Consider it an open invitation, I'd say

[Hans Deventer]

I'm following the blog of Roger E. Olsen, Professor of Theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University in Waco, TX.

Here he talks about doctrines we should support but aren't too clear on or sure of. He mentions examples, one of them the following:

For example, I have gone out of my way to find a pastor or theologian of a Wesleyan denomination who will come to my class and strongly affirm and defend the doctrine of instantaneous entire sanctification–the “second blessing” in traditional Holiness doctrine. I haven’t found many. Most seem embarrassed by it and “interpret” it so that it is really little different, if at all, from what Baptists believe about “consecration” and “living a devout life.” Should they leave their denominations? Especially not in view of the fact that probably MOST of the leaders and pastors have come to interpret it their way. But what’s down on paper looks quite different from that.

Who's willing to go down to Waco and help out?

[Jim Chabot]

I'm following the blog of Roger E. Olsen, Professor of Theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University in Waco, TX.

Here he talks about doctrines we should support but aren't too clear on or sure of. He mentions examples, one of them the following:



Who's willing to go down to Waco and help out?

I'm closer than you are to Waco, but I'll have to pass on this stellar opportunity. Not defensable in my opinion.

I do know a couple of fellows who would be willing to defend it, but they are both getting on in years.

[Cam Pence]

you'd think nazarenes would be chomping at the bit to go down to waco and play our "trump card"....where is w.t. purkiser when you need him?

[Dennis Bratcher]

I'm following the blog of Roger E. Olsen, Professor of Theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University in Waco, TX.

Here he talks about doctrines we should support but aren't too clear on or sure of. He mentions examples, one of them the following:

For example, I have gone out of my way to find a pastor or theologian of a Wesleyan denomination who will come to my class and strongly affirm and defend the doctrine of instantaneous entire sanctification–the “second blessing” in traditional Holiness doctrine. I haven’t found many. Most seem embarrassed by it and “interpret” it so that it is really little different, if at all, from what Baptists believe about “consecration” and “living a devout life.” Should they leave their denominations? Especially not in view of the fact that probably MOST of the leaders and pastors have come to interpret it their way. But what’s down on paper looks quite different from that.

Who's willing to go down to Waco and help out?

Sure, I'd go. It appears that Dr. Olson is not fully aware of the nuances of entire sanctification. It appears he's polarized the idea into AHM versions of instantaneous perfection on the one hand and the Baptist version of what Wesley would call "glorification" (a person can only be entirely sanctified at death) on the other. The reality is somewhere in between in the sometimes subtle combination and interaction of crisis and process.

I do not know his theology well enough, but it seems he is operating with the classic Reformed perspective of human beings as irredeemably flawed and imperfect, incapable of being truly righteous. The result is a never ending struggle toward righteousness, much like Paul in Romans 7, a constant journey toward an unattainable goal in this life.

Wesley's primary emphasis was not the second blessing crisis; that was far more a product of the AHM. His emphasis was more on "earnestly seeking the gift," that is, a living in preparation and expectation of God's work in a person's life. While he was increasingly convinced of the reality of a crisis experience, that was not his primary focus.

Wesley, however, did stress the attainability of total commitment to God, a life in which love excluded sin. He was totally convinced that a person could experience entire sanctification in this life, not just as an emotional crisis that could be defined within an instantaneous experience, but as a total turning of the heart toward God and others that worked out in holy living. Earlier in his ministry he wrote that this was not common, but later in life as he watched God at work in people's lives, he came to believe that it was the normal course of spiritual growth as people sought the infilling of God. (I have expressed this as salvation/initial sanctification=love God; and sanctification/entire sanctification=love neighbor, as we first turn to God and that turning to God calls us to love one another.)

Yet both Wesley and the CofN rejected perfectionism, whether instantaneous or gradual. While Article X needs clarification since it is still largely expressed in the language of the AHM, it clearly includes both dimensions of crisis and process, and affirms continued growth after sanctification. The distinction is between the action of God in filling us with love (the instantaneous aspect), and our response to that infilling in working out a pure heart in holy living (the process aspect).

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

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

Participating in the means of grace, especially the fellowship, disciplines, and sacraments of the Church, believers grow in grace and in wholehearted love to God and neighbor.

So, I think the basic difference between the Baptist view and the Wesleyan view is how we conceptualize human beings and therefore how we conceptualize God's work with humanity. And of course, how we define sin necessarily plays into this. If sin is defined legally, then we remain sinners since no one is perfect in that sense, and purely imputed righteousness makes sense. However, if sin is defined relationally, then "love excluding sin" becomes an attainable reality in this life.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Hans Deventer]

Dennis, he might actually love to have you come over. Whatever his views, he seems to have quite an irenic spirit.

[David Pettigrew]

I'd go, but I remember another David that went down to Waco, and had trouble getting out.

[Jon Bemis]

Just don't build a compound and buy a lot of guns while you're there and you should be ok.

[Roland Hearn]

I'd go: I believe that instantaneous entire sanctification is utterly defensible given a correct understanding of parameters, language and even a small amount of psychological understanding -which is what I have. I think when ES is considered within a Wesleyan construct of salvation it is absolutely identifiable, understandable and predictable. It seems to me the challenge that he puts forward reflects the amount of muddy thinking that there is in our church these days and that reflects a failed formulaic, cure all, panacea approach to the topic.

Unfortunately, even given all of that, I doubt he would spring for the airfare.

[Roy Richardson]

I'd go, but I remember another David that went down to Waco, and had trouble getting out.

Crowder? He seems to be getting around pretty well.