe a process but a specific time. I am glad that when we put a dirty bedsheet in the washer to cleanse it, it doesnt take 30 years!
It is so easy to discredit the old writers and the terms that they used. It is so easy to say that they are words used by another generation, and that they are meaningless to todays peoples. Yet, the same people who are always printing and saying these things never go on and suggest a substitute that works! They never give us a new up-to-date Gospel dictionary and give us terms that we can use right now.
I think there may be some people who also feel just as our Cathloc friends, that perfection comes at death. But this experience is not for the grave, not for purgatory but for here and now, at least that is how the commands of the Lord are given. We are to serve him without fear IN HOLINESS and righteousness all the days of our life. Luke 1: 74 and 75.
It is such a shame and a pure disgrace to any church to stop short of experiencing all that God wants us to have in ourlives as Christians. And this shame is not put away because we are to complacent to seek it. The COTN has long been known for being a Holiness church, a Holiness denomination, it was a mark that set them apart. But now we are departing, going off on another path, and that one surely will not lead to Heaven. It is still sadder to see many of the COTN twisting the scriptures to fit their own theology instead of aligning their theology with what God has to say, in the scriptures; which do not change from generation to generation, or whenever we wish them to.
I do not see any hesitation on any one in the Bible when they preached the message of Holiness. They did not stammer around and say "Well, some of you may not experience this until later years." For Paul, it was instant; for Peter it was instant. On the day of Pentecost it was instant. If you deny this, you wrestle the scriptures from their true meaning.
God demands undivided allegiance of the soul. He can not have half only. He can not command for us to love Him out of a pure heart, and expect that to happen when half of our heart is still controlled by sin and the devil.

[Terri Knoll]

wow Bob, preach it boy!

[Bruce Carriker]

Wow, Bob. I don't even know where to start. I guess I'd just refer you to the writings of John Wesley, Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, William Greathouse, Rob Staples, and H. Ray Dunning.

I wrote for a long time, but I can't post what I've written. First, it would be offensive to some. Second, it would be misunderstood by many. Third, what's the point?

The authors mentioned above (except Wesley) are all Nazarenes; are all holiness folks; all disagree with you, at least to some extent; and are all recognized Biblical and holiness scholars, which I am not. If reading them doesn't help, nothing I might add is going to help.

[Barb Bouldrey]

The New Testament Christians were saved(confessed their sins and forgiven of those sins) and then came Pentecost where believers were filled with the Spirit and cleansed. The Book of Acts talks about Peter and Paul and John preaching about being filled with the Holy Spirit since they believed....meaning that this second work had not yet been sought and found by believers.

A generic religion is not good for the Kingdom of God. A generation of holy people is what pleases God.

Being holy, being cleansed, being filled with the Holy Spirit so we have power to witness, to have power to avoid sexual immorality, etc. is not relatively new, but as old as the New Testament church.

The people who do not want to hear about holiness always use the excuse that the people who testify to the experience and preach it are "holier than thou." That sounds good, but far from truth.

Holiness humbles and sweetens a person and teaches us to prefer one another in love.

John, in Revelation, teaches that there is nothing unholy in Heaven. So, "Holiness or Hell," is not off the track. It is all through the Bible.

Now, for the person who understands salvation and sanctification and comes to God to settle their spiritual struggles once and for all, can get saved and sanctified in the same time of prayer....because they already know it is necessary for victorious life.

Our church used to preach "two trips to the altar." Now we preach two works.

When we cool off, lose the fire and become generic, we miss the mark of the prize for the high calling in Christ Jesus...to be holy.

Barb

[BobHunt]

I dont think there are too many Holiness writers who have written that you grow into this. I think most of them feel there is a crisis experience which is what I stated unless you misunderstood. Pentecost happened on a certain day and they were filled. It was not a 2 or 3 week process. Now if you are saying we grow in grace, getting more and more like Jesus ok, I agree there.
But there is a definite moment when you know you are sanctified. I think that is pretty well founded in the Holy Bible.
We are not perfect in the sense we still make mistakes, but our love is perfect towards our Lord.
I think we agree mostly, maybe I am not making myself clear.

[Bruce Carriker]

Bob,
Please read the attached. It's the best I can do without access to my library.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Bob,
Your statement that by pointing out that the church no longer practices this doctrine is not a true statement. I do not think it is true, completely true, anywhere on any district.
After 35 years of pastoral ministry I can tell you that I see fewer sanctified people in our congregations than ever before...but there are still some and many of our pastors still preach it and teach it.
That statement is very generic and very judgemental and very untrue. There is still a remnant of churches, pastors and people who live it and preach it.

Barb

[Bruce Carriker]

Still, Barb, I think Bob's statement is mostly true. More and more of our churches and pastors are moving towards a process understanding of sanctification, rather than a crisis understanding. IMO, the real problem is those on both sides who insist that the answer is "either/or" rather than "both/and".

[Billy Cox]

I think that academics in the Church of the Nazarene are indeed debating process vs. crisis or a combination of both with regard to sanctification.

But...To the extent that 'average' pastors embrace evangelical values, they are applying their energies (or at least lip service) to getting people saved and not talking about sanctification at all.

It seems pretty tough to emphasize sanctification without minimizing the importance of salvation...and vice versa. As an example, I have heard a preacher say that the most miserable people are those who are saved but not sanctified...because they have just enough Jesus to not enjoy the pleasures of the world, but not enough of Jesus to have peace in their spiritual walk. I could almost feel tremors in the Wesleyan world as our distinctive doctrine was clothed in a gross heresy.

[BobHunt]

I do not hear nearly as much about it in the COTN as we used to. If your church practises it, congrats! I dont think I was judgemental, just going by the posts here and how little I have heard this.

[BobHunt]

Hi Bruce,
I saw in one place that second crisis experience is still official position of the COTN. I do have a question tho, maybe you can clear it up for me. It says we do not need any evidence of the fact we receive it, except for the scripture. What does this mean? Does it mean that we should not desire the witness of the Spirit that the work is done? Does it mean I can say "I believe" and then it is done whether God witnesses to me or not?
Another question, it says we continually die to sin, and if that is so are they saying that sin is continually in us, every day? If so, then we are Calvinistic dont you think?
I totally disagree when they said that because of so many trips to the altar, we have concluded and found the means typically offered for achieving it to be ineffective. Then they say "well....the goal is unrealistic anyhow and we are constitutionally incapable of experiencing it.
Do you think God would command it, and then hold it out of reach?
I dont believe you have to be at an altar to receive it, people receive it by their bedside or driving down the road.
I dont want this to interfere with our friendship or posts, and maybe its because I am orginally from another Holiness denomination, but I cant agree with everything in the attachment you sent. But then, it sounds like all the Nazarenes are not in agreement either. Dr Taylor disagreed with (was his name Crider?) etc.

[Marsha Lynn]

Bob,
Please read the attached. It's the best I can do without access to my library.
Thanks for sharing this, Bruce.

It's interesting. There are many people who testify that when they first heard the message of holiness they recognized it as the very thing they had been seeking but for which they had had no words. I grew up with that same message of holiness and found it to be a most frustrating and confusing doctrine. No matter how desperately I sought it, I never received the promised results. Nor did I see that others were living up to what they preached and to their testimony. I didn't discover the 'credibility gap' by reading books of theology. It was all around me!

I didn't encounter any proponents of the "other side" of holiness until after I discovered NazNet. Then I was amazed and incredibly relieved to discover that God has led others down similar paths to my own: Everything I have, all that I am, is His. But I can't point to a single crisis when something profound happened to my nature. Rather I can point to several crisis points where I was confronted with a choice, considered the cost, and chose to take one more step of surrender. And as I have taken those steps and started to work out the implications of them, I have been changed, and am still being changed today. I suspect there are more crisis points to come. At this point in my life, I'm operating on a bottom-line decision forged years ago (but not in any single crisis point), that when those moments come, I will consistently take the path of surrender. But every time, it's a very real choice with a very high cost.

Those who work so hard to defend our "distinctive doctrine" as a single-point life transformation either try to pick one of my crisis points as being THE point of sanctification or leave people like me out of the fold entirely because we don't fit the pattern.

I am glad that I heard the message calling me to a life of full surrender in the Church of the Nazarene. I believe in that deeper life. But when I hear it preached as a single-moment, almost magical, transformation, all the old frustrations come back to me and I wonder if maybe I would fit in better at the Methodist church down the street. It has been such a blessing to me to discover that there are many others who view holiness in the same way that God revealed it to me during those many years of frustration when I thought I was the only one walking this path. From what I've encountered on NazNet, I've come to believe that it's actually quite common, particularly among us younger (45-50) baby boomers.

I read a book fairly recently that included a discussion of the question of when Peter was 'saved'. (I'm thinking it was either in The Jesus Creed by Scott McKnight or The Younger Evangelicals by Robert Webber but am too lazy to do the review necessary to find out.) Was it after the great catch of fish when he knelt at Jesus' feet? Was it at the point of his confession of Jesus as the Christ? Was it when he first left his nets and followed him? When did Peter commit his life to Jesus? Obviously, at one time in his life he was not a follower of Christ and later he was, but it's hard to pinpoint the moment when he accepted Jesus as Savior and Lord. Sometimes our spiritual journeys simply don't fit cut-and-dry formulas like we maybe think they should. I think that may be the case for second-blessing holiness for many people in the Church of the Nazarene. I hope someday that we learn to invite people to full surrender to God without dictating the mechanics of a particular 'experience' accompanying that moment of surrender in terms that leave some standing outside wondering what's wrong with their commitment.

I've shared on NazNet before that during those long, lonely years of feeling like I was the only one unable to take the great leap into heart holiness, I often asked God why He wasn't blessing me like the preachers promised. The question I received in response was, "Are you dissatisfied with your relationship with me?" In those moments, I realized that I truly "wouldn't take nothin' for my journey". What a wonderful walk it has been. I've already decided that if nothing good happened to me for the rest of my life, I would still come to the end of it and be able to testify, "I have been blessed beyond measure."

I'm waiting to find out where the Church of the Nazarene will draw the line, whether the spiritual journey God has laid out for me leaves me inside or outside of the fold. Is it the "sold-out" decision that defines us or a particular experience? Either way, I'm having the time of my life walking with my Savior. How could I be dissatisfied when every day begins with that "single hour ... when I kneel in prayer and commune [with my God] as friend with Friend?" \0/ (I couldn't find a hallelujah smilie in the collection.)

Marsha

[BobHunt]

Marsha, what if their position is "its unattainable or incapable of attaining it?"

[Barb Bouldrey]

Bob,
Our writers mean that we do not need to speak in tongues as evidence of having the Holy Spirit sanctify us. Most pentacostal denominations define speaking in tongues as the evidence of having the Holy Spirit.
Then, Paul says he dies daily to sin. That does not mean he sins daily and has to confess it. It means he stays sanctified by dying daily, or surrendering daily to the Holy Spirit.
Paul says he has not already attained perfection...he is not all he knows he wants to be or should be, but he is pressing toward the mark. He is saved and Spirit filled, but reaching daily to know MORE of Christ.
If someone's position is that it is unattainable, then I feel sorry for them because they are missing the freedom and blessing of having received the Spirit-filled, Spirit-cleansed life.
Barb

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha, what if their position is "its unattainable or incapable of attaining it?"
Bob, I don't think I understand your question. Who is the "they" who might propose this position? What is the "it" which "they" hold to be unattainable? Who do "they" see as incapable of attaining this "it"?

I did a search for the word "attainable" in the paper Bruce posted. The only time it occurred, it was in this sentence:

Is it time, perhaps, to redefine ourselves as a holiness people, whose focus is on the end, as absolutely attainable in this lifetime, and not on the means by which that end is reached?

That sentence would imply that one thing which can be agreed upon by everyone involved in the discussion is that 'holiness' (by some definition) is "absolutely attainable in this lifetime".

Has anyone involved in this thread denied that possibility? If so, I've missed it. (A search for 'unattainable' on the board yielded only your post to which I am responding.)

If the Church of the Nazarene comes to the point where "they" say that holiness is not attainable in this lifetime, there will still be people seeking and finding a deeper walk with God and I would guess that groups of those people will find each other and rejoice together in the bliss of this walk of full surrender. Right now, many of the "they's" are saying that if it didn't happen in a moment of time, it hasn't happen at all. What's being preached is outside my own experience and that of many of my generation. Yet, the church is still surviving, although I wouldn't say that it's thriving. From my point of view, I'm not sure chucking the whole doctrine would be worse than making it so narrow and rigid that even those most passionate about their faith can't manage to squeeze into the mold. Is there a possibility that it's better not to point at all than to point people down a road they find impassable?

But, like I said, that's from my point of view and I don't expect you to see things the same way. The question remains: Is there room in the church for both viewpoints?

For reasons I can't comprehend, God seems to reveal himself in different ways to different people. My journey towards holiness doesn't match yours. This is part of the reason there are so many different denominations. If we have two distinct views of and paths to heart holiness in the Church of the Nazarene, is it time for two denominations so that we can quit squabbling and each group can turn a united face of compassion and grace out towards a hungry, dying world desperate for the message of hope so basic to the message of holiness?

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

Bob,
Our writers mean that we do not need to speak in tongues as evidence of having the Holy Spirit sanctify us.

Yes, and so does the Manual. However, our church's administrators mean something different.

[BobHunt]

Lynn, perhaps I am taking this statement wrong then, when they talk about many trips to the altar, and then they say something like this : The reluctant conclusion is the goal is unrealistic...constitutionally incapbale of experiencing it.
I think the COTN people could get along but it would look strange to have 2 opinions written in the official position (manual?) if they ever do this.

[Ann Smith]

I think part of the problem is how it is preached. I have heard thousands of sermons about Holiness and the need for Sanctification, but nearly none about how it is obtained. That has been very frustrating to me. In Warren's first pastorate, a person in the congregation asked me how to get Sanctified. I told her that it is committing all of herself to the Lord. She replied, "Then I am Sanctified!" I agreed because her fruit showed it. I like this explanation. One group I know calls it Total Committment. They define it as committing all that you know about yourself to all that you understand about The Lord. As you go along you get to know yourself better and understand more about the Lord. It is a daily committment. I truly believe that. There is not enough teaching of this. I believe it is the reason our churches in the US are not growing.
Ann

[Bruce Carriker]

Ann,

By your definition of sanctification, I know a great many "non-holiness" folks who are sanctified, to include a bunch of Baptists, Catholics, and even some...gasp!...Episcopalians.

While I don't totally disagree with your answer to the woman in your church, you do realize that the answer you gave is far from the definition of sanctification as:

a. historically taught in the Church of the Nazarene, and;
b. defined in The Manual

[Bruce Carriker]

Lynn, perhaps I am taking this statement wrong then, when they talk about many trips to the altar, and then they say something like this : The reluctant conclusion is the goal is unrealistic...constitutionally incapbale of experiencing it.
I think the COTN people could get along but it would look strange to have 2 opinions written in the official position (manual?) if they ever do this.

Bob...think you missed the point of the statement. The speaker in that statement was talking about their experience of "holiness" preaching and their search for sanctification, using the "name it and claim it" theology the church used for most of the 20th century. It looks like this:

1. Go to the altar, pray a prayer dedicating yourself wholly to God, ask to be sanctified.
2. Get up, testify to it...because no one's getting dismissed till somebody testifies. Go out into the world.
3. By Wednesday, you are painfully aware that original sin HAS NOT been purged from your life, leaving you to wonder what it was about your prayers that God didn't like, since He didn't sanctify you. Or maybe it was just you... maybe you didn't really believe it was possible when you prayed, so your faith was lacking. That makes it your own fault your not sanctified.
4. Repeat process on numerous Sundays or Sunday nights, with same experience and results.
5. Come to "The reluctant conclusion that the goal is unrealistic...or that you are constitutionally incapbale of experiencing it."

This is the experience of many, many, many Nazarenes who came of age from 1940-1990, and maybe earlier than that.

What I...and many like me, I presume...don't understand is why the means of sanctification has taken priority over the end of sanctification, i.e., holy living. Frankly, I care MUCH MUCH more about whether the Holy Spirit bears witness to holiness in our lives, than HOW that comes about. If it's crisis for one and process for another, frankly, I don't care, so long as the end is practical, "this world", holiness in the daily lives of believers.

[BobHunt]

Bruce, this is why the one praying for Holiness should receive their own personal witness that the job is done. We cant listen to peoples opinions.
I can see where you are coming from about "sign on the dotted line and you got it."

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Then again maybe it works like this:

Go the altar, pray a prayer dedicating yourself wholly to God, ask to be sanctified. You sense in your heart that God has heard your prayer and has sanctified/is sanctifying you.
You testify to it, not so you can go home, but because you want to tell what God has done/is doing in your life.
In the days, weeks, and years to come you are joyfully aware that something new has happened/is happening in your life. Not that you aren't working through issues, but there has been a change and you know it.
In the days, weeks, and years to come, your full surrender to God is broadened into areas you never imagined -- but you always go back to the full comment you made back at the altar.
You come to the conclusion that there is, indeed, a deeper experience with God that may not be instant maturity in Christ, but does unite our hearts that we can serve God with all our heart soul and mind.This isn't a made up scenario -- it's my testimony.

1. Go to the altar, pray a prayer dedicating yourself wholly to God, ask to be sanctified.
2. Get up, testify to it...because no one's getting dismissed till somebody testifies. Go out into the world.
3. By Wednesday, you are painfully aware that original sin HAS NOT been purged from your life, leaving you to wonder what it was about your prayers that God didn't like, since He didn't sanctify you. Or maybe it was just you... maybe you didn't really believe it was possible when you prayed, so your faith was lacking. That makes it your own fault your not sanctified.
4. Repeat process on numerous Sundays or Sunday nights, with same experience and results.
5. Come to "The reluctant conclusion that the goal is unrealistic...or that you are constitutionally incapbale of experiencing it."

[Marsha Lynn]

Scott, I appreciate your testimony. For those of us who have earnestly sought to follow you in that path but failed to experience the same result, where do you suppose the difference lies? Is it a lack of faith? A lack of commitment?

Would the "process" people be able to experience this moment of transformation if only they sought it with enough diligence?

I'm not trying to argue here, just asking sincere questions. In your opinion, why are there so many who have listened to the testimonies and promises, sincerely sought the experience, and found only frustration?

Marsha

Then again maybe it works like this:
Go the altar, pray a prayer dedicating yourself wholly to God, ask to be sanctified. You sense in your heart that God has heard your prayer and has sanctified/is sanctifying you.
You testify to it, not so you can go home, but because you want to tell what God has done/is doing in your life.
In the days, weeks, and years to come you are joyfully aware that something new has happened/is happening in your life. Not that you aren't working through issues, but there has been a change and you know it.
In the days, weeks, and years to come, your full surrender to God is broadened into areas you never imagined -- but you always go back to the full comment you made back at the altar.
You come to the conclusion that there is, indeed, a deeper experience with God that may not be instant maturity in Christ, but does unite our hearts that we can serve God with all our heart soul and mind.This isn't a made up scenario -- it's my testimony.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I'm not trying to argue here, just asking sincere questions. In your opinion, why are there so many who have listened to the testimonies and promises, sincerely sought the experience, and found only frustration?
Marsha

I wish I could wrap it all up for you Marsha, but I don't think I can. I was more desiring to express the wonderfully positive aspects of the subject than trying to give a "one size fits all" outline.

I am not sure what it is that you want to have happen as a result of your sincere seeking. Maybe a good place to start would be one of stating expectations.

But even if you were to say just the thing I would have a good answer to I'm not sure we could wrap it all up and put a bow on it for you.

All I know is that I see secondness in the Bible, I have experienced it in my own life, and I have heard many others tell of the experience, -- even when they used very different language than I use.

[Marsha Lynn]

Bob, I can't speak for whoever is behind your quote. I'm finding the structure of this thread too confusing to follow back to original sources and try to understand the quotes in context. I can only speak for myself.

If I spoke of the classic view of sanctification as being "unrealistic" I would be referring to a particular description of that event occuring in a moment in time more than the concept of heart holiness.

I believe that God truly transforms us, that there's no end to the work He does within our lives. The more he works in my life, the more possibilities I see to move another step higher. It's like a narrow staircase that keeps getting wider and wider until it finally opens up onto an enormous plain with possibilities to explore in every direction. I've not been only forgiven, I've been changed from the inside out and daily find new challenges that continue that process. I certainly haven't arrived. Some who know me well wonder if I've even begun. But I can testify to being changed in profound ways as I've taken step after step of surrender to God.

Hans has considered the question in another thread as to whether our character goes with us into heaven. I think it does. My goal is to learn the language and culture of the kingdom of heaven in this life so that someday I can step inside the pearly gates and recognize that glorious place as my home.

It's not that I question the possibility of being transformed to our very core in this life (although I might debate the exact nature of that transformation). And there are too many people who testify to having something very basic transformed within them in a moment for me to discount those testimonies. My only request is that the "in a moment" pattern not be held up as the only way to heart holiness. That is not what John Wesley preached. That is not what I and many others of my generation have experienced. I hope we can retain the distinctive belief that there is a deep relationship with God that goes far beyond simple forgiveness without prescribing a "one size fits all" process for the transformation accompanying that relationship (to borrow Scott's phraseology below).

We don't need two doctrines. We need to strip away the dross of the doctrine we have and emphasize the commonality between the two views. That point of common belief is that God does more than forgive us and overlook our continuing sinfulness. As we surrender our lives fully to Him, He changes us to our very core so that we can live in a profound, enduring, unbroken relationship with Him in this life. \0/

Is it so important that the road to Christian maturity start with a monumental step that knocks our socks off and then develops in increments? If some of us take many small steps rather than one big one is that all right as long as we all end up in the same place? Is it the state of grace following the "big step" that defines us or is it the glorious possibilities toward which we journey?

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

My only request is that the "in a moment" pattern not be held up as the only way to heart holiness. That is not what John Wesley preached.

Let's go to what he preached:

14. "But what is that faith whereby we are sanctified, --saved from sin, and perfected in love?" It is a divine evidence and conviction, first, that God hath promised it in the holy Scripture. Till we are thoroughly satisfied of this, there is no moving one step further. And one would imagine there needed not one word more to satisfy a reasonable man of this, than the ancient promise, "Then will I circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." How clearly does this express the being perfected in love! --how strongly imply the being saved from all sin! For as long as love takes up the whole heart, what room is there for sin therein?

15. It is a divine evidence and conviction, secondly, that what God hath promised He is able to perform. Admitting, therefore, that "with men it is impossible" to "bring a clean thing out of an unclean," to purify the heart from all sin, and to till it with all holiness; yet this creates no difficulty in the case, seeing "with God all things are possible." And surely no one ever imagined it was possible to any power less than that of the Almighty! But if God speaks, it shall be done. God saith, "Let there be light; and there" is "light"!

16. It is, thirdly, a divine evidence and conviction that He is able and willing to do it now. And why not? Is not a moment to Him the same as a thousand years? He cannot want more time to accomplish whatever is His will. And He cannot want or stay for any more worthiness or fitness in the persons He is pleased to honour. We may therefore boldly say, at any point of time, "Now is the day of salvation!" "To-day, if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts!" "Behold, all things are now ready; come unto the marriage!"

17. To this confidence, that God is both able and willing to sanctify us now, there needs to be added one thing more, --a divine evidence and conviction that He doeth it. In that hour it is done: God says to the inmost soul, "According to thy faith be it unto thee!" Then the soul is pure from every spot of sin; it is clean "from all unrighteousness." The believer then experiences the deep meaning of those solemn words, "If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin."

18. "But does God work this great work in the soul gradually or instantaneously?" Perhaps it may be gradually wrought in some; I mean in this sense, --they do not advert to the particular moment wherein sin ceases to be. But it us infinitely desirable, were it the will of God, that it should be done instantaneously; that the Lord should destroy sin "by the breath of His mouth," in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. And so He generally does; a plain fact, of which there is evidence enough to satisfy any unprejudiced person. Thou therefore look for it every moment! Look for it in the way above described; in all those good works whereunto thou art "created anew in Christ Jesus." There in then no danger: you can be no worse, if you are no better, for that expectation. For were you to be disappointed of your hope, still you lose nothing. But you shall not be disappointed of your hope: it will come, and will not tarry. Look for it then every day, every hour, every moment! Why not this hour, this moment? Certainly you may look for it now, if you believe it is by faith. And by this token you may surely know whether you seek it by faith or by works. If by works, you want something to be done first, before you are sanctified. You think, I must first be or do thus or thus. Then you are seeking it by works unto this day. If you seek it by faith, you may expect it as you are; and expect it now. It is of importance to observe, that there is an inseparable connexion between these three points, --expect it by faith; expect it as you are; and expect it now! To deny one of them, is to deny them all; to allow one, is to allow them all. Do you believe we are sanctified by faith? Be true then to your principle; and look for this blessing just as you are, neither better nor worse; as a poor sinner that has still nothing to pay, nothing to plead, but "Christ died." And if you look for it as you are, then expect it now. Stay for nothing: why should you? Christ is ready; and He is all you want. He is waiting for you: He is at the door! Let your inmost soul cry out,

Come in, come in, thou heavenly Guest!
Nor hence again remove;

But sup with me, and let the feast
Be everlasting love.



http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/043.htm

[Hans Deventer]

Scott, I appreciate your testimony. For those of us who have earnestly sought to follow you in that path but failed to experience the same result, where do you suppose the difference lies? Is it a lack of faith? A lack of commitment?

What Bruce described was the famous "Altar Theology" of Phoebe Palmer. The 'short cut' to holiness. Which, indeed, did not always turn out to be a short cut, if often turned out to be a dead end.

When I compare the steps with what Wesley wrote (see my quote in this thread) it seems to me that he relies quite heavvily on the Witness of the Spirit. For according to Wesley, the faith by which we are sanctified, is a "divine evidence and conviction" that

God hath promised it in the holy Scripture
what God hath promised He is able to perform
He is able and willing to do it now
He doeth it

Palmer majored on "laying it all on the altar", because "the altar sanctifies the gift". It became almost mechanic, like if you get this right, God just has to sanctify you. Wesley, on the contrary, would not have disagreed with "laying it all on the altar", but he did rely mainly on the "divine evidence and conviction", that which the Spirit works in us. So it was a big shift in focus. I think that for Palmer herself, her shorter way was a great blessing for those that God had already prepared to receive the gift. However, it was frustrating for those that were not there yet.

[Joel Merrill]

Thanks for sharing this, Bruce.

It's interesting. There are many people who testify that when they first heard the message of holiness they recognized it as the very thing they had been seeking but for which they had had no words. I grew up with that same message of holiness and found it to be a most frustrating and confusing doctrine. No matter how desperately I sought it, I never received the promised results. Nor did I see that others were living up to what they preached and to their testimony. I didn't discover the 'credibility gap' by reading books of theology. It was all around me!

I didn't encounter any proponents of the "other side" of holiness until after I discovered NazNet. Then I was amazed and incredibly relieved to discover that God has led others down similar paths to my own: Everything I have, all that I am, is His. But I can't point to a single crisis when something profound happened to my nature. Rather I can point to several crisis points where I was confronted with a choice, considered the cost, and chose to take one more step of surrender. And as I have taken those steps and started to work out the implications of them, I have been changed, and am still being changed today. I suspect there are more crisis points to come. At this point in my life, I'm operating on a bottom-line decision forged years ago (but not in any single crisis point), that when those moments come, I will consistently take the path of surrender. But every time, it's a very real choice with a very high cost.

Those who work so hard to defend our "distinctive doctrine" as a single-point life transformation either try to pick one of my crisis points as being THE point of sanctification or leave people like me out of the fold entirely because we don't fit the pattern.

I am glad that I heard the message calling me to a life of full surrender in the Church of the Nazarene. I believe in that deeper life. But when I hear it preached as a single-moment, almost magical, transformation, all the old frustrations come back to me and I wonder if maybe I would fit in better at the Methodist church down the street. It has been such a blessing to me to discover that there are many others who view holiness in the same way that God revealed it to me during those many years of frustration when I thought I was the only one walking this path. From what I've encountered on NazNet, I've come to believe that it's actually quite common, particularly among us younger (45-50) baby boomers.

I read a book fairly recently that included a discussion of the question of when Peter was 'saved'. (I'm thinking it was either in The Jesus Creed by Scott McKnight or The Younger Evangelicals by Robert Webber but am too lazy to do the review necessary to find out.) Was it after the great catch of fish when he knelt at Jesus' feet? Was it at the point of his confession of Jesus as the Christ? Was it when he first left his nets and followed him? When did Peter commit his life to Jesus? Obviously, at one time in his life he was not a follower of Christ and later he was, but it's hard to pinpoint the moment when he accepted Jesus as Savior and Lord. Sometimes our spiritual journeys simply don't fit cut-and-dry formulas like we maybe think they should. I think that may be the case for second-blessing holiness for many people in the Church of the Nazarene. I hope someday that we learn to invite people to full surrender to God without dictating the mechanics of a particular 'experience' accompanying that moment of surrender in terms that leave some standing outside wondering what's wrong with their commitment.

I've shared on NazNet before that during those long, lonely years of feeling like I was the only one unable to take the great leap into heart holiness, I often asked God why He wasn't blessing me like the preachers promised. The question I received in response was, "Are you dissatisfied with your relationship with me?" In those moments, I realized that I truly "wouldn't take nothin' for my journey". What a wonderful walk it has been. I've already decided that if nothing good happened to me for the rest of my life, I would still come to the end of it and be able to testify, "I have been blessed beyond measure."

I'm waiting to find out where the Church of the Nazarene will draw the line, whether the spiritual journey God has laid out for me leaves me inside or outside of the fold. Is it the "sold-out" decision that defines us or a particular experience? Either way, I'm having the time of my life walking with my Savior. How could I be dissatisfied when every day begins with that "single hour ... when I kneel in prayer and commune [with my God] as friend with Friend?" \0/ (I couldn't find a hallelujah smilie in the collection.)

Marsha
Dear Marsha

I haven't had time yet to read this whole thread but I read your post with interest. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, "cut-and-dry formulas". Preachers love formulas. They make good 3 or 4 point sermons. Formulas are not all bad. Millions have been saved with "The Four Spiritual Laws." However as you have found out, we are all individuals. None of us got saved the same way so why would we all get sanctified the same way. The Holy Spirit is able to deal with each of us individually.

Like you, I grew up in a holiness church and like you, I tried for a very long time to receive sanctification. There were several things that hindered me. Of course I noticed those who testified to it but didn't have it but that didn't bother me a lot. What bothered me was all of the people who testified that they were sanctified 6 months after they were saved. I'm not doubting them but after I had gone on a few years, I became ashamed to admit it or go to the alter to seek it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had this problem. I wonder how many people just gave up or gave up and claimed that they had it or claimed that they had it because they followed some "name it and claim it" formula.

Another problem I had was the preachers and other people who thought everyone should have an experience just like theirs. I agree that we don't always know the exact moment it happened. I think for most of us it happened over a short period of time. For me it was a weekend. But if you received it in several doses (for lack of a better word), I see nothing wrong with that. When I first got saved, it was a very emotional experience. It was the closest thing to being high that I have ever felt. When I got sanctified, there was no emotion. Way down in side I think I had kind of a peaceful clean feeling but there was no bolt of lightning, no shouting, crying or the like. How I knew something happened was that I got victory over some sinful habits and attitudes that had plagued me all of my life. I could not get free from them by my own power. I am also a more loving person now than I was before but I didn't notice that until I had been out in my day to day life and found that I had been changed. But if someone else had a very emotional experience when they got sanctified, I say great but we are all different. The result is what counts.

I was also confused by preaching that made it sound like we wouldn't be tempted any more. My old temptations still tempt me and to be honest, I would enjoy doing those things again, but my priorities have changed. Those old sins don't rule my life any more.

The devil is a sly old fox. If he can't get us with old temptations, he has a whole truck load of new ones. He will make us proud or critical or a lot of other bad attitudes. If he can't get us there, he will start twisting our doctrine. I think this may be where satan has the most success. I think this is one reason why we have so many doctrines and denominations. I think legalism is a way satan tries to derail our experience. I think over emphasis on gifts and emotions is another thing satan uses. I think a lot of people who are phonies now were genuine once.

I also think many times people put their all on the alter and later on they take some of it back. Then they put it all on the alter and then take some of it back again so that they perhaps have been sanctified and then slipped back and then were sanctified again. I may be on shaky ground here but I don't believe that once we are sanctified we can never fall away and I think most sanctified people slip up once in a while. I will say that if it is regular and often then their sanctification is in doubt. I may slip up once in a while but it certainly isn't something that happens often and as I have grown in the Spirit I can honestly say it is very seldom. I'm not bragging here. I could not do this by my own power. I've tried.

So why does it take some of us so long before we can be sanctified? I wish I knew. I went to the alter many times. I begged God to deliver me of those sinful habits and bad attitudes. I did everything in the formulas that I was supposed to do. It still took me 22 years. I knew I was saved. God answered many prayers and I felt his presents in my life and had his assurance that if I died right then I would go to Heaven. It got to where I was starting to think that I would never be delivered from my double mind. I told God on several occasions that I was going to serve him whether he delivered me or not. I would serve him whether I went to Heaven or not. I would serve him because it is a better life. Even if I never become sanctified, I'm going to run the race the best I can. I am not a quitter.

So what I always tell people who are struggling is just keep trying. When it happens is up to the Lord. I wish I had a better answer. I'm sure there is one.

Joel

[Hans Deventer]

I may be on shaky ground here but I don't believe that once we are sanctified we can never fall away and I think most sanctified people slip up once in a while.


If you are, you are standing there with John Wesley. He used to think people could never fall away from sanctification, but practice showed him otherwise and he came to acknowledge that. In fact, at one point he lamented how so few retained "the blessing" for more than a few years.

And thanks for the openness! This is a great thread!

[Marsha Lynn]

Let's go to what he preached:...

18. "But does God work this great work in the soul gradually or instantaneously?" Perhaps it may be gradually wrought in some; I mean in this sense, --they do not advert to the particular moment wherein sin ceases to be. But it us infinitely desirable, were it the will of God, that it should be done instantaneously; that the Lord should destroy sin "by the breath of His mouth," in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. And so He generally does; a plain fact, of which there is evidence enough to satisfy any unprejudiced person.
...

Hmmm... obviously, I'm in over my head here. Which brings us back to the question: Is there room in the Church of the Nazarene for one to embrace the "deeper walk" without testifying to a single moment of sanctification? Or is it like my teacher told me in the "Junior" Sunday School class: "If you can't name the time and date you were saved then you aren't saved"?

(I have carefully nurtured the memory of kneeling as a 6-year-old at an altar of prayer. That was only the first of many times I prayed for God to "save" me, but I hoped I wouldn't have to remember each one, that if I just had one time and place in my memory, it would meet the legal requirement. On the other hand, assuming that I backslid between each salvation experience, and acknowledging that I have no memory of the last one, perhaps it's my salvation that should most concern me.)

Would it be better to find a place where I can enjoy the abundant life of total surrender to God without constant reminders that the undying, quiet nagging of self within me means that I haven't quite got it all yet? Sometimes I think it would. Corporate worship would be much more meaningful if it celebrated the transformational work God is doing in our hearts and our developing ability to say 'no' to that voice of self and if it included fewer words designed to portray my relationship with God as unsatisfactory and pull me to an altar to seek a further work of grace.

This thread started with Nelson wondering if our "distinctive doctrine" is still alive. To go back to that question: yes, it's very much alive here in southern Indiana. Even this week's midweek devotional about loving God and loving others included a reminder that the only way to keep those two great commandments is to have our sinful nature removed. It's a rare gathering of the church when that subject is not included somewhere in the message of the hour. Unfortunately, that message was welcome news to no one there Wednesday evening. The handful of people present have all heard it hundreds of times before. It's not "selling" real well around here. Which doesn't mean that it's not the truth, but does make my heart ache for those who join the steady flow of people out the back door. Maybe they just aren't serious about finding God and will do better in a more shallow church. I truly hope that is the case rather than that they came to us looking for an offer of a profound relationship with God and found only cut-and-dry formulas for achieving a state of sinless perfection.

One encouraging note. I managed to stay out of this thread for six days! I think that's a record. Perhaps someday I will reach the state where I am no longer compelled to participate in these exchanges. I see no limit to what God is able to achieve in the life of one who has surrendered totally to His will -- even to the point of being able to learn from past experience and walk past old traps without falling in. \0/ I haven't made it yet, but I find great hope in small victories.

To quote a friend of mine: I'm not what I ought to be and I'm not what I'm going to be, but by the grace of God, I'm not what I used to be.

Grace and peace

Marsha

[Bruce Carriker]

Scott,
I'm perfectly willing to concede that it may work like that...for some people. If that's your testimony, I think that's great. But why must it be that so many people whose testimony resembles yours feel compelled to reject as inadequate or lacking, those of us like Marsha an myself, whose testimony is not the same as yours?

As this discussion has progressed, I've dusted off Quanstrom's book, as well as Plain Account and Theology of Love. Wesley paid at least as much attention to process as he did to crisis. Most of the texts we use to support "instantaneousness" from a Biblical perspective are proof texts, which may or may not support the doctrine when they are read in their full context.

Let me be clear. I am not arguing against instantaneousness. I'm simply suggesting that it's not the only way God works to bring about holiness in his people. And as I said in the conclusion to my paper, if we must come down definitively on one side of the fence or the other, in order to be "proper Nazarenes"...or if, as Marsha suggests, we divide....then we may be Nazarene, but we will have ceased to be Wesleyan.




Then again maybe it works like this:

Go the altar, pray a prayer dedicating yourself wholly to God, ask to be sanctified. You sense in your heart that God has heard your prayer and has sanctified/is sanctifying you.
You testify to it, not so you can go home, but because you want to tell what God has done/is doing in your life.
In the days, weeks, and years to come you are joyfully aware that something new has happened/is happening in your life. Not that you aren't working through issues, but there has been a change and you know it.
In the days, weeks, and years to come, your full surrender to God is broadened into areas you never imagined -- but you always go back to the full comment you made back at the altar.
You come to the conclusion that there is, indeed, a deeper experience with God that may not be instant maturity in Christ, but does unite our hearts that we can serve God with all our heart soul and mind.This isn't a made up scenario -- it's my testimony.

[Bruce Carriker]

I'm not upset at all, Bob.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Three things:
First, I don't see anyone attacking your position, although I keep seeing that suggestion. I see the traditional doctrinal stance of our denomination being questioned, not the other way around. I don't think you will find a single instance of my challenging or belittling anyone's spiritual experience. In fact, just about any reading of my posts will, I think, prove just the opposite.

Second, I haven't seen a real clear description of what you think hasn't happened in your life. I say that we come to a place of full surrender and the Holy Spirit fills our lives, cleansing our hearts. We enter into a new cooperative relationship with God in which we purpose to pursue him with all our heart, soul, and mind. Are you of the opinion that some people can't come to that place -- that crisis -- in their lives?

Third, I struggle with what I see to be an either/or approach to this. I am a life long Nazarene and I have always understood our doctrine to say that entire sanctification is both an instantaneous and progressive experience. Am I to understand that you think that one has to:
1. Believe in an instant, totally consuming work of God that needs no farther growth
or
2. Believe that the best some can hope for is life time of spiritual growth with no crisis experience of full surrender?

Scott,
I'm perfectly willing to concede that it may work like that...for some people. If that's your testimony, I think that's great. But why must it be that so many people whose testimony resembles yours feel compelled to reject as inadequate or lacking, those of us like Marsha an myself, whose testimony is not the same as yours?

As this discussion has progressed, I've dusted off Quanstrom's book, as well as Plain Account and Theology of Love. Wesley paid at least as much attention to process as he did to crisis. Most of the texts we use to support "instantaneousness" from a Biblical perspective are proof texts, which may or may not support the doctrine when they are read in their full context.

Let me be clear. I am not arguing against instantaneousness. I'm simply suggesting that it's not the only way God works to bring about holiness in his people. And as I said in the conclusion to my paper, if we must come down definitively on one side of the fence or the other, in order to be "proper Nazarenes"...or if, as Marsha suggests, we divide....then we may be Nazarene, but we will have ceased to be Wesleyan.

[BobHunt]

Folks, this is my last post on this subject. It seems that there are a few here who try their best to discredit every word they can, every post, every breath you breath into writing answers on here of how you feel, even when you try your best with Gods help to do it in a right spirit, with love for each one.
Im so sorry I have made you all miserable and caused a big fracas here. Please let me apologize and hope that someone will not try to say Im not really apologizing. But God knows anyway and thats what counts.
After reading so many discredits to me and posts that I have made, I feel as though I do not qualify to write on this subject at all. I will stick to posts about the weather after this.

[Bruce Carriker]

Scott,

Forgive me if I implied that you were attacking (not a word I ever used, I'm pretty sure) me. That was a general statement about my experience of 40+ years in the Church of the Nazarene. It was certainly not directed at you, or at anyone else on these boards. Quite the contrary, I think the discussion here has been open and forthright and considerate on all counts.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Thanks for your post, no apology needed -- I am sorry you been labeled in a negative way. I have lived in several areas of the U.S. and haven't ran across this, but I haven't lived everywhere, so I can't speak for everyone.

Do you have any thoughts on my points 2 or 3?


Scott,

Forgive me if I implied that you were attacking (not a word I ever used, I'm pretty sure) me. That was a general statement about my experience of 40+ years in the Church of the Nazarene. It was certainly not directed at you, or at anyone else on these boards. Quite the contrary, I think the discussion here has been open and forthright and considerate on all counts.

[Bruce Carriker]

Scott,

I'll get back to you on 2 and 3. Too late, too tired, long week.

[Ann Smith]

Ann,


While I don't totally disagree with your answer to the woman in your church, you do realize that the answer you gave is far from the definition of sanctification as:

a. historically taught in the Church of the Nazarene, and;
b. defined in The Manual

I know this is not what has been historically taught. However, what has been historically taught is not so easily understood. I haven't read the definition in the Manual for a long time, so I don't remember it. True, The Lord Sanctifies, but we must totally surrender to accept his sanctification.
Ann

[Marsha Lynn]

Scott, I can't speak for Bruce and don't want to interfere with the exchange between you and him, but I did have some thoughts on this.

Three things:
First, I don't see anyone attacking your position, although I keep seeing that suggestion. I see the traditional doctrinal stance of our denomination being questioned, not the other way around. I don't think you will find a single instance of my challenging or belittling anyone's spiritual experience. In fact, just about any reading of my posts will, I think, prove just the opposite.
In my case at least, I think you're right and I apologize. This is a Nazarene-friendly site and I need to be more careful to leave room for traditional Nazarene views.

Second, I haven't seen a real clear description of what you think hasn't happened in your life. I say that we come to a place of full surrender and the Holy Spirit fills our lives, cleansing our hearts. We enter into a new cooperative relationship with God in which we purpose to pursue him with all our heart, soul, and mind. Are you of the opinion that some people can't come to that place -- that crisis -- in their lives?
Scott, if you can get that description into Article X in the Manual, I will sign on the dotted line. At the moment, that's not what it says.

Third, I struggle with what I see to be an either/or approach to this. I am a life long Nazarene and I have always understood our doctrine to say that entire sanctification is both an instantaneous and progressive experience. Am I to understand that you think that one has to:
1. Believe in an instant, totally consuming work of God that needs no farther growth
or
2. Believe that the best some can hope for is life time of spiritual growth with no crisis experience of full surrender?

"A lifetime of spiritual growth" is "the best some can hope for"?? As a pastor, I think if you think about it, you might decide that a "lifetime of spiritual growth" in your people would be a tremendous thing, particularly as opposed to a mindset that says, "I was saved and sanctified 25 years ago and have been walking with the Lord ever since and don't need some whippersnapper coming in here and telling me what holiness is all about." (Not that any Nazarenes have ever exhibited mindsets such as that; it's just an illustration.)

Again, I can't speak for others, but I do believe that there are crisis points in every life, forks in the road where God invites them to take another step higher and they either take that step or decline the invitation. But I think that those who take their first steps along this road early are more likely to achieve the same end result in a series of small steps than one big "instantaneous" leap. It's not a choice between crisis or progress but a question of how much happens at the very first fork in the road as opposed to how much can happen in 'a lifetime of spiritual growth' with multiple crisis points along the way.

Marsha

[Barbara Moulton]

It's not a choice between crisis or progress but a question of how much happens at the very first fork in the road as opposed to how much can happen in 'a lifetime of spiritual growth' with multiple crisis points along the way.

Marsha

I like the way you say this Marsha. I know the moment in my life when the direction of my heart turned. I know the first fork in the road.

But that fork was a long, long time ago and it was not God's desire that I stay there rejoicing in the fact that I had arrived at the fork.

He was guiding me in the new direction in which I was now pointed. And movement in that direction HAS resulted in a "lifetime of spiritual growth".

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

In my case at least, I think you're right and I apologize. This is a Nazarene-friendly site and I need to be more careful to leave room for traditional Nazarene views.


I don't think you or anyone else needs to make apologies but your gentle spirit is appreciated -- I hope I show the same spirit in my comments.

Scott, if you can get that description into Article X in the Manual, I will sign on the dotted line. At the moment, that's not what it says.

If one stops reading with Article X.13 I can understand this, but there is a X.14 too. It speaks of the very things I talked about: that maturity is a result of "growth in grace;" that the "grace of entire sanctification includes the impulse to grow in grace;" that we must carefully nurture that impulse and make a "purposeful endeavor" to become more Christlike.

Nazarene language about a second work of grace has always included this caution and challenge.

"A lifetime of spiritual growth" is "the best some can hope for"?? As a pastor, I think if you think about it, you might decide that a "lifetime of spiritual growth" in your people would be a tremendous thing,

Well, I knew when I wrote that that I was opening the way for some nit-picking. I was trying to state your position in a non-prejudicial way. I could have talked about it as a "lifetime struggle to somehow become more like Jesus" and made it a negative sounding thing. I just wanted to say it in a reasonably positive way.

Again, I can't speak for others, but I do believe that there are crisis points in every life, forks in the road where God invites them to take another step higher and they either take that step of decline the invitation.

Serious question. Are you saying that you never had an encounter with God as a Christian in which you decided that you would seek his will first in your life? That instead, each time you are faced with something that challenges God's will in your life that you have to start all over again, deciding whether you will say "yes" or "no"? For me, having made that decision opened the way for me to say the smaller "yes's" in my life. Also, I am still trying to understand what it is you think is lacking that other people claim.

Thanks for your tender spirit and patience with me in this discussion.

[Bruce Carriker]

Serious question. Are you saying that you never had an encounter with God as a Christian in which you decided that you would seek his will first in your life? That instead, each time you are faced with something that challenges God's will in your life that you have to start all over again, deciding whether you will say "yes" or "no"? For me, having made that decision opened the way for me to say the smaller "yes's" in my life. Also, I am still trying to understand what it is you think is lacking that other people claim.

Thanks for your tender spirit and patience with me in this discussion.

You asked this in response to Marsha, and I won't presume to answer for her. But I will share my answer to this question.

Yes, I had an encounter with God subsequent to salvation in which I decided that I would seek his will first. But, from my experience, that encounter did not remove original sin from my life. Eradication did not occur. On this count, I must confess...I am a Keswick. I believe in suppression and victory over sin, but not eradication.

At each future decision point, I am free to say no...to return to my sinful nature. I think Wesley believed this as well. So the answer to that piece of your question is, "Yes, I start all over again." Not in the sense that I wasn't serious about the first commitment, but in the sense that each decision point is either an opportunity to take the next step, or a temptation to "make a shipwreck of my faith". The previous "yes" is not a perpetual "yes". Each decision is a "crisis" in its own right.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. You are very welcome to reply to the question and I am glad you did.

Yes, I had an encounter with God subsequent to salvation in which I decided that I would seek his will first. But, from my experience, that encounter did not remove original sin from my life. Eradication did not occur. On this count, I must confess...I am a Keswick. I believe in suppression and victory over sin, but not eradication.

Without getting personal, could you give me an idea of what it means to you that original sin was not removed from your life? Also, how it is that you go about suppressing it. This is not a set up question, just an attempt to better understand. However, since this is a public forum, if you would rather not answer at that level, I understand.

At each future decision point, I am free to say no...to return to my sinful nature. I think Wesley believed this as well.

So does the church Manual. "Without such purposeful endeavor, one's witness may be impaired and the grace itself frustrated and ultimately lost." You are mainstream, old time Nazarene in this.

So the answer to that piece of your question is, "Yes, I start all over again." Not in the sense that I wasn't serious about the first commitment, but in the sense that each decision point is either an opportunity to take the next step, or a temptation to "make a shipwreck of my faith". The previous "yes" is not a perpetual "yes". Each decision is a "crisis" in its own right.

I am not convinced that this is a description of any sort of victorious Christian life. I don't envision any Christian living on the brink of spiritual failure for an extended amount of time. The potential for spiritual failure remains -- again, that is just about as basic a Nazarene doctrine as I can imagine. But there is also the potential for spiritual success. Surely there has to be something beyond having to decide in repeated pivital moments throughout one's life whether or not to go on in a relationship with Christ.

Truthfully, if I was a part of a church that taught what I see being said here, I would go looking for something better.

[Marsha Lynn]

Serious question. Are you saying that you never had an encounter with God as a Christian in which you decided that you would seek his will first in your life?
Not once but multiple times I have stood at that crossroad. I was 16 years old the first time. Dr. Edward Lawlor was the preacher. I knelt in the shadows of the Swiss alps and committed my life to God. I was faced with a choice and I chose God's way. I was sincere. I was also young and self-focused. I was self-focused before that moment of consecration. If I was any less self-focused after that prayer no one noticed, including myself. Certainly there was no sense of internal transformation, of any profound part of my 'nature' dying. Nor did I have a sense of being made clean or lose my spirit of timidity and revel in the power of the Spirit. If that was all there was to sanctification, the promises of transformation in this life would ring very hollow to me.

The question that night in Switzerland was, "Am I going God's way or my way?" I needed to make a decision. I chose God's way. It was actually just another step in the journey I had started 10 years before. But it was a line in the sand I had never seen before with a bigger price than I had encountered before. I chose to step across it.

You talked about the big "yes" followed by smaller "yes's". Looking back over a lifetime, I would say that the first 'yes' for me was a small 'yes', a naive 'yes', even though it seemed big at the time. There's no way I could have said the "yes's" then that I have said since then.

There was the time when I decided that I was going to give up some earthly dreams and 'bet the farm' on heaven. I couldn't have done that at 16.

There was the time when I realized that submission to God included submission to other people, a submission that cost me dearly. That was a huge 'yes'.

I've looked at the Sermon on the Mount and heard the question, "Are you going to buy into this or not?" And I've said, "Yes, I'm going to stake my life on Sermon on the Mount living being something that 'works', if not in this life then at least in light of eternity."

No, I don't go back and start over. All of those subsequent "yes's" built on that first "yes" at International Institute in 1976 and even beyond that to the tender-hearted 'yes' of a 6-year-old 10 years before that. Each one has cost me a little more. I wouldn't take a single one of them back. As I look back, I realize that I have been changed to the very core of my being. However, even now, I, as Bruce indicated, will not and cannot testify that the voice of "self" is gone. Whatever part of me wanted to be my own god before is still there, nagging away in the background, suggesting that I deserve more notice, more significance, more respect. It's not overpowering; it's not something I lose to every day; it's simply there. You might call it temptation. Paul might call it 'the flesh'. Whatever it is, it's still there, always suggesting that I eat the fruit so I can 'be like a god'. Sometimes I recognize that voice and laugh at how ridiculous it sounds. Other times it sneaks up on me and trips me up and I find myself caught up in vindication and self-focus. But in all, I have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Failures don't end my relationship with God. They simply bring me to my knees to reaffirm my dependence on Him. And I'm further along today than I was yesterday. I have chosen to be responsive to the Spirit of God rather than to the 'flesh'. I might go so far as to say that nagging voice has been "rendered powerless", but I won't testify to having the 'sinful nature' eradicated from my life.

The words about growth and maturation in ¶14 in the Manual don't change the fact that ¶13 defines sanctification in terms of being made "free from original sin, or depravity ... in one experience ... instantaneously". With the word "eradicate" no longer in the Manual, I might testify at this point in my life to a significant degree of freedom from the power of that inner 'me-first' voice, but it certainly didn't happen at age 16. Nor is there any other single point along the way with that much degree of change. And I dare not relax my vigilence against it even now or it will be back in full force.

It might be like having a squirming toddler in your arms. Sometimes the struggle to get down is fierce, other times it subsides, sometimes the little tyke even falls asleep. It's not that you're in danger of dropping the little guy if he keeps squirming; it's not like you can't hold onto him indefinitely, or at least until you're ready to go home; but it does take energy and you know that if you let him go for even a moment, he's going to be right back into the kitty litterbox he's got his eye on across the room.

Why does God change some people profoundly when they say that first 'yes' and spend a lifetime changing others? I don't know. I only know that I love what He's done and is doing in my life.

Sorry this got to be so long.

Marsha

[Bruce Carriker]

Marsha,

Thanks for sharing. You said pretty much what I was trying to say in a much better way than I managed to do.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Dear Marsha,
From reading your posts on this thread I can see that you are a genuinely sanctified believer who has spent her life in search of God...and still going forward. Sounds as if you straining and pressing toward the prize, the goal that God is drawing us to.

I believe that your experience at 16 was genuine sanctification. We should not consider a teenager's commitment any less of a commitment than an adults. Many teens get sanctified as teenagers and never leave their walk with the Lord. Some teens are more mature than others. Some adults are more mature than others. Some teens are more mature than a lot of adults.

I believe what you have described is the normal walk of a believe and should be sought after by all believers. Paul was saved and sanctified, yet tells us that he has not already attained all he should be.

I believe that each crossroad moment you came to was normal spiritual growth. I believe that the Holy Spirit fine tunes us all along the way of our spiritual journey.

Why do some get "it all" at once and others do not? It depends on how you define "it all." When I was sanctified, God got all of me. But alone the way he has had to teach me more and new things. Sometimes it takes time to prune and fine tune a Christian.

If someone says they have gotten saved and sanctified and had no other crossroads moments with God, then I believe they have not grown spiritually. What is not growing is dying.

I do not think it matters how you perceive you "got it" as long as you "got it." Don't let anyone "desanctify you."

I would love to have a whole bunch of people just like you in our church family here.

I believe 100% as Scott does on this doctrine, but I also know you are genuine in your sanctified walk.

Barb

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Part 1:
Thanks for taking time to present your story. As always, I appreciate your openness and intellect.

Not once but multiple times I have stood at that crossroad. I was 16 years old the first time.

I believe that salvation is an experience for a child -- requiring a "child-like faith." I also believe sanctification is for a teen -- requiring passion and abandonment, something that teens characterize.

My understanding of sanctification is wrapped up in these terms. The "death to self" is a driving desire to live one's life under the authority. The "cleansing" is an inner change of purpose and desire. It is evidenced by a passion for God.

I am especially glad to see what your expectations were/are. I have asked that several times because without a clear understanding of expectations I don't think there is any possibility of understanding.

The change sanctification brings is a major, unforgettable one for some. For others, who are already grounded in faith I think the change can "feel" very minor. I heard a Nazarene college professor say something along the lines that some people, because of their emotional makeup and background may appear "more sanctified" than some sanctified people do.

An illustration might be that if one observed the Buckingham palace guard you might think he was standing perfectly motionless. However, even as you are watching, he might be, very intentionally, shifting his weight from his left to his right foot. For those of us watching, nothing has happened. He might even think of it as nothing -- but the change is real none-the-less.

For some, coming to a point of full-surrender is, for practical purposes, a decision to continue down the path they are already on. As you say, it is just another step in the journey. For others, it is a major moment of death to self.

At this point, as the two compare experiences, the first might argue that nothing big happened while the other would say "crisis" all the way.

There was the time when I decided that I was going to give up some earthly dreams and 'bet the farm' on heaven. I couldn't have done that at 16.

But to a real extent that is what you were doing. You weren't processing it that way, but you were offering God an entire life. And he was taking you up on that offer. Later on, you would come to moments when that "little yes" would be tested -- but each time you would fall back to it and continue the journey that first step started you on.

As I look back, I realize that I have been changed to the very core of my being.

This, I think is a very clear testimony to the grace of God.

However, even now, I, as Bruce indicated, will not and cannot testify that the voice of "self" is gone.

I see a difference between human desire and nature to sin. It is a big mistake to think that "self dies" in sanctification. "Death to self" is very different than "death of self."

Continued next post

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Part 2:
Whatever part of me wanted to be my own god before is still there, nagging away in the background, suggesting that I deserve more notice, more significance, more respect. It's not overpowering; it's not something I lose to every day; it's simply there. You might call it temptation. Paul might call it 'the flesh'. Whatever it is, it's still there, always suggesting that I eat the fruit so I can 'be like a god'.

I see this to be solid Wesleyan/holiness theology. Even before Adam and Eve sinned, they were tempted to "be like a god." How we respond to that "voice" is impacted by our sanctification, not whether we will hear that voice or not. Your approach of seeking God's grace and help in the face of your weakness is not a proof that no crisis has taken place, in my opinion, it is proof that it has.


I have chosen to be responsive to the Spirit of God rather than to the 'flesh'. I might go so far as to say that nagging voice has been "rendered powerless", but I won't testify to having the 'sinful nature' eradicated from my life.

I still think you are confusing your humanness with the sin nature. I often think of the two as twins because they look so much alike as to be easily confused with one another. Two people can respond to something the exact same way -- if you could see their inner self, you would see that one person is acting in a carnal way -- and you would see that the other was responding as a mere mortal. How do we tell the difference? We don't. God does though, and his Spirit faithfully draws us in the right direction.

The words about growth and maturation in ¶14 in the Manual don't change the fact that ¶13 defines sanctification in terms of being made "free from original sin, or depravity ... in one experience ... instantaneously". With the word "eradicate" no longer in the Manual, I might testify at this point in my life to a significant degree of freedom from the power of that inner 'me-first' voice, but it certainly didn't happen at age 16. Nor is there any other single point along the way with that much degree of change. And I dare not relax my vigilence against it even now or it will be back in full force.

Marsha, it is just words, an attempt to describe spiritual realities in understandable language. Today, we like to speak in "relational" language rather than "legal" language. It is still the same thing. No Nazarene theologian thinks there is a piece of us, like an appendix, that can be cut out and eradicated from our lives or that God literally sprinkles some sort of spiritual weed killer on our hearts making it impossible for us to reject his will in our lives. That has never been our doctrine. The meaning is that our relationship with God can be whole hearted -- that we can desire him with our whole being, and serve him without ulterior motives. It is not paragraph 13 or paragraph 14. You have to take them both together. It is an attempt to describe in human language the work of the Spirit, an effort to describe a moment of decision and change and the lifetime results of that moment.

Why does God change some people profoundly when they say that first 'yes' and spend a lifetime changing others? I don't know. I only know that I love what He's done and is doing in my life.

Again, this is far from our doctrine, as paragraph 14 says.

I think you can testify to anyone that you made a full surrender to God at age 16 and that when that surrender has been placed before you in some new way that you have kept your commitment to the Lord. If someone were to say, "Has sin been eradicated in your life?" that you can confidently respond that you have purposed, by the grace of God, to love him with all your heart, soul, and mind -- and that you believe God is enabling you to pursue him in that manner.

[Bruce Carriker]

Scott...sent you a fairly lengthy, wandering, possibly incoherent email response.

Bruce

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Scott...sent you a fairly lengthy, wandering, possibly incoherent email response.

Bruce

Email received. Thanks. We are having revival services this week, and in addition, my internet connect is more off than on right now -- so give me a day or to and I will try to respond.

I will note that my posts to Marsha are probably pretty much along the same lines as our exchange though. I spent over an hour writing those this afternoon.

[Marsha Lynn]

Scott,

I appreciate your gracious response and the time you've devoted to this.

Hannah Whitall Smith in A Christian's Secret to a Happy Life talks about our part and God's part in entering into the deeper life. I've heard literally hundreds of sermons outlining God's part. If that night in Switzerland was when I was sanctified then much of what I hear preached is a gross exaggeration of the blessings that come at the point of sanctification. Neither at that moment, nor in the days and weeks following could I testify to cleansing, power, or new freedom from things that had previously tripped me up (whatever the source of those traps). I made a commitment and I intended to keep it. The familiar pounding heart that pulled me to the altar was quieted just like many times before. That was the extent of God's acceptance of my commitment as far as I could tell. It was only as it was tested and strengthened and fleshed out through the years that it became a life-transforming commitment.

I'm glad that I heard the invitation to full surrender in the Church of the Nazarene. Heart holiness is a wonderful message. From my point of view, presenting it as a coming at a moment of time early in one's spiritual journey weakens that message. However, it obviously rings true and wonderful for some.

I appreciate your emphasis on the relational aspect (you can live in deep, unbroken relationship with God) over the transactional aspect (God will take away your bent toward sinning, cleanse your heart, and enable you to live without sin). I hear too little of the former message, to which everyone can respond, however far they are along the road. I wish the Manual had it in those terms. I know you see it there, but I still stumble over the transactional language, maybe because I hear it consistently preached in even stronger transactional terms. And I watch our young people walk away from the Church of the Nazarene and my heart breaks. Maybe the presentation of holiness as an experience to be sought rather than a relationship to be nurtured is not the problem, but I wonder.

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

I appreciate your emphasis on the relational aspect (you can live in deep, unbroken relationship with God) over the transactional aspect (God will take away your bent toward sinning, cleanse your heart, and enable you to live without sin). I hear too little of the former message, to which everyone can respond, however far they are along the road. I wish the Manual had it in those terms. I know you see it there, but I still stumble over the transactional language, maybe because I hear it consistently preached in even stronger transactional terms. And I watch our young people walk away from the Church of the Nazarene and my heart breaks. Maybe the presentation of holiness as an experience to be sought rather than a relationship to be nurtured is not the problem, but I wonder.

I think it is.

Did you read Relational Holiness by Michael Lodahl & Thomas Jay Oord?

http://www.nph.com/nphweb/html/nph/itempage.jsp?itemId=083-412-1824

I'll readily admit it doesn't major on what relational holiness means regarding entire sanctification, but it does firmly put the entire framework of holiness in relational terms.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Scott, I appreciate your gracious response and the time you've devoted to this.

You are welcome, and thanks for your willingness to be transparent in your replies.


If that night in Switzerland was when I was sanctified then much of what I hear preached is a gross exaggeration of the blessings that come at the point of sanctification. Neither at that moment, nor in the days and weeks following could I testify to cleansing, power, or new freedom from things that had previously tripped me up (whatever the source of those traps). I made a commitment and I intended to keep it. The familiar pounding heart that pulled me to the altar was quieted just like many times before. That was the extent of God's acceptance of my commitment as far as I could tell. It was only as it was tested and strengthened and fleshed out through the years that it became a life-transforming commitment.

I think this relates to my comments about how this work of grace is seen differently in different people. Personality, background, etc. have a great bearing on the "before" and "after" of the experience. Your story highlights the growth in grace aspect of the second work of grace. Other people will have a story that emphasizes the "moment" and what was happening right there. The Holy Spirit, in His wisdom, works exactly how is needed.

I appreciate your emphasis on the relational aspect (you can live in deep, unbroken relationship with God) over the transactional aspect (God will take away your bent toward sinning, cleanse your heart, and enable you to live without sin). I hear too little of the former message, to which everyone can respond, however far they are along the road. I wish the Manual had it in those terms.

I accept the fact that you don't see it in the Manual, and that .13 is dominant for you and a source of concern. My understanding is that a great effort is being made to provide balance to our doctrinal view. I know our culture is very relational these days, so we struggle with legal concepts. My guess is that there are people living in different cultures right now, who very much need the legal language -- that a doctrine stated in purely relational terms would be too slippery for them to grasp. I also imagine that somewhere in the future, a group of Seminarians will decide that "relational sanctification" is an insufficient approach to the doctrine and will come up with an entirely new way to talk about it.

The fact of the matter is that no human terminology is going to fully describe a work of the Spirit.

I know you see it there, but I still stumble over the transactional language, maybe because I hear it consistently preached in even stronger transactional terms. And I watch our young people walk away from the Church of the Nazarene and my heart breaks. Maybe the presentation of holiness as an experience to be sought rather than a relationship to be nurtured is not the problem, but I wonder.

I know that full surrender is a problem for lots of people, no matter how it is presented. I do think, though, that we can present the second blessing in broad terms, rather than narrow ones. It is bigger than any one narrow approach, whether that is insisting on legal aspects or relational ones as the "only way" to talk about it.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Before Marsha or Bruce or Hans or anyone else continues this thread, I think I need to say that I have said all I know to say on the topic. It isn't that I will not respond to what people say if I think I have something worth saying, but I confess that I am not a trained theologian and I can only swim in a certain depth of water before I am in over my head.

I appreciate all those who have posted here -- especially the openness with which their story has been shared.

I certainly don't see my experience with God to be in any way superior to theirs -- in fact, I pretty much feel that the opposite is true.

Also, I need to apologize to Bruce in a public way here. He carefully sent me a very well written email in which he dealt with several issues. Somehow, I managed to not only delete the message, but to empty my deleted files and lost it. I am very sorry for that because it gives the impression that I took his email lightly.

I can say that much of what I wrote here publicly to Marsha is what I would have said privately to Bruce -- again, not because I have so much wisdom, but because I am right at the edge of my ability to discuss things of this depth.

Also, I want to say that I appreciate exchanges like these on NazNet, and look forward to the continuation of this one as well as others of similar nature. I am always the one who comes away enriched by such discussions. I am so glad that this software allows for extended discussions that don't get lost down in the forum somewhere.

[BobHunt]

I am so sorry, I said I wasnt going to post any more about this, but after reading Marsha's last post, I thought maybe I had made my posts too tight abou