Out of Bounds

The Beauty and Hope of the Holiness Message

2008-02-29T10:21:00.000-08:00

As people are seated in Hughes Auditorium on the campus of Asbury College, their attention is directed immediately to the words above the organ, “Holiness unto the Lord.” This statement is rooted in Asbury’s Wesleyan Holiness tradition. While the meaning of “Holiness unto the Lord” is not immediately clear without a greater context in which to understand it, these words point to a beautiful possibility and hope in the present life. As such, let us take a moment to explore the reality to which it points.

To begin, we recognize the deepest longing of the human heart is to be fully God’s. Within each of us is the desire to love God without reservation, to live in faithful obedience to Him, and to give ourselves selflessly in love and service to other people, just as Christ did. This is the human yearning for holiness.

Every Christian knows this longing. It wells up inside of us at different times and in various ways. It comes to us in quiet moments of personal devotion or public worship when our souls experience God’s holy presence. It arises in moments of frustration when our best intentions to follow Christ falter and we fail God once again. It comes to us in moments of weariness from the unresolved conflict between our sinful impulses and the desire to follow God’s will. And it arises in moments when we serve others, but recognize our service is motivated by selfish ambitions. Time and again, as we go through life, our heart’s cry for holiness comes to the fore.

This longing should not come as any shock to us. In explaining the two greatest commandments and the summation of Old Testament law, Jesus taught that we are created by God to love God with all of our being and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Holiness is “nothing more and nothing less” than the fulfillment of Jesus’ teaching here. We are made to give ourselves to God and other people in love. Because we are made in the image and likeness of God, even though marred by sin, we are capable by God’s grace of reflecting divine love and walking in the righteousness of love. This longing is the way we are “wired” as human beings.

However, we recognize immediately the disparity between our internal motivations, outward actions and the holiest desires of our heart. While we may see love as our life’s purpose, we also know the apparent impossibility of fully walking in that love. Because of human sinfulness, the natural bent or proclivity of our heart is to love ourselves more than God and neighbor. While we may have a desire to love and serve God, our desire to please ourselves is stronger. As such, holy love does not come easily to us, but with great struggle. We naturally balk at the righteous requirements of love. Even when we want to serve God and to give ourselves selflessly to others, when “the rubber hits the road,” we falter all too often.

As Christians, therefore, we find ourselves in a frustrating predicament. One part of us longs to give ourselves completely to God and others in love, while another part, propelled by the natural inclination of our heart, seeks our own selfish ends. As such, we find that we do not have the internal power and resources to truly follow Christ. No amount of human will power can bring about the love for which we are made. We may desire to truly be a Christian, but not have the power to live the life to which we are called. We may desire to follow Christ in love, but not have the wherewithal to do so.

At this point a question must be asked. Is there something God can do in our present lives to liberate the holiest longings of our heart? Is there grace available through the life, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that can heal the distorted conditions of our lives?

Even if we don’t believe holy love is possible in our present lives, we must admit the idea is attractive. The prospect of a life defined by self-giving love of God and neighbor, which is the essence of holiness, is deeply beautiful. This is even more true for those who are confronted continually with their own depth of sin and grow exhausted with the ongoing internal war between “flesh” and “Spirit,” for those who yearn to be fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ, yet lack the inner resources to be so, and for those who long for the full manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. To resolve the conflict of a divided life seems admittedly like a glorious dream and a stunning answer to our heart’s prayer.

However, what if the holiest longings of our heart can be realized in our present life? What if God makes possible the exchange of our “bent toward sinning” with a propensity to love God and neighbor, empowering us to walk in the righteousness of love? Wouldn’t we want to take advantage of it? The good news of Jesus Christ is God can set us free to love. This declaration and confession is not a source of pride, but a humble witness to the power of God “to save to the uttermost,” and an exhortation to struggling Christians to believe God to bring about the deepest longing of the human heart. This has been and continues to be the reading and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures down through the centuries of the Church.

The Role of the Church in the Call to Ministry

2008-02-04T06:36:00.000-08:00

THE CHURCH AS THE PRIMARY MEANS OF GOD’S CALL TO MINISTRY

“Have you ever considered that God might be calling you into ministry?”

The question stopped me in my tracks. Until that moment in life, I had never thought of the possibility. I was a youth who had recently given my life to Jesus Christ and earnestly desired to serve Him, but figured I would be working for God as a lawyer, engineer, or teacher, options school and family had presented me.

One morning after Sunday school, a devout older woman in my home church challenged me with another possibility – ordained ministry. When she asked me the question, something deep inside me resonated with the suggestion. I knew immediately that God was calling me into “the” ministry, a call that would be confirmed later through education, the United Methodist ordination process, and pastoral experience.

However, I wonder what might have happened to my life if she had never asked that question, if the possibility of ordained ministry had not been presented to me through the local church. Surely God would have used more direct measures to awaken me to the call upon my life? Or would I have remained in ignorance, with my life headed in a different direction?

To begin to answer these questions, we must explore the call to ordained ministry in greater detail. In general, we recognize God calls people into ministry. How God specifically does this is where differences in understanding arise. While there have been numerous ways in which God calls people, two have been primary.

One Model of the Call to Ministry – A Direct Call by God

The first perspective or model focuses on God directly intervening in a person’s life to issue the call to ministry, with no other individual or group of people acting as a mediator for God. For instance, in the Old Testament when God wanted someone to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, He called Moses through the burning bush on Mt. Sinai. During a bleak period in the time of the judges, when apostasy reigned among the Levitical priests, God came and spoke directly to young Samuel, calling him to be a prophetic voice to the nation. In the New Testament, Jesus personally called each of the apostles to preach the Gospel and gave them authority to lead the fledgling church. When God wanted to bring an end to Saul’s persecution of the Church and call him into apostolic ministry, Jesus confronted him on the Damascus road and spoke to him openly.

Each of these examples represents the classical model of how a person is directly called by God into ministry. God speaks openly to the person and leaves the individual certain of the divine will for their lives. There is no third party involved or a representative who issues the call on God’s behalf, thereby removing any possibility of mistaking God’s call with the wishes of other human beings, or for that matter, the personal desires of the one called.

Whether we realize it or not, we often gravitate to this model, making it the dominant lens through which we view the call to ministry. Unfortunately, as a result, we assume too quickly that God doesn’t need any help in communicating His call and we leave solely to God the task of identifying and calling out potential candidates for ordained ministry. Likewise, we often think that if God doesn’t come and speak directly to us like He did to Moses in the burning bush, then we don’t have to worry about or consider the call to ministry.

A Second Model of the Call to Ministry – A Call by God through the Church

While recognizing the preceding model as a legitimate Christian understanding of the call to ministry, it is not the only way God works. And, while it is favored and elevated in our contemporary circles, perhaps, God doesn’t use it as much as we think. This brings us to the other model.

A second perspective on the call to ordained ministry sees God using a person or a group of people as mediators of the call. Primarily, this occurs in and through a believing community or a representative of the community. For instance, in the Old Testament when God wanted to appoint David as successor to King Saul, the prophet Samuel went and examined all the sons of Jesse before recognizing David as the Lord’s anointed. In the New Testament when deacons were needed to aide in the ministry of food distribution, the church recognized people in their midst who were “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” and commissioned them for service. In a prayer meeting in Antioch, the Holy Spirit led the church to set apart Barnabas and Paul for missionary service and sent them into the world after praying for them.

In each example we see God calling people into ministry through the leadership, wisdom and discernment of another person or group. God is involved in the process, just not as directly as the first model. God uses human beings as a means or channel of His call to ministry. In comparison to the first model, this is often not as glamorous or certain for the people communicating the call or for the individual being challenged with the call. Still, this is another valid way God works to bring people into ordained ministry.

While clergy throughout church history have testified to a direct call of God on their lives, many more have given testimony to God working through the church to issue their call to ministry. Their voices fill the pages of Christianity and represent some of its most distinguished figures, including the greatest Western theologian of the patristic period, Augustine, who was “drafted” into the priesthood by the church at Hippo, and the founder of Methodism, John Wesley, who made the decision to enter ordained ministry through the suggestion and counsel of his parents.

The Possibility of Missing the Call to Ministry

At this time, let us return to our initial question. Is it possible for a person, who has a call to ordained ministry, to never hear God’s call? That depends on the way God chooses to work. If God calls a person directly, then the call can’t be missed. However, if God uses the church or a representative of the church as a mediator of the call, as He often does, then a person is dependent on the church to carry out her responsibility. Without the church issuing the call, people remain in ignorance. While our natural inclination might lead us to believe that in these circumstances God automatically moves to the more direct approach, there are good reasons to be cautious of such optimism.

Why? Because God works principally in the world through certain means or channels. The chief of which is the church. Just as people are unable to hear and respond to the call of Holy Spirit to become followers of Christ unless the Gospel is shared with them, so an individual can’t hear and respond to the call to ordained ministry unless the church or a representative of the church communicates that call and helps the person explore its possibility for their lives. Without the church working in this manner, the ordinary means or channel through which God calls people into ministry are denied. As a result, if the church fails in her work of mediation, some people will be shut out from their call to ministry.

What the Church Can Do to Facilitate the Call to Ministry

What then can the church do to be responsible in her mediatory work and facilitate the call to ministry?

Beyond the obvious necessity of teaching about the call to ministry and offering opportunities to respond to a call in the normal venues of congregational life, pastors and laity need, first of all, to be observant. In a spirit of prayer, asking the Spirit to raise up ministers from their midst, as the local church works and worships, people need to be aware of what is happening and “keep their eyes out” for individuals who appear to have gifts and graces for ordained ministry.

Second, the local church must identify people who display these qualities. They may be elementary school children, youth, people established in careers, or even retired. As these people are identified pastors and laity must pray for the Spirit to begin to speak to these people’s hearts about the call to ministry.

Third, at some point, a pastor or layperson must speak to these people directly about the call to ministry. This conversation may begin with a simple acknowledgement of a person’s love of God and gifts in ministry, as well as an exhortation to seek the Lord’s direction in life. However, at some point, if evidence of a call continues to exist, then the person needs to be challenged more explicitly by asking the person to consider that God may be calling the individual into ordained ministry and to seek the Lord to confirm this call.

Fourth, pastors and laity need to be available to help in the discerning process through prayer and conversation. Sometimes people know immediately that they are called, while others take time to come to this discovery. Questions often arise and the church needs to be there to counsel.

Finally, the local church must be committed to supporting their members who have answered the call to ordained ministry. They will need spiritual, mental, emotional, and financial support as they begin to take steps into ordained ministry, as they move into the future God is creating for them.

Augustine’s Teaching on the Apostles’ Creed (Part Two)

2007-12-09T13:12:00.000-08:00

(6)… suffered under Pontius Pilate…

A. The historicity of Christ’s Death

“He was in office as governor and was the judge, this same Pontius Pilate, what time as Christ suffered. In the name of the judge there is a mark of the times, when He suffered under Pontius Pilate:”

“Therefore do we believe in Him Who Under Pontius Pilate Was Crucified and Buried . For it was requisite that the name of the judge should be added, with a view to the cognizance of the times.”

(7) …was crucified, died, and was buried…”

A. Who was put to death? What was the means of execution? For Whom was he crucified?

“Who? what? for whom? Who? God's Only Son, our Lord. What? Crucified, dead, and buried. For whom? for ungodly and sinners. Great condescension, great grace!”

B. The cross serves as an example and encouragement to believers.

“Of His cross what shall I speak, what say? This extremest kind of death He chose, that not any kind of death might make His Martyrs afraid. The doctrine He showed in His life as Man, the example of patience He demonstrated in His Cross. There, you have the work, that He was crucified; example of the work, the Cross; reward of the work, Resurrection. He showed us in the Cross what we ought to endure, He showed in the Resurrection what we have to hope.”

(8) …The third day He arose again from the dead…”

A. Christ’s resurrection was different than Lazarus’ resurrection.

“What the prize? Resurrection without death. Why did I add, "without death?" Because "Lazarus rose, and died: Christ rose again, "dies no more, death will no longer have dominion over Him."

B. Christ’s resurrection is the first-fruit of the resurrection to come – our future resurrection.

“We believe also, that On the Third Day He Rose Again from The Dead, the first-begotten for brethren destined to come after Him, whom He has called into the adoption of the sons of God, whom [also] He has deemed it meet to make His own joint-partners and joint-heirs.”

(9)…He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, …

A. This is the bodily assumption of Christ

“…that we should believe in the assumption of an earthly body into heaven.”

B. We do not know where or in what manner Christ’s body is in heaven.

“But the question as to where and in what manner the Lord's body is in heaven, is one which it would be altogether over-curious and superfluous to prosecute. Only we must believe that it is in heaven. For it pertains not to our frailty to investigate the secret things of heaven, but it does pertain to our faith to hold elevated and honorable sentiments on the subject of the dignity of the Lord's body.”

C. To be seated at the right hand of God is not to be understood literally – for God is not circumscribed.

“We believe also that He Sits at the Right Hand of the Father . This, however, is not to lead us to suppose that God the Father is, as it were, circumscribed by a human form, so that, when we think of Him, a right side or a left should suggest itself to the mind.”

D. To be seated at the right hand of God means to have a position of “supreme blessedness” and to exercise “judicial power.”

“This expression, "at the right hand," therefore, we must understand to signify a position in supremest blessedness, where righteousness and peace and joy are… And in accordance with this, when it is said that God "sits," the expression indicates not a posture of the members, but a judicial power, which that Majesty never fails to possess, as He is always awarding deserts as men deserve them (digna dignis tribuendo);”

(10)… whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

Christ is coming again – there will be a second advent. The reference to the living and the dead in the creed can have two meaning – the living are the righteous or those who are alive when Christ returns and the dead are the unrighteous or those who have already died when Christ returns.

“The quick, who shall be alive and remain; the dead, who shall have gone before. It may also be understood thus: The living, the just; the dead, the unjust. For He judges both, rendering unto each his own. To the just He will say in the judgment, "Come, you blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world." For this prepare yourselves, for these things hope, for this live, and so live, for this believe, for this be baptized, that it may be said to you, "Come ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." To them on the left hand, what? "Go into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Thus will they be judged by Christ, the quick and the dead.”

(11) …I believe in the Holy Spirit, …

A. This creedal statement complete the belief in the Trinity

“It follows in the Creed, "And in the Holy Ghost." This Trinity, one God, one nature, one substance, one power; highest equality, no division, no diversity, perpetual dearness of love. Would ye know the Holy Ghost, that He is God? Be baptized, and you will be His temple.”

B. The Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son and a different person than the Father and the Son.

“The divine generation, therefore, of our Lord, and his human dispensation, having both been thus systematically disposed and commended to faith, there is added to our Confession, with a view to the perfecting of the faith which we have regarding God, [the doctrine of] The Holy Spirit, who is not of a nature inferior to the Father and the Son, but, so to say, consubstantial and co-eternal: for this Trinity is one God, not to the effect that the Father is the same [Person] as the Son and the Holy Spirit, but to the effect that the Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit; and this Trinity is one God, according as it is written, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God."

C. The Holy Spirit is not a second Son or a Grandson of the Father.

“With respect to the Holy Spirit, however, there has not been as yet, on the part of learned and distinguished investigators of the Scriptures, a discussion of the subject full enough or careful enough to make it possible for us to obtain an intelligent conception of what also constitutes His special individuality (proprium): in virtue of which special individuality it comes to be the case that we cannot call Him either the Son or the Father, but only the Holy Spirit; excepting that they predicate Him to be the Gift of God, so that we may believe God not to give a gift inferior to Himself. At the same time they hold by this position, namely, to predicate the Holy Spirit neither as begotten, like the Son, of the Father; for Christ is the only one [so begotten]: nor as [begotten] of the Son, like a Grandson of the Supreme Father: while they do not affirm Him to owe that which He is to no one, but [admit Him to owe it] to the Father, of whom are all things; lest we should establish two Beginnings without beginning (ne duo constituamus principia isne principio), which would be an assertion at once most false and most absurd, and one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the error of certain heretics.”

(12) …the holy catholic church, the communion of saints,…

A. The Church is One and as long as she keeps her love the gates of Hell will not prevail against her.

"For the temple of God is holy," says the Apostle, "which (temple) are you." This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

B. Heretical congregations are not a part of the true Church because they do not have apostolic doctrine, while schismatic congregations, which have apostolic doctrine, are not a part of the true Church because they have broken the bonds of love.

“…we believe also in The Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic . For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe.”

(13) …the forgiveness of sins,…

A. A person can not receive forgiveness of sins without forgiving the sins of others.

“Neither ought we only to treat of the difference between sins, but we ought most thoroughly to believe that those things in which we sin are in no way forgiven us, if we show ourselves severely unyielding in the matter of forgiving the sins of others. Thus, then, we believe also in The Remission of Sins.”

B. Baptism brings the remission of all sins – no matter how great the sin.

"Forgiveness of sins." You have [this article of] the Creed perfectly in you when you receive Baptism. Let none say, "I have done this or that sin: perchance that is not forgiven me."

C. There will be venial sins after baptism, but they are forgiven through saying the Lord’s prayer. For mortal sins, which should not be in believers, there is penance.

“When you have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that you may guard your Baptism even unto the end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin; but they are venial, without which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What has the Prayer? "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors." Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which you must needs be separated from Christ's body: which be far from you! For those whom you have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice.”

D. Baptism, the Lord’s prayer and penance are the ways Church remits sins. However, this remittance can only come to the baptized.

“In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins but to the baptized.”

(14) …the resurrection of the body, …

A. This resurrection is like Christ’s and not like Lazarus.

“We believe also "the resurrection of the flesh," which went before in Christ: that the body too may have hope of that which went before in its Head. The Head of the Church, Christ: the Church, the body of Christ. Our Head is risen, ascended into heaven: where the Head, there also the members. In what way the resurrection of the flesh? Lest any should chance to think it like as Lazarus's resurrection, that you may know it to be not so, it is added, "Into life everlasting."

B. This is a Resurrection of Body and Soul.

“Resurrection of the Flesh, to wit, not merely that that soul, which at present by reason of carnal affections is called the flesh, is restored; but that it shall be so likewise with this visible flesh, which is the flesh according to nature, the name of which has been received by the soul, not in virtue of nature, but in reference to carnal affections: this visible flesh, then, I say, which is the flesh properly so called, must without doubt be believed to be destined to rise again.”

(15) …and life everlasting."

“God regenerate you! God preserve and keep you! God bring you safe unto Himself, Who is the Life Everlasting. Amen.”

Augustine’s Teaching on the Apostles’ Creed (Part One)

2007-11-24T04:47:00.000-08:00

INTRODUCTION

Augustine provides one of the best expositions on the Apostles’ Creed in the early Church. The following comments on the Creed are taken from Augustine’s “On Faith and the Creed” and “A Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed.” While Augustine’s “Enchiridion” is also an excellent exposition of the Creed, it also contains many of Augustine’s controversial and disputed points of belief – predestination, the elect are the exact number needed to replenish the angels who fell with Lucifer, etc. As such, comments from the Enchiridion are not included here.

(1) The Apostles’ Creed

A. The Apostles’ Creed is a concise summary of biblical teaching.

“We have, however, the catholic faith in the Creed, known to the faithful and committed to memory, contained in a form of expression as concise as has been rendered admissible by the circumstances of the case; the purpose of which [compilation] was, that individuals who are but beginners and sucklings among those who have been born again in Christ, and who have not yet been strengthened by most diligent and spiritual handling and understanding of the divine Scriptures, should be furnished with a summary, expressed in few words…”

B. The Apostle’s Creed enables every believer to state what they believe.

“For this is the Creed which you are to rehearse and to repeat in answer. These words which you have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; that every person may be able to say, able to hold, what he believes.”

(2) I believe in God, the Father Almighty,

A. What God omnipotent can’t do.

“God is Almighty, and yet, though Almighty, He cannot die, cannot be deceived, cannot lie; and, as the Apostle says, "cannot deny Himself." How many things that He cannot do, and yet is Almighty! yea therefore is Almighty, because He cannot do these things. For if He could die, He were not Almighty; if to lie, if to be deceived, if to do unjustly, were possible for Him, He were not Almighty: because if this were in Him, He should not be worthy to be Almighty. To our Almighty Father, it is quite impossible to sin.

B. What God omnipotent can do.

“He does whatsoever He will: that is Omnipotence. He does whatsoever He rightly will, whatsoever He justly will: but whatsoever is evil to do, He wills not.”

(3) …the Creator of heaven and earth, …

A. God is the creator of all that exists.

“For, granting that He is almighty, there cannot exist anything of which He should not be the Creator. For although He made something out of something, as man out of clay, nevertheless He certainly did not make any object out of anything which He Himself had not made; for the earth from which the clay comes He had made out of nothing.”

B. Of all things visible and invisible.

“It was He Who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, invisible and visible. Invisible such as are in heaven, thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, archangels, angels: all, if we shall live aright, our fellow-citizens. He made in heaven the things visible; the sun, the moon, the stars. With its terrestrial animals He adorned the earth, filled the air with things that fly, the land with them that walk and creep, the sea with them that swim: all He filled with their own proper creatures.”

C. God’s goodness is the basis of creation.

“…by whose goodness it is that everything exists,—not only every object which is already formed, but also every object which is formable.”

D. Creation Ex Nihilo

“He Himself is One, who communicates to everything its possibilities, not only that it be beautiful actually, but also that it be capable of being beautiful. For which reason we do most right to believe that God made all things of nothing.”

(4) …and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

A. Jesus Christ as the Son of God is of the same nature as the Father. As such, Jesus Christ is God.

“When you hear of the Only Son of God, acknowledge Him God. For it could not be that God's Only Son should not be God. What He is, the same did He beget, though He is not that Person Whom He begot. If He be truly Son, He is that which the Father is; if He be not that which the Father is, He is not truly Son.”

B. However, Jesus Christ is not the same Person as the Father.

“Wherefore The Only-Begotten Son of God was neither made by the Father; for, according to the word of an evangelist, "all things were made by Him:" nor begotten instantaneously; since God, who is eternally wise, has with Himself His eternal Wisdom: nor unequal with the Father, that is to say, in anything less than He; for an apostle also speaks in this wise, "Who, although He was constituted in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." By this catholic faith, therefore, those are excluded, on the one hand, who affirm that the Son is the same [Person] as the Father; for [it is clear that] this Word could not possibly be with God, were it not with God the Father, and [it is just as evident that] He who is alone is equal to no one. And, on the other hand, those are equally excluded who affirm that the Son is a creature, although not such an one as the rest of the creatures are. For however great they declare the creature to be, if it is a creature, it has been fashioned and made.”

C. Jesus Christ is equal to the Father.

“Do not imagine an Almighty Father and a not Almighty Son …Almighty is the Father, Almighty the Son. If Almighty begat not Almighty, He begat not very Son. For what say we, brethren, if the Father being greater begat a Son less than He? What said I, begat? Man engenders, being greater, a son being less: it is true: but that is because the one grows old, the other grows up, and by very growing attains to the form of his father. The Son of God, if He grows not because neither can God wax old, was begotten perfect. And being begotten perfect, if He grows not, and remained not less, He is equal.”

“The Son is Almighty, in doing all things that He wills to do.”

“Hath the Father anything that the Son has not?”

(5) …Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary…

A. The eternal Son of God assumed human nature in order to save us.

“But this Only Son of God, the Father Almighty, let us see what He did for us, what He suffered for us. "Born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary." He, so great God, equal with the Father, born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, born lowly, that thereby He might heal the proud. Man exalted himself and fell; God humbled Himself and raised him up. Christ's lowliness, what is it? God has stretched out an hand to man laid low. We fell, He descended: we lay low, He stooped. Let us lay hold and rise, that we fall not into punishment. So then His stooping to us is this, "Born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary." His very Nativity too as man, it is lowly, and it is lofty. Whence lowly? That as man He was born of men. Whence lofty? That He was born of a virgin. A virgin conceived, a virgin bore, and after the birth was a virgin still.”

“But whereas, in a temporal dispensation, as I have said, with a view to our salvation and restoration, and with the goodness of God acting therein, our changeable nature has been assumed by that unchangeable Wisdom of God, we add the faith in temporal things which have been done with salutary effect on our behalf, believing in that Son of God Who Was Born Through the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary. For by the gift of God, that is, by the Holy Spirit, there was granted to us so great humility on the part of so great a God, that He deemed it worthy of Him to assume the entire nature of man (totum hominem) in the womb of the Virgin, inhabiting the material body so that it sustained no detriment (integrum), and leaving it without detriment.”

B. The entire nature of humanity was assumed by Christ – body, soul, and spirit. He assumed our full nature in order to heal our full nature. “The unassumed is unhealed.”

“But if any one shall have grasped the catholic faith, so as to believe that the entire nature of man was assumed by the Word of God, that is to say, body, soul, and spirit, he has sufficient defense against those parties. For surely, since that assumption was effected in behalf of our salvation, one must be on his guard lest, as he believes that there is something belonging to our nature which sustains no relation to that assumption, this something may fail also to sustain any relation to the salvation.”

C. Both human sexes are honored in the incarnation – woman, because a woman bore Christ Jesus; man, because Jesus was male.

“…our Lord Jesus Christ had in Mary a mother upon earth; while that dispensation has honored both sexes, at once the male and the female, and has made it plain that not only that sex which He assumed pertains to God's care, but also that sex by which He did assume this other, in that He bore [the nature of] the man (virum gerendo), [and] in that He was born of the woman.”

D. The eternal Son of God not defiled by assuming human nature.

“Those, therefore, who entertain this opinion ought to ponder the fact that the rays of this sun, which indeed they do not praise as a creature of God, but adore as God, are diffused all the world over, through the noisomenesses of sewers and every kind of horrible thing, and that they operate in these according to their nature, and yet never become debased by any defilement thence contracted, albeit that the visible light is by nature in closer conjunction with visible pollutions. How much less, therefore, could the Word of God, who is neither corporeal nor visible, sustain defilement from the female body, wherein He assumed human flesh together with soul and spirit, through the incoming of which the majesty of the Word dwells in a less immediate conjunction with the frailty of a human body! Hence it is manifest that the Word of God could in no way have been defiled by a human body, by which even the human soul is not defiled. For not when it rules the body and quickens it, but only when it lusts after the mortal good things thereof, is the soul defiled by the body.”

The New Testament and The Priority of Preaching in the Church (Part Two)

2007-11-18T06:08:00.000-08:00

II. THE PRIORITY AND PURPOSE OF PROCLAMATION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH

The priority of proclamation in Jesus’ ministry is transferred to his disciples as well. Luke in his Gospel states that during Christ’s public ministry, Jesus appointed seventy-two people to go two by two into the surrounding villages to proclaim the “Kingdom of God is near” (Lk. 10:9). He promised them that when they would preach to the crowds, he would speak through their words (Lk. 10:16). In a similar event in Matthew Jesus’ commissions the twelve apostles to go and preach the message that the “Kingdom of heaven is near” (10:7). While Jesus gave his disciples authority to heal sicknesses and cast out demons, this was within the larger context of preaching his message (10:1-8), a message not intended for a select few, but one meant for the entire world (10:26-27).

This priority did not change after Christ’s death and resurrection. Before his assumption into heaven, Jesus commanded his followers to go into all the world and make disciples (Mt. 28:19). After the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples on the day of Pentecost, they were empowered to preach in Jerusalem and the church was formed. The Gospel was then proclaimed in Judea and Samaria where it was received with “great joy’ (Acts 8:8). The Gospel message was then preached in Antioch to the Gentiles and the “Lord’s power was with them” (11:19). In Antioch, Paul and Barnabas were commissioned to go and proclaim the Gospel in the Roman world, preaching first to the Jews and then the Gentiles (13:2-3). The Book of Acts concludes with Paul arriving in Rome, with the declaration that Paul “proclaimed the Kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ – with all boldness and without hindrance,” and with the anticipation that the Gospel of Jesus Christ would be proclaimed to the uttermost parts of the earth (28:31). While there were threats to the priority of preaching, as in the dispute of the daily distribution of food to the widows (6:1-3) and the controversy surrounding the incorporation of the Gentiles into the Church (10:9-48; 15:1-29), the apostles were able to maintain their focus and continued their proclamation of the “word of God” (6:3; 15:35).

In a similar way, just as Jesus proclamation of the Kingdom of God was a means through which the Kingdom broke into human existence, the preaching of the Gospel by the disciples became a means by which the salvific effects of Christ’s life, death and resurrection were experienced by the New Testament Church, a means by which the Kingdom of God broke into human existence. The purpose of proclamation by the disciples was made clear by Christ. In the same way Christ’s life, death and resurrection was necessary in order to bring about the redemption of humanity, so the proclamation of the Gospel is also necessary to bring about God’s saving plan for humanity. After his resurrection Jesus told his disciples that this plan was a fulfillment of Scriptures, “This is what is written: the messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations…” (Lk. 24:46-47). It is not enough that Christ lived, died, and was raised from the dead. These facts must be proclaimed in order that they may become a saving reality for individuals. Hence, the Apostle Paul spoke not only about the cross of Christ, but also about the message of the cross as the power of God to save (I Cor. 1:18); he spoke not only about people being reconciled to God through Christ, but about the power of the “words of reconciliation” to bring about reconciliation to God (II Cor. 5:19). Again, the work of Jesus and the proclamation of that work by the disciples makes possible the work of salvation and the experience of the Kingdom of God.

Perhaps, this is made most clear by Paul in Romans. Paul teaches that everyone that “believes” in Jesus Christ (10:9) and calls upon his name “will be saved” (10:13). Paul then asks the question, “How, then can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?” (10:14-15). He goes on to clarify that “faith” that brings about salvation is a gift from God that comes from “hearing the word of God” (10:17). Preaching the word of God is the means by which God works in humanity to bring faith in Jesus Christ. Without the preaching of the Gospel, what Christ accomplished through his death and resurrection can not be brought about in human hearts and lives. The Kingdom as proclaimed and inaugurated by Christ can not be realized apart from the proclamation of the Gospel, apart from the preaching of the “word of God.”

In summary, the priority given to preaching in Jesus’ public ministry is transferred to his disciples. This is seen in the disciples’ work of proclamation before and after the resurrection of Christ. While the life, death and resurrection of Christ accomplished the objective work of salvation, the preaching of the Gospel is what God uses to subjectively make it possible in people lives. This is the purpose of Christian proclamation. Through preaching of the “word of God” Christ works through the disciples’ proclamation to establish the kingdom of God here on earth and prepare humanity for the consummation of that Kingdom in the age to come. Just as there is no kingdom apart from Jesus Christ, there is no kingdom without the proclamation of the Gospel. Proclamation makes possible Christian faith in Christ and actualizes the salvific work of Christ in the present experience of humanity. Hence, Christ commissions the apostles to preach, with proclamation as the clearly stated priority in the New Testament Church.

III. RELEVANCE TO CONTEMPORARY PROTESTANTISM

In regard to the present state of Protestant Churches, three related points can be made. First, in the mission and ministry of Protestant denominations, proclamation of the Gospel must remain central, as demonstrated in the ministry of Jesus, the early New Testament Church, and encapsulated in Protestantism’s historic articles of religion and confessions of faith. The Kingdom of God is experienced and advanced through the proclamation of the Gospel. Where the message of Jesus is preached, where the word of God is proclaimed, the Kingdom in its life transforming reign becomes possible. God’s reign as established through Jesus does not happen apart from Christian proclamation. If the Church wants to transform human societies and cultures, then the Church must not forsake or minimize the priority of preaching “the pure word of God.”

Proclamation of the “pure word of God” has this power because it is one of the primary means or channels of God’s grace in the world. In any discussion of God’s grace, which may be defined simply as the “unmerited” work of God for humanity, in humanity, and through humanity, the question must be asked “How does God communicate His grace to people? How does God work in people?” The Scriptures reveal that God communicates His grace through appointed “channels” or “means.” While recognizing other means of grace, other channels through which God works, the New Testament makes clear that divine grace is communicated first and foremost through the preaching of the Word of God.

Second, and intimately related to the first point. The content of the proclamation must center on the life, death, resurrection and exaltation of Christ. Jesus Christ must be the Word of God proclaimed. He is the key to the present experience of the reign of God in human life and the future as well. As such Church’s social witness must be marked by an unapologetic and vocal witness to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. He must be the primary content of the Gospel proclaimed. Proclamation without focus on Christ’s salvific life is rendered powerless to bring about true life transforming change in human lives. Where Jesus Christ is not preached, then there can be no experience of the power of salvation. While For example, The United Methodist Church has an admirable history of teachings on social justice, advocacy for disenfranchised groups through governmental legislation, and empathetic identification with the least and the last of human society, however, these actions are weakened and incomplete apart from proclamation centering on the salvific life of Christ.

Finally, as has already been intimated in what is stated, the “word of God,” the Gospel of Jesus Christ is meant for the entire world. Jesus intended the Gospel to go to every nation and every culture, to the whole world and not just a part. Unfortunately, some Protestant denominations have been timid and reluctant to preach the Gospel in other cultures where Christianity is not already present. There has been a tendency to see other world religions as equally valid, as another “word of God,” on par with the Gospel. However, to refuse or neglect taking the Gospel of Jesus Christ into every culture is to deny them access to grace that can bring true personal and social transformation. Historic Protestant Churches must recommit to world evangelism in obedience to the command of Christ and in true love for those who have not had access to the transforming power of Christ’s life, death, resurrection and exaltation, made available through proclamation.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is not by accident that Protestantism has emphasized the priority of Gospel proclamation in historic doctrinal standards. This emphasis is grounded in the public ministry of Jesus, the commission given by Christ to his disciples, and in the practice of the early Church. Proclamation is the primary means by which the Kingdom of God is advanced in the world. Christ works through the Church’s proclamation to create in people’s lives the reality described in it. Protestant Churches in their mission and ministry, in the recovery of their social witness must once again commit themselves to the task of preaching the “Word of God,” of proclaiming the Gospel. While proclamation is not the only means by which God’s redeeming and transforming grace is made available in the world, it is central. True social change, true inculcation of the Kingdom of God can not happen apart from sharing the Gospel. In this regard the Church must recovery what is clearly stated and indicated in her doctrine of the Church, summarized in her doctrinal standards.

The New Testament and The Priority of Preaching in the Church (Part One)

2007-11-11T06:21:00.000-08:00

INTRODUCTION
In historic Protestant articles of religion, confessions of faith and catechetical questions on the Church, the “preaching of the pure Word of God” is identified as the first mark of the Church. While other marks are inevitably mentioned, such as the “due administration of the sacraments” and the “community rightly ordered,” priority is given to proclamation. The purpose is not to minimize the importance of sacraments or church discipline, both of which are necessary for the Church to be the Church, but to recognize the Church as the community distinguished principally by the preaching of the Gospel. From a Protestant perspective, preaching is the primary channel through which the Holy Spirit works to bring the Church into being and through which her existence is sustained.

The priority of proclamation is one of the fundamental differences Protestantism has with other forms of Christianity. While the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church also recognize preaching, sacraments and order as distinguishing marks of the Church, they order them differently in their respective understandings. The Roman Catholic Church, on one hand, emphasizes the “community rightly ordered.” The Church is primarily distinguished by its appointed bishop, who is in an ordered relationship with the papacy in Rome. Without a bishop connecting a local congregation to the Pope, without a local church being properly related to the larger Church in Rome, the status of the local church as a part of the true Church is called into question. The Eastern Orthodox Church, on the other hand, focuses on the sacraments, particularly the celebration of the Eucharist, as the defining mark. The sacraments are the primary means of God’s grace, calling the Church into being and sustaining her existence. Without the sacraments there is no Church of Jesus Christ.

Specifically, the Wesleyan tradition as seen in The United Methodist Church’s Article of Religion and Confession of Faith on the Church places “preaching the pure Word of God” as the first mark of the true Church. The Article of Religion, which comes directly from the Anglican tradition states, “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is preached …” and the Confession of Faith, which comes from the Evangelical United Brethren denomination, declares the church to be “the redemptive fellowship in which the Word of God is preached…” While each recognizes the importance of sacrament and ecclesial discipline, priority is given to proclamation.
This primacy of proclamation found in Protestantism, and more particularly in the Wesleyan tradition as seen in The United Methodist Church’s doctrinal standards, is grounded in the clear teaching of the New Testament. There is no Church of Jesus Christ and there is no mission of the Church apart from the preaching of the “pure word of God.” Proclamation can not be divorced from the Church’s nature and mission. The Word of God brings the Church into existence, sustains the Church, and forms the primary mission of the Church in the world. In order to see this more clearly, we will examine the New Testament teaching on proclamation. To begin, we will see the priority and place of preaching in the ministry of Jesus; then, we will examine the purpose of proclamation in the New Testament Church and conclude with application to our contemporary context in the Wesleyan tradition.

I. THE PRIORITY AND PURPOSE OF PROCLAMATION IN THE MINISTRY OF JESUS

As described in the Gospel texts the earthly ministry of Jesus is defined by activity. Christ healed, drove out demons, performed miracles, confronted injustice, appointed disciples, forgave sins, exercised authority over the law, and showed compassion on the needy. However, Jesus described proclamation of the Kingdom of God as his primary task. At the beginning of his ministry Jesus declared, “Let us go somewhere else – to the nearby villages – so I can preach there also. That is why I have come” (Mark 1:38). In his home synagogue in Nazareth Jesus appropriated the words of Isaiah to define his ministry as a call to “proclaim good news to the poor…proclaim freedom for prisoners…and proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19). This is corroborated by Matthew who begins his description of Jesus’ public ministry with the declaration, “From that time on Jesus began to preach, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near’” (Mt. 4:17). As such, Jesus’ miracles are portrayed in the Gospels as powerful signs of the Kingdom he proclaimed. His healings and exorcisms are recognized as works of compassion, the first fruits of the presence of the Kingdom of God he proclaimed in the world. The Gospel writers place the whole body of Jesus’ public ministry within the larger context of and in relationship to Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God.

While the Gospels portray Jesus’ primary mission in public ministry as proclamation, they make clear that Jesus himself is the key to the Kingdom. There is no Kingdom of God apart from Jesus Christ. Through his presence, his ministry and particularly his preaching, Christ initiates and mediates the Kingdom of God (Mt. 12:28, Luke 11:20; 17:20-21). The intimate relationship between Christ and the Kingdom he proclaimed is manifested in multiple ways throughout the Gospels. Implicitly, this is seen in the authority exercised by Jesus in the establishment of the Kingdom. In every account of the Kingdom of God breaking into the present order, in healings, exorcisms and the declaration of the forgiveness of sins, Jesus worked by his own authority, in his own name, not in the name of another (Mt. 8:28-34; Mk 2:1-12; Luke 7:47-49; 15:1-2). In his preaching on the Kingdom, Jesus declared, “I say to you,” and did not appeal to the more traditional prophetic utterance “thus says the Lord” (Mt. 5:21-44). Furthermore, he exercised authority over the written law by setting aside its stipulations on such matters as retribution, divorce, food, and the Sabbath (Mt. 5:21-48; Mk. 2:23-28; 3:1-5; 7:15, 19). Most glaringly, he preached a new relationship with God that would be brought about through his own life, a new relationship that would put aside the Temple in Jerusalem, the central place of Jewish religious life (Mk. 11:15-17, 27-33). Explicitly, the relationship between Christ and the Kingdom he proclaimed is seen in his definitive declarations, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6), and “I am the bread of life. No one who comes to me will ever go hungry. And no one who believes in me will ever be thirsty (John 6:35). Jesus testimony of Himself was an essential part of his proclamation of the Kingdom.

Jesus spoke of the Kingdom as already “here” through his presence, his ministry, and his preaching, as well as to come in the future. His proclamation of the Kingdom had a “now” and “not yet” aspect to it (Mt. 4:17; 6:10; Mk. 1:15; 9:1; Lk. 11:2). In the present, he saw his ministry and proclamation as the climax of God’s present purposes for Israel and the means through which the reign of God in the world was initiated. In the future, he saw himself as being the central authority in bringing others into the final consummation of the kingdom at the end of time. He taught that a person’s place in the future kingdom was directly related to that individual’s relationship and standing with himself in the present life (Mt. 10:32-33; 12:32; Lk. 12:8-9).

In summary, Jesus primarily saw the task of his public ministry as proclamation of the Kingdom of God. All his other work was to illustrate and mediate the Kingdom he proclaimed. This was the purpose of his preaching. His proclamation was the primary means by which the Kingdom was inaugurated in the world, the means through which the reign of God broke into human existence and people experienced signs of the kingdom. However, Jesus was not simply a messenger, but was himself the key to the kingdom of God in the present life and in the future age to come. The Gospels make clear that there is no experience of the Kingdom apart from Jesus’ work of proclamation and the authority Jesus himself exercised in God’s reign.

The Trinity and God Language

2007-11-05T03:46:00.000-08:00

THE TRINITY AND GOD LANGUAGE

Introduction

In The United Methodist Church, as well as in main-line denominations, there have been deliberate attempts to ignore and change traditional masculine language regarding God. Primarily, these actions have been justified by arguments that patriarchal terms to describe God are inadequate, sexist, and no longer necessary. These advocates reason that the New Testament authors used masculine names for God because of their patriarchal bias. Their language choice was culturally conditioned and cannot be applied universally. The result: denominational literature that refuses to use personal (male) pronouns in reference to God, official seminary policies that forbid masculine references to God, bishops who ordain clergy in the name of the Father and Mother, and a push to exchange traditional Trinitarian language with the names Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer.

There are very specific reasons, from my perspective, to be careful in the language we use to describe God. While all language is inadequate in describing God, this does not mean that all God language is equal in describing God. Some God language is better than others. Here are some of my reasons why I believe traditional God language is the best we have in describing God. I am not asking that you agree with me, but if this is an issue for you (a desire to retain and use traditional Trinitarian language) you need to think through your reasons for it. Here are some of my initial responses.

I. The Theological Importance of the Names: Immanent vs. Economic Trinity

Historic Christianity teaches that there is one God in three co-equal persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. However, the Father is distinguishable from the Son, and the Son is distinguishable from the Spirit. The Son is sent by the Father and the Holy Spirit fulfills and consummates the mission of the Son Each divine person has all that properly belongs to the divine nature: eternality, omnipotence, wisdom, goodness, holiness, and love. The persons of the Trinity can be distinguished, but not separated. Their distinction is not in nature, for they share one divine nature without separation into parts; rather, their distinction is in relationship with one another: the Father begets the Son and the Father with the Son (West) or the Father through the Son (East) breathes the Holy Spirit.

The Trinitarian name, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has specific meaning unique to God. It is language about God that is most suitable for God’s revelation as Trinity. To see this more clearly we must make a differentiation between the “immanent” and “economic” Trinity. The immanent Trinity refers to God's inner relationships, apart from creation, as God is in the inner Trinitarian relationship: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Immanent Trinitarian language is prominent in the Gospel of John. The economic Trinity refers to God in relationship to creation. God relates to the created order as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer/Sanctifier.

The problem or limitations with the functional Trinitarian language (the language with which many wish to replace the traditional name), although it is Biblical and rich in imagery, it cannot describe God as God is apart from the created order. It can not tell us anything of God as God really is. It is functional language, not ontological. It tells us what God does in the created order, but it says nothing about God’s being. It cannot tell us anything about God before the act of creation. Also, economic language can be used to describe any one member of the Trinity, and it is not exclusive to any one Person; They all create, They all redeem, and They all sustain/sanctify. In contrast, the traditional essential name, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, better describes the richness of God; the love of God existed before creation as an essential part of the Trinity; God the Father loves the Son and Spirit; The Son loves the Spirit and the Father; the Spirit loves the Father and the Son. And out of this love and as an expression of this love, God creates.

II. The Theological Importance of the Names: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

The use of Biblical masculine language for the first two Persons of the Trinity communicates clearly the relationships among the Godhead and distinguishes them in a community of love with the Holy Spirit. They do not imply that God is a man, for God transcends gender. Even the language Father and Son has limitations in what it conveys about God, but it is the best language we have.

The first Person of the Trinity is called “Father,” because He is Father of the Son. According to Gregory of Nyssa, “Father” denotes three important facts: The Father alone is unbegotten, He is one who exists in a relationship with another, and He is the One who is the initiator of generation. This means the Father begets life rather than conceives life. Biologically, the egg (mother) is a receiver; the sperm is the actor. Likewise, the Father initiates or begets the Son. Again this does not mean that God is male, but that He possesses this initiatory measure, most closely akin to the human father characteristic.

As a result, you cannot change God language without paying the ontological price.
Traditional Biblical language for the Trinity reveals something of God’s being. To change this language would be to distort God’s revelation as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

III. The Theological Importance of Pronouns in Reference to God.

In order to avoid masculine (or feminine) references to God, many main-line denominations, including The United Methodist Church, encourage or demand gender-neutral language for God. As a part of this agenda, there has been the systematic elimination of personal pronouns (He, His, Him) in talking about God. In many Boards of Ordained Ministry, candidates are chastised, rejected, or called to explain their use of personal masculine pronouns for God. There are problems with this on at least two levels.

First, as Christians, we believe in the personal nature of God. God has created each of us for a personal relationship with Him. In the English language, the best way we can express God’s personhood is through the use of personal pronouns. To avoid the use of personal pronouns, is to undermine the personal nature of God. God becomes a distant, objective, sterile Entity in the English language without their use.

Second, masculine pronouns and language has been a means of protecting key ideas of God’s self-revelation. When there have been attempts to use feminine language for anything more than similes (God is like a mother hen), the Christian faith has fallen into pantheistic or panentheistic problems. We cannot change the language about God without paying the ontological price – making God something God is not!

While this discussion is hardly exhaustive, this begins to address some of my concerns in dismissing traditional God language.

Guidelines for Theological Inquiry from Gregory Nazianzus’ First Theological Oration

2007-10-26T15:21:00.000-07:00

Introduction:

In my Patristic Theology class this week, we are reading Gregory Nazianzus' Five Theological Orations. In the first oration Gregory discusses who is qualified to do the work of theology and the context and limits of theological work. In class, my students developed this summary of Gregory's teaching. The bold are my students summaries of Gregory's teaching and the quotes are direct statement by Gregory:

I. Not Everyone Should Theologize About God

“Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low…”

“Let Paul reprove you with those bitter reproaches, in which, after his list of gifts of grace, he says, Are all Apostles? Are all Prophets? Etc.

A. Who Is Qualified? Only Those Who Have Been Examined

“Not to all men, because it is permitted only to those who have been examined…”

B. Who Is Qualified? Only Those Who Have Been Appropriately Prepared Intellectually

“…and are passed masters in meditation…”

C. Who Is Qualified? Only Those Living a Holy Life of Body and Soul or Pursuing it

“…and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or at the very least are being purified.”

“…the next thing is to look to ourselves, and polish our theological self to beauty like a statue.”

D. Who Is Qualified? Only Those to Whom Theology (God) Really Matters and Will Address It Reverently

“They to whom the subject is of real concern, and not they who make it a matter of pleasant gossip, like any other thing, after the races, or the theatre, or a concert, or a dinner, or still lower employments. To such men as these, idle jests and pretty contradictions about these subjects are a part of their amusement.”

“…let us at least agree upon this, that we will utter Mysteries under our breath, and holy things in a holy manner…”

II. There are Appropriate and Inappropriate Audiences for Theological Inquiry

“…and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits…”

A. The Appropriate Audience Is One That Can Grasp What Is Being Said and Will not Be Weakened by the Theological Discourse

“On matters within our reach, and to such an extent as the mental power and grasp of our audience may extend…and overweighted by the stiffness, if I may use the expression, of the arguments should suffer loss even in respect of the strength they originally possessed.”

B. The Appropriate Audience Is One That Does Not Seek to Find Something Wrong for the Purpose of Inciting Controversy and Division

“…by which I mean before any kind of audience, strangers or kindred, hostile or friendly, kindly or the reverse, who watch what we do with over great care, and would like the spark of what is wrong in us to become a flame, and secretly kindle and fan it and raise it to heaven with their breath and make it higher than the Babylonian flame which burnt up every thing around it.”

C. The Appropriate Audience Is One That Is Not Profane

“Why should a man who is a hostile listener to such words be allowed to hear about the Generation of God, or his creation, or how God was made out of things which had no existence, or of section and analysis and division? Why do we make our accusers judges? Why do we put swords into the hands of our enemies? How, do you think, or with what temper, will the arguments about such subjects be received by one who approves of adulteries, and corruption of children, and who worships the passions and cannot conceive of anything higher than the body…who till very lately set up gods for himself, and gods too who were noted for the vilest deeds?”

III. The Appropriate Time to Address Theological Discussion Is When There is Appropriate Time for Reflection. There Must Be a Season in Which To Do This.

“…and that suitable season is when we have calm within the whirl of outward things; so as not to lose our breath…”

IV. There are Appropriate and Inappropriate Points for Theological Investigation

A. Apprpriate Points Are Those within a Person’s Intellectual Reach.

“Next, on what subjects and to what extent may we philosophize? On matters within our reach…”

“Let us not think so nor yet, like hot tempered and hard mouthed horses, throwing off our rider Reason, and casting away Reverence, that keeps us within due limits, run far away from the turning point, but let us philosophize within our proper bounds…”

B. Points Appropriate for Theological Investigation Are Those Subjects Which Are Helpful in Getting Right and Not Dangerous to Be Slightly Wrong

“Philosophize about the world or worlds; about matter; about soul; about natures endowed with reason, good or bad; about resurrection, about judgment, about reward, or the Sufferings of Christ. For in these subjects to hit the mark is not useless, and to miss it is not dangerous.”

The Four Major Views of Christian Salvation: Part Three

2006-10-23T02:23:00.000-07:00

III. OTHER VIEWS OF SALVATION ON THE SPECTRUM

The four positions examined so far represent different points found in a spectrum of soteriological understanding. On one end of the spectrum is Pelagianism which sees salvation as a human monergism; there is no original sin and salvation is entirely the work of humanity. On the other end of the spectrum is a divine monergism - Augustinianism; humanity is completely dead spiritually, possessing no internal resources to contribute to personal salvation. Therefore if humanity is to be saved, God must do all of the work. In the middle of the spectrum are different soteriological synergisms; humanity and God working in cooperation with one another. Those synergisms closer to the human monergism side of the spectrum place greater emphasis on what human beings contribute to salvation or on the human initiative in salvation, as seen in Semi-Pelagianism. Synergisms that are closer to the divine monergism side of the spectrum place their focus on divine action or divine initiative, as seen in the semi-Augustinian view.

At this point, to see the spectrum more clearly, other views of how people are saved need to be addressed. What has been presented so far are simply four positions on the spectrum. These are not the only views however. In what follows, theological positions that fall in between the four major views will be presented. Specifically, three more positions will be presented. The first is a mediating position between Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, called softer Semi-Pelagianism; the second is a mediating position between Semi-Pelagianism and Semi-Augustinianism, called softer Semi-Augustinianism, but could be called a harder Semi-Pelagianism; the third is a mediating position between Semi-Augustinianism and Augustinainism, called a softer Augustinianism. Hopefully, these additional views will help develop the spectrum more fully.

A. Softer Semi-Pelagianism

Historically in evangelicalism there have been people and movements who have argued against any doctrine of inherited or original sin. They have argued that people are born into this life like Adam and Eve before the Fall in the Garden. What sets them apart from the Pelagian view is that they believe all human beings inevitably sin and require the atoning work of Jesus Christ applied to their lives. Human beings cannot atone for their sins. They take seriously Paul’s teaching, “For the wages of sin is death…” However, sin in their lives, does not take away from humanity their free will, or take it away completely. All human beings have the internal resources within themselves to begin to move toward God, repent, and exercise faith to believe the Gospel. As such, they are Pelagian in their understanding of original sin, but they are Semi-Pelagian in their understanding of the necessity of the atoning work of Christ for salvation, once a person has sinned.

Such an understanding of salvation would fall somewhere between Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. For our purposes, we will call it a softer form of Semi-Pelagianism. Examples of this understanding abound. Historically, people like the great Baptist John Smyth and nineteenth century revivalist Charles G. Finney held understandings similar to what has been stated (although with different emphases). Likewise, many ministers in the Churches of Christ/Independent Christian Churches teach this perspective and some theologians in Open theist circles are teaching this view. All people and Christian traditions holding a form of soft Semi-Pelagianism reject as unbiblical the traditional doctrine of original sin as articulated in the various traditions of the Church, yet recognize human sin and the need for the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

B. Softer Semi-Augustinianism (Harder Semi-Pelagianism?)

In contrast to John Wesley’s teaching on prevenient grace, many contemporary Wesleyan-Arminian evangelicals and traditions either imply or explicitly teach that as a result of prevenient grace given to all humanity, the ability to move toward God, repent, and exercise faith is an inherent power within every human being. As such, human beings have the ability in any given moment to exercise their will to believe the Gospel and be saved. From this perspective, people at any time may hear the Gospel, weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the argument offered and chose to follow Christ. Thus, faith and a personal response to the Gospel, is primarily something people do. They believe. They decide. They receive. To contemporary Wesleyans human beings have this power to decide as a result of prevenient grace—a blanket of grace given to all humans everywhere enabling them to move toward God and exercise faith in any given moment.

Wesleyan-Arminian theologians and traditions holding this view acknowledge “total depravity” and the state of “natural humanity” as spiritually dead to God, thoroughly corrupt and absolutely dependent upon God’s initiative in the work of salvation. However, they believe God has taken that initiative through prevenient grace given to all, defining prevenient grace as stated above. As such, this teaching pragmatically places people in the Semi-Pelagian camp; people can initiate a move toward God at any time, but only as a result of God’s initiative of prevenient grace. Thus, theologically this moves them closer to Semi-Augustinianism. For our purposes, this Wesleyan understanding is placed between the Semi-Pelagian and the Semi-Augustinian positions as representative of a soft Semi-Augustianism, but some might argue that this is a harder form of semi-Pelagianism.

Examples of this form of Wesleyan-Arminianism, softer Semi-Augustinianism, would include The Wesleyan Church and The Nazarene Churches, as least as stated in their Articles of Religion addressing prevenient grace.

As a note here, John Wesley would disagree with prevenient grace so defined. This contemporary understanding is a fundamental misappropriation of Wesley’s teaching on prevenient grace. To Wesley prevenient grace given to all humanity brings the power to respond to grace, not the power to believe. Wesley would say that as a result of prevenient grace human beings are able to cooperate with further offers of grace by God—not that they have the power to believe whenever they hear the gospel. For Wesley prevenient grace in itself does not restore to people the ability to exercise faith, much less repentance—these are works of God, not of men and women. Prevenient grace enables a person to cooperate with further works of divine grace made available through the means of grace, grace that convicts a person of sin, convinces a person of the need for Christ, and creates saving faith.

C. Softer Augustinianism

Next week’s post will address this position. For now, the spectrum of salvation with the six views is attached below.

Spectrum of Views on Christian Salvation

2006-10-21T11:47:00.000-07:00

The Four Major Views of Christian Salvation: Part Two

2006-10-16T03:49:00.000-07:00

C. Semi-Augustinianism

The Semi-Augustinian understanding of salvation is a synergistic understanding of salvation. However, unlike the Semi-Pelagian view, which sees original sin or human depravity as partial or incomplete, leaving humanity with some internal resources to contribute to the work of salvation, the Semi-Augustinian view sees original sin as complete or humanity as totally depraved. Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden, the moral image of God (holiness, righteousness, love, and relationship to God) is completely destroyed in humanity. Consequently, all human beings in their “natural state” are spiritually dead to God, thoroughly sinful, under divine condemnation, helpless to change themselves, ignorant of their present state, and are incapable of grasping their plight. If human beings are going to be saved, God is the One who must take the initiative. If human beings are to be awakened, convicted of their sin, repent, and exercise faith to be converted, then God must do the work, because humanity has no internal resources with which to move toward God and progress in the way of salvation.

Specifically, the Semi-Augustinian view teaches that God takes this initiative by giving to humanity prevenient grace. Prevenient grace, which is given to everyone, brings the power to respond to further works of grace; this grace restores the power to cooperate with further works of grace, as divine grace is made available in life. However, humanity can do nothing until God first moves, until further grace is given. Then, humanity, as a result of prevenient grace given to all, can choose to cooperate with what God is doing or not. From this perspective, a person cannot recognize their fallen state unless the Spirit brings this recognition; a person cannot repent of their sins, unless the Spirit empowers them to do so; a person cannot turn toward God, unless the Spirit enables them; and a person cannot exercise faith to believe whenever they hear the gospel, unless the Spirit creates such faith in them. Thus, prevenient grace, given to all, in itself does not restore to people the ability to progress in the way of salvation (be awakened, repent, believe, etc.). All that prevenient grace does is enable a person to cooperate with further works of divine grace made available at divinely appointed times and places through the means of grace.

If human beings are totally dependent upon God’s grace for progression in the way of salvation the question must be asked, “How does God communicate His grace to people? How does God work to create saving faith in peoples’ lives?” For the Semi-Augustinian, God communicates His saving grace through appointed “channels” or “means.” Semi-Augustinians believe that as people are exposed to the means of grace or as they place themselves in the flow of the means of grace (as they hear the Gospel, partake in baptism and Holy Communion, participate in the Body of Christ, etc.), grace capable of awakening people to the spiritual state, enabling repentance, and creating saving faith is made possible.

However, Semi-Augustinians do not believe that participation in the means of grace always results in the transmission of grace. More specifically, the means of grace are seen as the most likely places for God to give His grace but grace is not always being given through them. For example, not every time the Gospel is preached is grace communicated. There are times when the Gospel is proclaimed and “little” or “nothing” happens, while at other times, God uses the message to draw, convict, and convince people of the truth of the Gospel.

For Semi-Augustinians all prevenient grace enables a person to do is choose to cooperate with these further works of grace or not, as they are made available. Grace from this perspective is the work of the Holy Spirit in humanity. As the Gospel is being shared, in divine moments and places, grace is at work in people, a work that is not humanly generated but of God, drawing people, convincing people of the truth that Christ died for them, compelling them to give their lives to Christ, and creating faith to believe the Gospel. If they cooperate, they will be transformed through the new birth. As such, faith is not a human act so much as a result of cooperating with the “grace” of God at work in people at divinely appointed times through the means of grace. All people have done in the moment of conversion is cooperate with what is being wrought in them. To the Semi-Augustinian the choice is not to believe or not, it is to resist or submit to God’s grace. As such, only in moments when the Holy Spirit is awakening a person from their spiritual slumber, can the person be awakened; only in moments in which the Spirit brings repentance, can a person repent, and only when the Spirit creates and enables saving faith in an individual can a person be converted.

Therefore, a Semi-Augustinian believes that people cannot choose the “day or the hour” in which they will be saved. They can only be saved in the moments in which grace capable of creating saving faith is made available. Once awakened to their spiritual state, they can seek salvation, place themselves in the means of grace (those divinely appointed places and activities where God is most like to work in human hearts and lives), until grace capable of saving them is made available. However, they can not determine when this will take place. This is why John Wesley, the epitome of the Semi-Augustinian view stated, “any man may believe if he will (to be saved), though not when he will. If he seeks faith in the appointed ways, sooner or later the power of the Lord will be present whereby …man believes.”

A cursory look at John Wesley’s Aldersgate experience provides an excellent case study. John Wesley described his Aldersgate experience as having his heart “strangely warmed.” As a result he testified, “I felt I did trust Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins. He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.” Wesley’s “faith” here was not so much an action he took, rather it was something happening inside of him, a divine work creating an internal conviction that Christ loved him and had forgiven him. His heart was being acted upon by a power other than himself, creating personal faith in Christ. Wesley’s Aldersgate experience was a gift of grace.

This understanding of Wesley’s experience is substantiated further by his journals. Before Aldersgate, John Wesley had already been convinced by Peter Bohler that salvation was “by grace through faith,” and he had begun to preach this message. In a sense, Wesley was intellectually convinced of the truth, but he still struggled with personal faith until his Aldersgate experience. Wesley believed in “his head,” but struggled in “his heart” and this “heart struggle” kept Wesley from believing in Christ alone for salvation. Wesley’s Aldersgate experience confirmed that God’s grace creates faith in human hearts.

Overall, the Semi-Augustinian teaching has been overshadowed in the Protestant teaching by the Augustinian teaching, which we will examine next. The best representative of this teaching is John Wesley and it is the official teaching of The United Methodist Church, seen in her doctrinal standards.

D. Augustinianism

The Augustinian understanding of salvation is a monergistic understanding of salvation. If Pelagianism stands at one end of the spectrum of salvation, anchoring the human monergistic perspective on salvation, the Augustinian view stands at the other end of the spectrum, anchoring the divine monergistic view, believing there is no human involvement or cooperation involved in the work of salvation. Salvation is entirely the work of God. Like the Semi-Augustinian view, Augustinians teach that because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden, the moral image of God (holiness, righteousness, love, and relationship to God) is completely destroyed in humanity. Consequently, all human beings in their “natural state” are spiritually dead to God, thoroughly sinful, under divine condemnation, helpless to change themselves, ignorant of their present state, and are incapable of grasping their plight. If human beings are going to be saved, God is the One who must take the initiative. If human beings are to be awakened, convicted of their sin, repent, and exercise faith to be converted, then God must do the work, because humanity has no internal resources with which to move toward God and progress in the way of salvation.

However, in the Augustinian view God takes the initiative to save human beings through the work of election. In contrast to the Semi-Augustinian view, the Augustinian position argues that God takes the initiative to save fallen humanity, spiritually dead as a result of original sin, by selecting certain people according to His “secret counsel” for salvation and electing the rest to damnation. Only those who have been elected for salvation by God’s grace and mercy can be converted. Salvation is not available or possible to all. Because all humanity deserves eternal wrath, the fact that God elects some for salvation is a demonstration of God’s mercy and love. Augustinians argue that God’s electing grace is “irresistible.” Human beings do not have a say in their election to either salvation or damnation. There is no cooperation between human beings and God and human beings cannot resist the grace of a sovereign God when it comes. The work of awakening a person from spiritual slumber, repentance, the exercise of saving faith, new birth, and progressive sanctification is entirely the irresistible work of God’s grace in the person’s life.

The Augustinian understanding of salvation is found primarily in the Protestant tradition. Martin Luther and John Calvin held this view and it can be found today in the Wisconsin and Missouri Synods of the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church of America, and the Reformed Church.

Conclusion

The four positions presented so far represent four views of salvation or four points found in a spectrum of salvation. In the next post, I will try to offer other points on the spectrum, which would represent softer and harder Semi-Pelagianism, as well as softer and harder Semi-Augustinianism. I will try to pinpoint where the Churches of Christ (Alexander Campbell), some contemporary Open theists, most Wesleyans and other Christian bodies would fall on this spectrum.

The Four Major Views of Christian Salvation: Part One

2006-09-30T13:40:00.000-07:00

HOW IS A PERSON SAVED?
THE FOUR MAJOR VIEWS OF SALVATION

I. INTRODUCTION

In Christianity, there are few doctrines more important than personal salvation, particularly in the Wesleyan tradition. John Wesley’s oft repeated statement, “I only want to know one thing…the way to heaven” still reverberates among many Christians and seekers of God. Of course the idea of personal salvation raises two intimately related questions: (1) what is personal salvation and (2) how is a person saved?

The content of personal salvation entails a number of ideas: forgiveness of sin, reconciliation with God and humanity, deliverance from the power of sin, freedom to be fully human, bodily resurrection from the dead, and a ticket to heaven, to name a view. These are the fundamental ideas behind Wesley’s theology of what salvation entails. However, Wesley’s statement fundamentally addresses the second question – the means or way to salvation. Early in his ministry, more than a decade before his Aldersgate experience, Wesley recognized the end of Christianity, but it would take him years before he recognized the means to that end.

Like Wesley, many people recognize the end of salvation, if only vaguely. With the Early Wesley, they struggle in apprehending and appropriating the means to that end. They wrestle with the question, “How is a person saved?” In the history of Christianity, there have been four primary ways in which the achievement of salvation has been articulated. The purpose of this article is to explore the Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, Semi-Augustinian, and Augustinian views of achieving Christian salvation. In this post, I will explore the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian views. In next week’s post I will develop the Semi-Augustinian and Augustinian views.

II. THE FOUR MAJOR VIEWS OF SALVATION

To begin, while there are four major views on the means of achieving salvation, these views are not monolithic. Each perspective can be nuanced and taught in slightly different ways. For example, while there are certain defining characteristics of the Semi-Pelegian doctrine, there can be many different ways in which this view can be nuanced and taught; there can be disagreements among Semi-Pelegians about specific aspects of their teaching, while still remaining solidly Semi-Pelegian.

Perhaps, the best way to look at the different teachings on salvation is to see them as a spectrum of thought, placed on that spectrum based on how they handle two fundamental and intimately related Christian doctrines: (1) human depravity or original sin and (2) the work of salvation. The first doctrine addresses the degree to which humanity has been affected by original sin. To what extent has humanity been impaired by the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? The second doctrine addresses the relationship of human effort to the work of salvation. Is salvation the work of God, the work of humanity, or some divine-human synergism?

On one end of the spectrum is the view that sees salvation as a human monergism; there is no original sin and salvation is entirely the work of humanity. On the other end of the spectrum is a divine monergism; humanity is completely dead spiritually, possessing no internal resources to contribute to personal salvation. Therefore if humanity is to be saved, God must do all of the work. In the middle are different synergisms; humanity and God working in cooperation with one another. Those synergisms closer to the human monergism side of spectrum will place greater emphasis on what human beings contribute to salvation, while those closer to the divine monergism side will place their focus on divine action.

A. Pelagianism

Pelagianism, which is to be distinguished from the actual teachings of Pelagius, expresses the strongest form of human monergism. As such, it exists at one end of the salvation spectrum. Pelagianism is a view of salvation that rejects the idea of original sin. Each person brought into life exists in the same state that Adam and Eve existed before their sin. Human beings have the same freedom that humanity enjoyed in the Garden. There is no inherited tendency, bent, proclivity or enslavement to sin. The human will is completely free to choose to follow God’s law or not. There is no temptation that can not be overcome through human will power; all divine commands can be fulfilled by a human being. Every human being possesses the necessary internal resource to be an obedient follower of Jesus Christ.

From this perspective, salvation is brought about by following the example and teaching of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the perfect model of how a person should live and his moral teachings provide humanity with the necessary instructions to live as His followers. As such, individuals earn or merit their salvation through their discipleship – imitating the life of Jesus and following his moral commands. Ultimately, a person will stand before God in final judgment and God will decide whether or not that individual’s discipleship merits the reward of heaven or the punishment of hell. Human action is the means by which salvation is achieved.

Pelagianism can take a variety of forms in Christianity. For example, there are many church members, people who attend worship services, and self-described Christians who believe that their good works (their church attendance, church membership, financial contributions to the church, their charitable giving, their acts of obedience in doing good, etc.) will earn them a place in heaven. Similarly, there are people who believe that their good deeds and their bad deeds will be evaluated in final judgment and if their good works outweigh their bad, then, they will earn a place in heaven.

While Pelagianism has been thoroughly rejected and is heresy and while no legitimate denomination or Christian body officially holds to this view, nevertheless it still finds expression in Christianity. Pelagianism can found in many “rank and file” members of liberal mainline denominations, peripheral religious groups like the Unitarian-Universalist Churches, pseudo-religious organizations like Freemasonry, and popular thought in American life.

B. Semi-Pelagianism

Semi-Pelagianism is a synergistic understanding of salvation, with priority given to human effort. As such, this perspective is placed on the spectrum closer to the Pelagian end. Semi-Pelagianism recognizes original sin. All of humanity has been affected by the sin of Adam and Eve. Every human being is born with a propensity or proclivity to rebellion and disobedience to God. Every human being has sinned, because by Adamic nature they are sinners. Obedience to God and holy love do not come easily to humanity. However, the moral image of God, the ability to choose the good, to do the right, has not been completely extinguished in humanity. Humanity still has some internal resources to offer in the work of salvation.

Because of personal sin, human beings stand in need of divine forgiveness and redemption. Human beings can not save themselves. They can not do enough good works and deeds to atone for their sins. If they are going to find redemption, then they must find it in the saving work of Christ in his life, death and resurrection. To appropriate this work, a person must repent of sin, exercise faith in Jesus Christ. The ability to repent and exercise faith is something a person can do. People have the power within themselves to repent and believe any time they choose. When they do this, God responds by forgiving and redeeming people through Jesus Christ.

This is a human-divine synergism. The work of humanity is to repent and believe. The work of God is to forgive and redeem. Priority is given to human beings, not because they do the most important work in salvation, but because salvation begins with the human initiative. God responds when human beings take this initiative. Perhaps the defining mark of the semi-Pelagian perspective is the belief that every human being, though impaired by original sin, has the power to move toward God, to repent and believe the Gospel, at any moment they decide.

Semi-Pelagianism can take a variety of forms in Christianity. For example, is some expressions of Christianity, salvation is achieved through belief in Christ and good works. Good works alone can not save a person, but they do contribute to earning the justifying work of God in Christ. The merits of godly actions by humans, is supplemented by faith in the merits of Christ. As such, both good works and divine work bring about the work of salvation.

While Pelagianism has been rejected by Christianity, Semi-Pelagianism has had a favorable reception in many Christian circles. Historically, the two most dominant expressions of this perspective are found in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. However, this is the view of most generic evangelicals or this is how most evangelicals function pragmatically.

A Brief Commentary on The Wesleyan Church's Articles of Religion: Conclusion

2006-09-23T20:04:00.000-07:00

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, two points need to be made. First, the Wesleyan Church’s twenty-one Articles of Religion are broadly ecumenical in nature. While Wesleyans have distinctive beliefs, most of our Articles of Religion are shared with historic Christianity as a whole and Evangelical Protestantism in particular.

Specifically, the bulk of the Wesleyan Church’s Articles of Religion is grounded in the consensually orthodox tradition of Christianity. Most of the Articles of Religion express basic Christian beliefs shared in common with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and all major Protestant traditions. With them we believe in the Trinity, in creation ex nihilo, in original sin, in the life, death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the full divine nature and the full human nature of Jesus Christ, in the full deity of the Holy Spirit, in the agency of the Holy Spirit in creation and salvation, in the atoning work of Christ, in the universal and local Church, in the second coming of Jesus Christ, in the bodily resurrection from the dead of the just and unjust, in final judgment, and in heaven and hell. Furthermore, with them, we believe that humanity was created in the image of God, that humanity fell in the Garden of Eden, and that there is no redemption for humanity apart from Jesus Christ.

While the Articles are primarily shaped by the classical exegesis of Scripture in historic Christianity, becoming the foundation of basic beliefs, they also are shaped by the doctrinal emphases found among Protestant Evangelicals. With them, we believe in the total depravity of humanity apart from grace, in the necessity of the divine initiative in salvation, in the necessity of the experience of personal conversion/new birth, in salvation by grace through faith, in good works as a fruit of regeneration, in the Protestant marks of the Church, in the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and in the primacy and authority of the Old and New Testaments in all matters of faith and practice.

Second, the Wesleyan Church’s Articles of Religion do reflect a distinctive viewpoint within Christianity, highlighting truths of the Gospel often neglected in contemporary Evangelicalism. They give voice to an irrepressible optimism in the power of divine grace in the present life, while also emphasizing appropriate human cooperation with grace. These can be seen in the distinctive Wesleyan doctrines of the chief end of humanity, prevenient grace, absolution of original sin, high view of regeneration/new birth, assurance of salvation, the possibility of the forfeiture of grace, and entire sanctification. While the Wesleyan Church gladly embraces its theological identity rooted in historic Christian belief and the doctrinal emphases of Evangelical Protestantism, Wesleyans believe their particular doctrinal distinctive provides a needed message in the Church and in the world. As such, we do not shrink from embracing them, but believe they are a vital part of the message God has given to Wesleyans to proclaim in the world.

A Brief Commentary on The Wesleyan Church's Articles of Religion: Part IV

2006-09-17T03:27:00.000-07:00

(E) THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH: ARTICLES 15-17

Article 15: The Gifts of the Spirit

We believe that the Gift of the Spirit is the Holy Spirit himself, and He is to be desired more than the gifts of the Spirit which He in His wise counsel bestows upon individual members of the Church to enable them properly to fulfill their function as members of the body of Christ. The gifts of the Spirit, although not always identifiable with natural abilities, function through them for the edification of the whole Church. These gifts are to be exercised in love under the administration of the Lord of the Church, not through human volition. The relative value of the gifts of the Spirit is to be tested by their usefulness in the Church and not by the ecstasy produced in the ones receiving them.

Article 15 highlights three crucial points for the Wesleyan understanding of the gifts of the Spirit. First, the Wesleyan Church believes in the gifts of the Spirit, although they are not specifically listed in this Article. However, in response to extremes in some Pentecostal and charismatic movements, Wesleyans clarify that the “gift” of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit Himself and that He is to be sought more than any particular spiritual gift.

Second, Wesleyans believe that the purpose of spiritual gifts to individual Christians is for the edification and strengthening of the Church. The degree to which the gifts do this determines their level of importance and significance in the life of the Church.

Finally, Wesleyans see spiritual gifts as a combination of (A) natural human abilities that are anointed by the Spirit for His use in the Church and (B) supernatural abilities beyond the natural talents of human beings. Again, although not accordingly listed and categorized, the Wesleyan Church believes that some spiritual gifts are natural human abilities, consecrated and used by the Spirit, while others are genuinely supernatural in nature, transcending human abilities.

Article 16: The Church

We believe that the Christian Church is the entire body of believers in Jesus Christ, who is the founder and only Head of the Church. The Church includes both those believers who have gone to be with the Lord and those who remain on the earth, having renounced the world, the flesh and the devil, and having dedicated themselves to the work which Christ committed unto His church until He comes. The Church on earth is to preach the pure Word of God, properly administer the sacraments according to Christ’s instructions, and live in obedience to all that Christ commands. A local church is a body of believers formally organized on gospel principles, meeting regularly for the purposes of evangelism, nurture, fellowship and worship. The Wesleyan Church is a denomination consisting of those members within district conferences and local churches who, as members of the body of Christ, hold the faith set forth in these Articles of Religion and acknowledge the ecclesiastical authority of its governing bodies.

With most Articles and Confessions in the consensual orthodox tradition, Wesleyans in this Article address the Church on the universal and local level, moving from the general to the particular. First, in regard to the universal or “catholic” Church, Wesleyans believe the Church is comprised of all true believers – those who are presently alive and those who have died and are presently with the Lord. In agreement with the Protestant tradition, Wesleyans believe the universal Church as manifested on earth is identified by (A) the preaching of the “pure Word of God,” (B) the due administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s supper (Article 17), and (C) a community rightly ordered according to the commands of Christ.

Second, the Wesleyan Church believes the universal Church is made manifest concretely in local churches. Local churches are congregations, a gathered community of believers, who meet together and organize to (A) evangelize unbelievers, (B) establish people in the Christian faith, (C) provide a context for mutual care and edification, and (D) worship the Triune God. While not stated here, Article 10, “Repentance and Faith,” makes clear that Wesleyans believe that involvement in a local church is necessary for continuance in the Christian faith.

Finally, this Article addresses specifically the Wesleyan Church. The Wesleyan denomination is comprised of local Wesleyan churches, made up of individual members, which are organized into districts. These local churches are united through their mutual belief in the Wesleyan Church’s Articles of Religion and submission to the polity of the Wesleyan denomination.

Article 17: The Sacraments: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

We believe that water baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the sacraments of the church commanded by Christ and ordained as a means of grace when received through faith. They are tokens of our profession of Christian faith and signs of God’s gracious ministry toward us. By them, He works within us to quicken, strengthen and confirm our faith.
We believe that water baptism is a sacrament of the church, commanded by our Lord and administered to believers. It is a symbol of the new covenant of grace and signifies acceptance of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ. By means of this sacrament, believers declare their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior.

We believe that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death and of our hope in His victorious return, as well as a sign of the love that Christians have for each other. To such as receive it humbly, with a proper spirit and by faith, the Lord’s Supper is made a means through which God communicates grace to the heart.

From these doctrinal statements, three important points may be gleaned about The Wesleyan Church’s general understanding of the sacraments. First, Wesleyans believe they are permanent visible signs. Through simple earthly elements - bread, grape juice, and water – the sacraments of baptism and Holy Communion convey in tangible form God’s mercy, covenant faithfulness, suffering love, and atonement. They are visible re-enactments of God’s greatest acts in history on humanity’s behalf. In Scripture there are many visible signs of God’s grace and mercy - the rainbow, the pillar of fire, Gideon’s fleece, the sun standing still, etc. All might be cited as visible signs of God’s grace. However, they are not sacraments because they were temporary signs circumstantially given. Baptism and Holy Communion are permanent, recurrent celebrations. In any place or time of the Church there are Christians breaking bread and performing baptisms as outward signs of God’s grace.

Second, Wesleyans teach that the sacraments point the worshipping community to God’s real presence and His grace made available through them. Through these visible re-enactments, God’s grace awakens and empowers individuals in the life of Christ. The grace of God is offered to the Church in and through these sacraments in a way that cannot be grasped by the human mind. In the Reformation Protestants revolted against what they perceived to be the superstitions of medieval sacramentalism. However, they never lost sight in their confessions of the basic idea that grace is being offered and, by faith, communicated to the believer in baptism and Holy Communion. They are means of grace. This Wesleyan teaching on the sacraments is rooted in this Protestant tradition.

Finally, Wesleyans teach that Christ initiated the sacraments. They are not human inventions, but are appointed by Christ. Minimally, these acts are not to be viewed as commandments of other human beings or socially determined conventions or psychologically derived routines, but as God’s own invention through Christ’s direct institution. The Gospel accounts make clear that baptism and Holy Communion are offered as a result of God’s initiative.

(F) THE DOCTRINE OF LAST THINGS: ARTICLES 18-21

Article 18: The Second Coming of Christ

We believe that the certainty of the personal and imminent return of Christ inspires holy living and zeal for the evangelization of the world. At His return He will fulfill all prophecies made concerning His final and complete triumph over evil.

With consensually orthodox Christianity, the Wesleyan Church believes in the physical return of Jesus Christ. By “imminent return,” Wesleyans believe Christ’s second coming could happen at any moment. This understanding means that Christ could return right now or at any point in the future. Christ’s coming could be very soon or much later in time. Because Christians do not know the exact time in which Christ will return and that Christ’s return could happen at any moment, Christians should live holy lives, ready to meet the Lord and should be inspired even more to do the work of evangelism

Again, with consensually orthodox Christianity, the Wesleyan Church believes that with Christ’s second coming all evil, injustice, suffering, sickness and sin will be brought to an end.

Article 19: The Resurrection of the Dead

We believe in the bodily resurrection from the dead of all people— of the just unto the resurrection of life, and of the unjust unto the resurrection of damnation. The resurrection of Christ is the guarantee of the resurrection which will occur at Christ’s Second Coming. The raised body will be a spiritual body, but the person will be whole and identifiable.

This statement on the bodily resurrection from the dead of all humanity is reminiscent of the Apostles’ Creeds’ declaration, “of the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.” The Wesleyan Church believes in the bodily resurrection of the dead of both the “just” and the “unjust” at Christ’s second coming. The just will experience a bodily existence of life everlasting with God and the “unjust” will experience a bodily existence of life everlasting in damnation.

While not exactly clear about what this bodily existence will be like, the Wesleyan Church points to the bodily resurrection of Christ for clues. Christ’s resurrected body, a body that was physical, yet not bound by the physical laws of the universe, is the model of humanity’s future resurrected state. Hence, the Wesleyans describe this as a “spiritual body.”

Article 20: The Judgment of All Persons

We believe that the Scriptures reveal God as the Judge of all and the acts of His judgment are based on His omniscience and eternal justice. His administration of judgment will culminate in the final meeting of all persons before His throne of great majesty and power, where records will be examined and final rewards and punishments will be administered.

With consensually orthodox Christianity, the Wesleyan Church believes in final judgment. At the end of human history people will stand before God to give an account of their lives. As an omniscient and fair Judge, God will evaluate each person and distribute “rewards and punishments” accordingly. Although not stated in this Article, but made clear in the next (Article 21), the final judgment is unchangeable, with no appeal. There will be two classes of judgments: heaven and hell.

Article 21: Destiny

We believe that the Scriptures clearly teach that there is a conscious personal existence after death. The final destiny of each person is determined by God’s grace and that person’s response, evidenced inevitably by a moral character which results from that individual’s personal and volitional choices and not from any arbitrary decree of God. Heaven with its eternal glory and the blessedness of Christ’s presence is the final abode of those who choose the salvation which God provides through Jesus Christ, but hell with its everlasting misery and separation from God is the final abode of those who neglect this great salvation.

While Article 19 teaches that final human destiny is a bodily existence, this final article also clarifies that it is rational and conscious, maintaining the essence of what it is to be constituted a human person. While not specific, this Article primarily describes heaven as a place defined by the “blessedness” of Christ’s presence” and describes hell as a place characterized by “misery” and “separation from God.”

The Wesleyan Church concludes her Articles of Religion by emphasizing the distinction between the Wesleyan understanding of salvation and the Reformed/Calvinist perspective. Wesleyans maintain any person can be saved by cooperating with God’s gracious initiative through Jesus Christ by repenting and believing in Christ. The ability to choose to cooperate or not is made possible through prevenient grace (Article 8). Therefore, a person’s “final destiny” in heaven or hell is determined by the individual person. In contrast, the Reformed/Calvinist tradition teaches that a person’s “final destiny” is determined by an “arbitrary decree of God.” A person has no choice, contributes nothing, in the work of salvation. A person’s destiny in heaven or hell is determined by God alone.

A Brief Commentary on The Wesleyan Church's Articles of Religion: Part III

2006-09-12T03:06:00.000-07:00

(D) THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION: ARTICLES 9-14

Article 9: The Atonement

We believe that Christ’s offering of himself, once and for all, through His sufferings and meritorious death on the cross, provides the perfect redemption and atonement for the sins of the whole world, both original and actual. There is no other ground of salvation from sin but that alone. This atonement is sufficient for every individual of Adam’s race. It is unconditionally effective in the salvation of those mentally incompetent from birth, of those converted persons who have become mentally incompetent, and of children under the age of accountability. But it is effective for the salvation of those who reach the age of accountability only when they repent and exercise faith in Christ.

The Wesleyan Church’s Article on the atonement has three decisive points. With consensual orthodox Christianity, Wesleyans believe in the necessity of the atonement. There is no redemption of human beings from their sinful condition and their acts of sin apart from the work of Christ in “his sufferings and meritorious death on the cross.” In distinction from the Reformed and Lutheran traditions, Wesleyans also believe the atonement is unlimited in extent. The atoning work of Christ avails for all sinners and for all sin; it is “sufficient for every individual of Adam’s race.” Finally, this Article alludes to what the next Article (Article 10) makes explicit; the atonement of Christ is conditional in application. Wesleyans believe that the benefits of the atonement are appropriated through repentance and personal faith in Jesus Christ. The atonement is only efficacious for the penitent and believing sinner.

Two other points are worthy of notice in this Article. First is the mention of two types of sin – “original and actual,” both of which will be addressed in greater detail in Articles 11, 13, and 14. By “original sin,” Wesleyans mean the corruption of the moral nature or moral image of God in humanity, the state of spiritual death into which human beings are brought into existence, resulting in humanity’s continual inclination toward evil, although modified by prevenient grace (Article 8). By “actual sin,” Wesleyans mean the concrete acts of sin, arising from the sin nature.

Second, the Wesleyan Church believes in an age of accountability and mental competency. With many Evangelicals, Wesleyans believe the benefits of Christ’s atonement are applied automatically to children until the age of accountability, to those mentally incompetent from birth, and to Christians who have become mentally incompetent. Wesleyan believe these people are given the grace of justification or saving forgiveness.

Although not explicitly stated, underlying the Wesleyan Church’s teaching here is the belief that Christ’s death on the cross removes all guilt attached to original sin for everyone. As a result of Christ’s death, God does not hold humanity responsible for being born with the sin nature. Original sin, in and of itself, will not condemn a person to hell. This divine gift is bestowed upon all through prevenient grace. Therefore, the guilt and penalty for sin arises only when a person willfully and knowingly commits acts of sin. Since children and those “mentally incompetent from birth” are not fully aware of their choices, the grace provided by the atonement is “effective” for them.

A Wesleyan Distinctive#3: Unlimited Atonement
In contrast to the Calvinist tradition, which teaches that Christ died only for those who were chosen by God for salvation, thereby holding to a limited view of the atonement, the Wesleyan Church believes in an unlimited atonement. Christ atoned for all sin and for all sinners. The atoning work of Christ can be appropriated by any human being through repentance and faith, both of which are possible through God’s prevenient grace.

A Wesleyan Distinctive#4: The Absolution of Original Sin
In contrast to the Calvinist, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic traditions, the Wesleyan Church believes that one of the universal effects of Christ’s atonement given to every person is absolution of the guilt of original sin, regardless if an individual is a Christian or not. As a result of Christ’s death, God does not hold humanity responsible for being born with the sin nature. Original sin, in and of itself, will not condemn a person to Hell. Only when a person reaches an age or state of responsibility and willfully cooperates with the sin nature is a person held liable and subject to divine judgment. Wesleyans believe this is a part of God’s prevenient grace given to all because of the atonement.

Article 10: Repentance and Faith

We believe that for men and women to appropriate what God’s prevenient grace has made possible, they must voluntarily respond in repentance and faith. The ability comes from God, but the act is the individual’s.

Repentance is prompted by the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit. It involves a willful change of mind that renounces sin and longs for righteousness, a godly sorrow for and a confession of past sins, proper restitution for wrongdoings, and a resolution to reform the life. Repentance is the precondition for saving faith, and without it saving faith is impossible. Faith, in turn, is the only condition of salvation. It begins in the agreement of the mind and the consent of the will to the truth of the gospel, but issues in a complete reliance by the whole person in the saving ability of Jesus Christ and a complete trusting of oneself to Him as Savior and Lord. Saving faith is expressed in a public acknowledgment of His Lordship and an identification with His Church.

The Wesleyan Church believes that repentance and faith are the two requirements for appropriating the benefits of Christ’s atonement. With repentance the Wesleyan Church’s focus on God’s initiative in the work of salvation is brought to the fore again. Previously, in Article 8, God’s work in bringing people to Christ was seen in the doctrine of prevenient grace. Now, God’s initiative is seen again in the gift of repenting grace. Wesleyans believe that repentance can only come about in unbelievers through the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit. Specifically, Wesleyans believe repentance involves (A) a willful change of mind that renounces sin and longs for righteousness, (B) a godly sorrow for and a confession of past sins, (C) proper restitution for wrong doings, and (D) a resolution to reform personal life. Wesleyans further believe that repentance is the precondition for saving faith, without which saving faith is impossible.

With this understanding of repentance, the Wesleyan Church believes that saving faith is the only immediate condition of salvation. Wesleyans believe that the ability to exercise saving faith is not a natural inherent power in humanity as a result of original sin, but is a gift of grace. Specifically, Wesleyans have a threefold understanding of saving faith; it is (A) an assent of the will to the truth of the Gospel; it is (B) a wholehearted trust in the “saving ability of Jesus Christ” and it is (C) a personal surrender of life to Christ. The Wesleyan Church believes that saving faith is expressed in a public acknowledgment of Christ and active participation in a local church.

Article 11: Justification, Regeneration and Adoption

We believe that when one repents of personal sin and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, that at the same moment that person is justified, regenerated, adopted into the family of God, and assured of personal salvation through the witness of the Holy Spirit.

We believe that justification is the judicial act of God whereby a person is accounted righteous, granted full pardon of all sin, delivered from guilt, completely released from the penalty of sins committed, by the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, by faith alone, not on the basis of works.

We believe that regeneration, or the new birth, is that work of the Holy Spirit whereby, when one truly repents and believes, one’s moral nature is given a distinctively spiritual life with the capacity for love and obedience. This new life is received by faith in Jesus Christ, it enables the pardoned sinner to serve God with the will and affections of the heart, and by it the regenerate are delivered from the power of sin which reigns over all the unregenerate.

We believe that adoption is the act of God by which the justified and regenerated believer becomes a partaker of all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a child of God.

In the tradition of Evangelical Protestantism, the Wesleyan Church believes in the necessity of personal conversion. Specifically, Article 11 identifies four concomitants of conversion, although the fourth, assurance of salvation is not addressed in this Article or in any other Wesleyan Article of Religion. The four concomitants are (A) justification, (B) adoption, (C) regeneration, and (D) assurance of salvation. Because the doctrine of Christian assurance is not developed, focus is placed on the first three components of conversion.

In the moment when people exercise saving faith, the Wesleyan Church teaches that God justifies, regenerates and adopts a person. Specifically, in justification, Wesleyans believe God pardons people of sin and receives them into His favor. Their sins are forgiven and the righteousness of Christ is imputed (reckoned) to them. They have a new standing before God. The barrier of sin has been removed. Justification is mentioned first because it is the gateway to the other concomitants, making possible the rest of the work of salvation.

In regeneration, God begins to restore the moral image of God, bringing about a change in heart, mind, will and action. This is what God does in believers, imparting to them righteousness, raising them from death in sin to life in Christ. So powerful an event is this, Wesleyans teach that Christians are set free from willful sin; the power of sin is broken. This is a strong understanding of regeneration, much stronger than normally portrayed in other Christian theological traditions. The Wesleyan Church understands regeneration as initial sanctification, which will be addressed in greater detail in Article 14.

In adoption, Wesleyans believe that human beings are brought into the family of God as daughters and sons, becoming heirs with Christ Jesus to the Kingdom of God, and have confident access to the throne of God. In adoption, believers become partakers in all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a child of God.

A Wesleyan Distinctive#5: A High View of Regeneration (New Birth)
Among the major Protestant denominations, The Wesleyan Church has the highest view of conversion. Wesleyans expect that as a result of the new birth a person is liberated from willful sin and is enabled to live a life of obedience to Jesus Christ. The power of outward sin is broken. While the nature of sin, original sin, still remains, manifesting itself in an internal orientation to sin, people who have experienced the new birth are able to “live above” their sinful internal desires and be victorious over them.

A Short Historical Explanation of the Doctrine of Christian Assurance

In regard to the Wesleyan teaching on Christian assurance, because the Articles of Religion mention the doctrine, but do not develop it, a short historical explanation may be helpful. John Wesley believed that those who had been pardoned and accepted by God through faith would not be left without an assurance of their right standing before God. Assurance is a witness to the Christian’s relationship with God as Father.

Specifically, Wesley’s doctrine of the assurance of salvation is grounded in his understanding of Romans 8:16, “For the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.” As such he taught that there are two participants: God’s Spirit and the human spirit. God’s Spirit is the subjective witness, the “inward impression upon the soul” testifying to the human heart that a person is a child of God, that a person has been brought into a right relationship with God and is in a right relationship with God. This inward impression may bring feelings or joy or a sense of forgiveness and confidence in relationship with God or it may not. It is a gift of God that God gives.

The human “spirit” is the objective witness. In the examination of inward attitudes and outward action under the direction of the teaching of Holy Scriptures, people can see if there is evidence of the new birth in their lives. For example, is there freedom from willful sin? Has the power of sin been broken? Is the fruit of the Spirit being made manifest? In this way people can begin to objectively discern whether regeneration has occurred or not. For Wesley, Christian assurance is ultimately an inner experience with objective quality.

A Wesleyan Distinctive#6: Assurance of Present Salvation, not Future
In contrast to common evangelical teaching on assurance of salvation, often associated with teachings on “eternal security,” Wesleyans believe that assurance of salvation is an assurance of present salvation and not final salvation. Christians can know they are presently saved, but because final salvation is contingent upon continued faith and cooperation with divine grace, there can not be any confidence about final salvation. Wesleyans believe that people can experience progress in the way of salvation by cooperating with divine grace; likewise, people can regress in the way of salvation through refusing to cooperate with divine grace. Therefore, while people can know that they are presently Christians, if they do not continue to cooperate with divine grace, they may find themselves in a place where they no longer have faith and are no longer Christians.

Article 12: Good Works

We believe that although good works cannot save us from our sins or from God’s judgment, they are the fruit of faith and follow after regeneration. Therefore they are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and by them a living faith may be as evidently known as a tree is discerned by its fruit.

With the Protestant tradition, the Wesleyan Church teaches that people can not be saved through good works. Good works contribute nothing to obtaining God’s pardon and redemption from sin. People can only be saved by divine grace through faith. However, Wesleyans believe that good works are a sign of personal conversion, the “fruit” of new birth, and are pleasing to God. If good works are not occurring in Christian’s life, then a person’s conversion is suspect.

Article 13: Sin after Regeneration

We believe that after we have experienced regeneration, it is possible to fall into sin, for in this life there is no such height or strength of holiness from which it is impossible to fall. But by the grace of God one who has fallen into sin may by true repentance and faith find forgiveness and restoration.

Three key ideas, distinctive in the Wesleyan Church’s doctrinal teaching, are found in this Article. First, the Article points back to Article 11, underscoring a high view of conversion: The Wesleyan Church believes regeneration sets a person free from willful sin. Willful sin is “possible,” but is not the norm of Christian life. If willful sin occurs, then forgiveness and restoration occur through repentance and faith.

Second, the Article demonstrates how seriously the Wesleyan Church takes deliberate sin. Wesleyans do not treat willful sin lightly. A volitional “transgression of a known law of God” brings about a dangerous breach in a Christian’s relationship with God, which left unchecked by true repentance can result in alienation from God once again.

Finally, as has been intimated already, the Article points to the Wesleyan idea that personal salvation can be lost through lack of true repentance over sin. Justification, regeneration, and adoption are contingent upon continued faith and cooperation with divine grace. Wesleyans believe that people can experience progress in the way of salvation by cooperating with divine grace; likewise, people can regress in the way of salvation through refusing to cooperate with divine grace. Therefore, if they do not continue to cooperate with divine grace, they may find themselves in a place where they no longer have faith and are no longer Christians.

A Wesleyan Distinctive#7: The Loss of Salvation (A Rejection of Eternal Security)
In contrast to the Reformed and Lutheran understanding of “perseverance of the saints” and the Baptist teaching on the “eternal security” of believers, The Wesleyan Church teaches that Christians can “fall from grace.” Because the work of salvation involves human cooperation, a cooperation made possible through prevenient grace, a Christian can decide to no longer cooperate with God’s grace and turn away from God. Wesleyans believe people can be genuinely converted and then turn away from God and forfeit the salvation He offers.

Article 14: Sanctification: Initial, Progressive, Entire

We believe that sanctification is that work of the Holy Spirit by which the child of God is separated from sin unto God and is enabled to love God with all the heart and to walk in all His holy commandments blameless. Sanctification is initiated at the moment of justification and regeneration. From that moment there is a gradual or progressive sanctification as the believer walks with God and daily grows in grace and in a more perfect obedience to God. This prepares for the crisis of entire sanctification which is wrought instantaneously when believers present themselves as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God, through faith in Jesus Christ, being effected by the baptism with the Holy Spirit who cleanses the heart from all inbred sin. The crisis of entire sanctification perfects the believer in love and empowers that person for effective service. It is followed by lifelong growth in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The life of holiness continues through faith in the sanctifying blood of Christ and evidences itself by loving obedience to God’s revealed will.

Expressed in the most general terms, the Wesleyan Church teaches that sanctification entails the entire work of transformation in human lives by the Holy Spirit from the moment individuals are born again until they are given glorification in death. The Wesleyan Church believes the ultimate end of the Spirit's work is to bring about holiness, making humanity like God, and enabling humanity to perfectly love God and neighbor. When the Spirit takes residence in human lives in regeneration, what Wesleyans call initial sanctification, He begins the process of transforming their attitudes, interests, and actions. This process of inward transformation and outward conformity to Christ is progressive sanctification.

Wesleyans believe this eventually leads Christians to a crisis experience. As the Spirit transforms Christians in their attitudes, interests, and actions, He begins confronting them with an internal principle of selfishness and sin, persisting stubbornly in them. With their high view of conversion, Wesleyans believe new Christians may not be able to initially detect the inward sin that remains in them. The momentum of their conversions may make them feel that they have been completely set free from both outward sin, deliberate willful sin, and inward sin, a heart prone to selfishness, pride, and rebellion against God. They may initially feel that they love God with all of their “heart, soul, mind and strength” and their neighbor as themselves.

However, as times passes, they grow to realize there is sin that remains in them. While they live in obedience to Christ, their heart is divided and there is a natural pull toward selfishness and pride. There is an internal principle persisting stubbornly in them. Wesleyans believe that as Christians begin to struggle against their internal sin, they come to realize there is little they can do about it. They recognize their state of sin, repent of it, and are frustrated by it. They are brought finally to the realization that if they are going to be delivered from this “nature” of sin in the present life, then God will have to do it. In this crisis moment, Wesleyans teach that Christians can throw themselves on the mercy of Christ by (A) consecrating themselves entirely to God and (B) exercising faith in Christ to deliver them.

At this point, in a second work of grace, called in this Article “baptism with the Holy Spirit,” the Spirit (A) cleanses believers from the internal nature of sin or original sin, setting them free from a divided heart, (B) enabling them free to love God with all their “heart, soul, mind, and strength” and to love others as themselves, and (C) empowering them for faithful service. They are delivered from the internal principle of selfishness and sin, persisting stubbornly in them. In the new birth believers are set free from outward sin, but in entire sanctification they are set free from inward sin, releasing them to serve God and others with their whole heart without reserve, fulfilling the two great commandments.

This Wesleyan Article makes clear that entire sanctification is not a static state in Christians. As a Christian grows in knowledge of God, knowledge of self and wisdom, the person is better enabled to fulfill the perfect will of God. As such, this teaching makes a distinction between entire sanctification and Christian maturity. It is possible for a person to be set free from inward and outward sin, perfected in love, and empowered for ministry to others, but not have the wisdom, experience and knowledge necessary for Christian maturity. Yet, a Christian cannot become fully mature without the experience of entire sanctification. A believer can know what to do in a given situation, but not have the power or proper motivation to execute it in a way fitting for spiritual maturity. Holiness is ultimately a dynamic experience intensifying and growing throughout the life of a Christian, continuing beyond entire sanctification. Furthermore, there is an increasing intensification or a deepening of love and holiness in a person who has been entirely sanctified.

A Wesleyan Distinctive#8: Entire Sanctification in the Present Life
In comparison with all other major Christian traditions, The Wesleyan Church has the most optimistic view on sanctification. Wesleyans teach that Christians can experience entire sanctification now, in the present moment, through an act of entire consecration and faith, whereby believers surrender their lives to the lordship of Christ and trust God to purify and empower them. Entire sanctification is a synergism in which the work of consecration and faith by a Christian is met immediately by the Holy Spirit’s deliverance from the inner propensity to sin (the sin nature), enabling the believer to “love God with all heart, soul, mind, and strength” and love neighbor as self, and making possible obedience to Christ with an undivided heart. However, entire sanctification does not free Christians from mistakes in understanding and judgment or what are commonly called “sins of infirmity.”

A Brief Commentary on The Wesleyan Church's Articles of Religion: Part II

2006-09-05T07:35:00.000-07:00

(B) THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES: ARTICLE 5

Article 5: The Sufficiency and Full Authority of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation

We believe that the books of the Old and New Testaments constitute the Holy Scriptures. They are the inspired and infallibly written Word of God, fully inerrant in their original manuscripts and superior to all human authority, and have been transmitted to the present without corruption of any essential doctrine. We believe that they contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man or woman that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. Both in the Old and New Testaments life is offered ultimately through Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and humanity. The New Testament teaches Christians how to fulfill the moral principles of the Old Testament, calling for loving obedience to God made possible by the indwelling presence of His Holy Spirit.

The canonical books of the Old Testament are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

The canonical books of the New Testament are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

In agreement with historic Protestant Confessions and Articles on the Bible, the Wesleyan Church believes the Old and New Testaments are the divinely inspired, written Word of God and recognizes them as the final source of authority in all matters of Christian faith and practice.

More specifically, this Article contains four ideas crucial to the Wesleyan Church’s teaching on the Bible. First, Wesleyans affirm the “inerrancy” of Scriptures, but the meaning of the term is never given. Historically, the Wesleyan Church has never defined inerrancy with the type of specificity found in documents like the “Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.” Therefore, within the Wesleyan Church there is greater allowance for what this might mean. For example, Asbury Theological Seminary, currently the primary seminary of the Wesleyan Church, states that the Bible is “inerrant in all it affirms.”

Second, the phrase “in the original manuscripts” has its origins in the days when Christians questioned the appropriateness of new translations like the New International Version and the Revised Standard Version. With this statement the Wesleyan Church implicitly acknowledges the validity of the science of textual criticism and thus does not take a “King James Version only” approach to Scripture. The Article goes on to affirm what is the conclusion of textual scholars, namely, that the Scriptures have been transmitted without corruption of any essential doctrine.

Third, the phrase “all things necessary to salvation” is intended to protect the church from the bondage of extraneous belief and practice. Wesleyans maintain that no doctrinal belief or specific practice should be required of Christians if not grounded in a common Christian understanding of Scripture.

Finally, the Article’s list of canonical books identifies the Wesleyan Church with other Protestant denominations. Wesleyans do not believe that the Apocrypha are inerrant, uniquely inspired, authoritative, or the written Word of God, although nothing in this Article denies that they may be edifying for reading.

(C) THE DOCTRINE OF HUMANITY: ARTICLES 6-8

Article 6: God’s Purpose for Humanity

We believe that the two great commandments which require us to love the Lord our God with all the heart, and our neighbors as ourselves, summarize the divine law as it is revealed in the Scriptures. They are the perfect measure and norm of human duty, both for the ordering and directing of families and nations, and all other social bodies, and for individual acts, by which we are required to acknowledge God as our only Supreme Ruler, and all persons as created by Him, equal in all natural rights. Therefore all persons should so order all their individual, social and political acts as to give to God entire and absolute obedience, and to assure to all the enjoyment of every natural right, as well as to promote the fulfillment of each in the possession and exercise of such rights.

The Westminster’s Catechism’s first question is “What is the chief end of humanity?” The answer: “To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” While not disagreeing with this venerable Reformed statement, the Wesleyan Church’s response to the question is nuanced differently. According to this Article, the chief end of humanity is summarized in the two greatest commandments given by Jesus: love God “with all heart” and love neighbor as self.

Therefore, for Wesleyans the supreme love of God and the love of other human beings are the guiding principles for all human actions and relationships among individuals, families, communities, and nations. As such, first and foremost is submission and obedience to God in all human affairs and second, the promotion of all “natural rights” for humanity.

A Wesleyan Distinctive#1: The Chief End of Humanity Is Love
The Wesleyan Church believes the “perfect” love of God and neighbor is the chief end of humanity. Humanity was created primarily for relationships with God and other human beings. While this teaching does not directly oppose the dominant Protestant understanding, stated in the Westminster Catechism, the difference in Wesleyan teaching is worthy of notice and has implications for the Wesleyan understanding of salvation and sanctification.

Article 7: Marriage and the Family

We believe that every person is created in the image of God, that human sexuality reflects that image in terms of intimate love, communication, fellowship, subordination of the self to the larger whole, and fulfillment. God’s Word makes use of the marriage relationship as the supreme metaphor for His relationship with His covenant people and for revealing the truth that that relationship is of one God with one people. Therefore God’s plan for human sexuality is that it is to be expressed only in a monogamous lifelong relationship between one man and one woman within the framework of marriage. This is the only relationship which is divinely designed for the birth and rearing of children and is a covenant union made in the sight of God, taking priority over every other human relationship.

While Article 2 states that human beings are created in the image of God, this Article is the first statement to begin to explore the Wesleyan Church’s understanding of the divine image. To be made in God’s image means human beings are created for and find fulfillment in self-giving relationships with other human beings, an idea firmly rooted in the previous Article (Article 6), “God’s Purpose for Humanity.”

Nowhere is this aspect of the image of God made manifest more than in the divinely appointed institutions of marriage and family. In marriage and family Wesleyans believe “intimate love, communication, fellowship, subordination of the self to the larger whole, and fulfillment” find their fullest expression.

Specifically, Wesleyans believe marriage is a lifelong covenant union between one man and one woman; it is the only appropriate context for sexual relationships; and it is the appropriate framework for the procreation and development of children.

Article 8: Personal Choice

We believe that humanity’s creation in the image of God included ability to choose between right and wrong. Thus individuals were made morally responsible for their choices. But since the fall of Adam, people are unable in their own strength to do the right. This is due to original sin, which is not simply the following of Adam’s example, but rather the corruption of the nature of each mortal, and is reproduced naturally in Adam’s descendants. Because of it, humans are very far gone from original righteousness, and by nature are continually inclined to evil. They cannot of themselves even call upon God or exercise faith for salvation. But through Jesus Christ the prevenient grace of God makes possible what humans in self effort cannot do. It is bestowed freely upon all, enabling all who will to turn and be saved.

The Article on “Personal Choice” clarifies further the Wesleyan understanding of the divine image in humanity. With consensual orthodox Christianity, the Wesleyan Church believes that, as created in the Garden of Eden, humanity was given a moral nature with the freedom to choose between right and wrong. This moral image enabled humanity to enjoy true righteousness, holiness, love, and a personal relationship with God. The moral image formed the guiding principle of humanity’s disposition, thoughts, words and deeds, making possible the rightful exercise of dominion in the created order, rightly ordered relationships with fellow humanity, and perfect love and obedience to God.

Although created holy and wise, humanity in the Garden sought their own will instead of God’s, seeking happiness in the world and in the work of their own hands instead of God. In agreement with the classical Confessions and Articles in the Protestant tradition, the Wesleyan Church, believes in “total depravity.” The moral nature in humanity was destroyed by humanity’s Fall in the Garden. As a result, humanity, unaided by grace, is dead to God, self-focused, helpless to change, and “by nature … continually inclined to evil.” As such human beings have no personal or internal resources to contribute in the work of salvation. They have no innate power to call upon God or exercise faith for salvation. In this state humanity stands under the condemnation of God and is deserving of God’s wrath and judgment.

In agreement with Augustinian teaching found in the Reformed and Lutheran traditions, the Wesleyan Church believes that if human beings are going to be saved, then God must take the initiative. However, in contrast with the Calvinist and Reformed traditions, the Wesleyan Church teaches that God takes this initiative to all humanity through prevenient grace. Prevenient grace, which is given to every human being, modifies the effects of total depravity and makes possible the potential for any person “to turn,” and “exercise faith for salvation.”

A Wesleyan Distinctive #2: Prevenient Grace
In contrast to the Calvinist and Lutheran traditions, which teach that God takes the initiative to redeem fallen humanity by electing certain people to salvation and electing the rest to damnation, thereby removing any human cooperation in the work of salvation and removing any chance of salvation for some, the Wesleyan Church teaches that God takes the initiative to redeem humanity by restoring the ability of humanity to cooperate in the work of salvation. Wesleyans call this divine initiative - prevenient grace, which makes possible the ability to positively respond to the Gospel and is given to all humanity. Therefore, while the Calvinist and Lutheran traditions believe that only those specifically selected by God can be saved, Wesleyans believe any person can be saved.

A Brief Commentary on The Wesleyan Church's Articles of Religion: Part I

2006-08-30T06:42:00.000-07:00

A BRIEF COMMENTARYON THE ARTICLES OF RELIGION OF THE WESLEYAN CHURCH: PART I

I have been working on “A Brief Commentary of The Wesleyan Church’s Articles of Religion.” It has been quickly written and is in rough form. I have tried to write it with the purpose of introducing the Wesleyan Church’s doctrinal statements to anybody interested in the official doctrinal teaching of The Wesleyan Church. As such, this is not a critique of the Articles, but is meant to be a sympathetic reading and explanation of them (which is my natural disposition toward them:>). In a future post, I will address a list of inconsistencies, problems, and needs for clarification in the Articles, which is natural to a body of doctrinal statements, edited and amended over a long period of time, and is the reason why denominations need to revisit all of their doctrinal statements, not just individual statements, from time to time.

INTRODUCTION

The Articles of Religion of The Wesleyan Church are rooted in the consensually orthodox tradition of historic Christianity, the fundamental emphases of evangelical Protestantism, and the doctrinal distinctives of Wesleyan-Arminian theology. With historic Christianity, our Articles are informed by the Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, the classical statements of the Christian faith. Therefore, we affirm such doctrines as the Trinity, the two natures of Jesus Christ, and the bodily resurrection of the dead. With evangelical Protestantism, our Articles are shaped by certain priorities. Among them are the primacy of Holy Scriptures in all matters of faith and practice, salvation by grace through faith, and the necessity of new birth or personal conversion. With Wesleyan-Arminianism, our Articles reflect a particular bias in doctrinal differences among Christian denominations and traditions. For example, we believe that every human being potentially can be saved; Christians can fall from grace; and people can be freed in the present life from the power of sin.

The purpose of our commentary is to introduce you to the Wesleyan Church’s twenty-one Articles of Religion, the official beliefs of our denomination, and assist you in understanding their ecumenical nature, their evangelical focus and their doctrinal distinctives. Therefore, our commentary will not be exhaustive of all Wesleyan teaching; it will not cover every theological topic, but will be limited to what the Articles actually state. Specifically, we will cite each Article of Religion, offer a cursory explanation of its primary ideas, and highlight the Wesleyan doctrinal distinctives when they are addressed.

THE ARTICLES OF RELIGION OF THE WESLEYAN CHURCH

The twenty-one Articles of Religion in the Wesleyan Church are placed into six discernable doctrinal groups: (A) Articles 1-4 address the doctrine of the Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, (B) Article 5 sets forth an understanding of Holy Scriptures and identifies the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, (C) Articles 6-8 summarize the doctrine of humanity, (D) Articles 9-14 contain statements on salvation, (E) Articles 15-17 address issues related to the Church, and (F) Articles 18-21 conclude with eschatological concerns.

(A) THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: ARTICLES 1-4

Article 1: Faith in the Holy Trinity

We believe in the one living and true God, both holy and loving, eternal, unlimited in power, wisdom and goodness, the Creator and Preserver of all things. Within this unity there are three persons of one essential nature, power and eternity — the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

With consensual orthodox Christianity, Wesleyans teach that there is one God in three co-equal persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. However, the Father is distinguishable from the Son, and the Son is distinguishable from the Spirit. Each divine person has all that properly belongs to the divine nature: eternality, omnipotence, wisdom, goodness, holiness, love, as well as other attributes not listed in this article. The persons of the Trinity can be distinguished, but not separated. Their distinction is not in nature, for they share one divine nature without separation into parts; rather, their distinction is in relationship with one another: the Father begets the Son and the Father with the Son breathes the Holy Spirit.

Article 2: The Father

We believe the Father is the Source of all that exists, whether of matter or spirit. With the Son and the Holy Spirit, He made man, male and female, in His image. By intention He relates to people as Father, thereby forever declaring His goodwill toward them. In love, He both seeks and receives penitent sinners.

Three ideas about God the Father are either explicitly stated or implied here, when read in light of the other Wesleyan Articles on the Trinity. First, while the Wesleyan Church recognizes that each divine person is eternal, without beginning or end, and equal with one another, Wesleyans teach that the Son is begotten of the Father (Article 3), and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Article 4). As such, the Father is the source of the Son’s eternal generation and the Father with the Son is the source of the Spirit’s eternal procession.

Second, this article corresponds with the first statement of the Apostle’s Creed that recognizes the Father as “creator of heaven and earth.” With the universal Church, Wesleyans believe that God the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit created all things, bringing them into existence out of nothing (ex nihilo). God is the uncreated, original cause of creation and the “preserver of all things” (Article 1). The created order would not exist or continue in existence without God.

Finally, this article addresses the creation of humanity in the image of God and that the “Source of all that exists” relates to humanity as a loving Father. While there is no elaboration on what is meant for humanity to be made in “His image,” Articles 6-8 will address this more explicitly.

Article 3: The Son of God

We believe in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, truly God and truly man. He died on the cross and was buried, to be a sacrifice both for original sin and for all human transgressions, and to reconcile us to God. Christ rose bodily from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and there intercedes for us at the Father’s right hand until He returns to judge all humanity at the last day.

In agreement with classical Christian creeds, the Wesleyan Church confesses that in the incarnation the eternal Son of God, who in nature is one with the Father and the Spirit, equal to them in dignity, glory and power, became fully human to redeem fallen humanity. As such, Jesus Christ is “truly” divine and “truly” human. His divine nature and person is eternal, without beginning. All that constitutes the divine nature belongs to Jesus Christ. However, his human nature is begotten in time, having its origin with the Holy Spirit’s miraculous work in the Virgin Mary. By “truly” human Wesleyans mean that Jesus assumed a body and soul. The eternal Son of God took unto himself the whole of human nature and everything attendant to it.

The rehearsal of the ministry of Jesus Christ on behalf of humanity is outlined in this article, reminiscent of the Apostles’ Creed: incarnation, death, bodily resurrection, ascension into heaven, on-going intercession on behalf of humanity, second coming, and final judgment. The atoning work of Christ is brought to the fore in this Article for special emphasis, highlighting the particular importance of this doctrine, and is developed in greater detail in Article 8.

Article 4: The Holy Spirit

We believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and is of the same essential nature, majesty, and glory, as the Father and the Son, truly and eternally God. He is the Administrator of grace to all, and is particularly the effective Agent in conviction for sin, in regeneration, in sanctification, and in glorification. He is ever present, assuring, preserving, guiding, and enabling the believer.

In agreement with the Athanasian Creed, the Wesleyan Article on the Holy Spirit makes clear that the Holy Spirit is a divine person, not an impersonal force in the created order or merely an attribute of God. He has the same nature as the Father and the Son and is equal to them in dignity, glory and power. While the Father is distinguished in the Godhead by being unbegotten, the Son in being begotten by the Father, following the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions, in distinction from Eastern Orthodoxy, the Wesleyans teach that the Spirit is distinguished by his eternal procession from the Father and the Son.

The Wesleyan Church further teaches that the Holy Spirit is the personal agent through whom God the Father and God the Son operate in the created order and in the lives of people. All of the benefits of Christ’s life, death, resurrection and intersession for humanity are applied to individuals and communities through the Holy Spirit: conviction of sin, regeneration, sanctification, and glorification.

John Wesley's Doctrine of Salvation: Part Four

2006-08-18T11:39:00.000-07:00

PART FOUR: PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION, REPENTANCE OF BELIEVERS, SANCTIFYING FAITH, ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION, FURTHER GROWTH IN GRACE, AND GLORIFICATION

INTRODUCTION

At this point, we will complete our examination of Wesley’s ordo salutis, the way in which God works to restore the image of God in humanity. Up to this point we have taken a cursory look at Wesley’s understanding of prevenient grace, convicting grace/repentance, faith, the new birth (justification, adoption, regeneration), and assurance of salvation/witness of the Spirit. Now, we will conclude by examining progressive sanctification, repentance of believers, sanctifying faith, entire sanctification, further growth in grace, and glorification.

Again as we have stated earlier, the ordo salutis is a conceptional theological framework in which to understand Wesley’s soteriology. However, in the actual experience of salvation, this framework may not be experienced in such a neat linear fashion. Also, as we have done previously, we will look at some of the historical circumstances surrounding John Wesley’s life and ministry, specifically related to his teaching on and experience of entire sanctification.

I. WESLEY’S ORDER OF SALVATION: PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION, REPENTANCE OF BELIEVERS, SANCTIFYING FAITH, ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION, FURTHER GROWTH IN GRACE, AND GLORIFICATION

In every step in the way of salvation, God is the One who takes the initiative by His grace and we respond, remembering that even our ability to respond is a work of grace. At this point in the ordo salutis a clarification of Wesley’s understanding of grace and the means of grace may be helpful.

What is grace for John Wesley? Fundamentally, "grace" is the unmerited work of God in us, for us, and through us. Grace is the work of the Holy Spirit, communicating to us the benefits God the Father has made possible through our Lord Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection. For example, God restoring our capacity to respond to grace through prevenient grace is itself a work of grace bestowed upon all of humanity as a particular benefit of Christ’s atonement.
Because grace is essentially the work of God in us, there are greater or deeper works of grace. For example, conviction of our sinfulness and our need for Christ is a deeper work of grace than prevenient grace; the creation of saving faith is an even greater work of grace; justification, adoption and regeneration is a deeper work still; and the ongoing work of transformation into the image of Christ Jesus is a greater work of grace, deeper than what the Spirit has done previously. Our growth in grace is dependent on the continued work of the Holy Spirit in us, sustaining us, growing us, transforming us. Thus in Wesley there are degrees of grace in people’s lives (gradually greater and deeper works of the Spirit in human lives).

Next, in regard to the means of grace, Wesley believed that you and I must be connected to those places and actions, the divinely appointed means, by which God is most likely to communicate His grace to us (those places and activities where God in His Spirit chooses to work for us, in us and through us). We must stay connected to these like fruit on a vine or we will wither up and die. The "means of grace" are those appointed places where grace is bestowed or communicated (the places and activities where God's Spirit is at work). These include the instituted means of grace, which Wesley lists as prayer, reading the Scriptures, Holy Communion, fasting, and Christian conferencing. They also include what Wesley called the prudential means of grace, which consisted of rules for ordering the Christian life, such as “doing no harm,” “doing good,” and “attending all the ordinances of God.” By participating in these means, we place ourselves in those places where God is most likely to work to transform our lives and increase our faith in greater and deeper ways. As people seeking salvation or seeking sanctification or seeking to grow in grace, we must place ourselves in the means of grace until God bestows grace, God does the work we are seeking to be done.

F. Progressive Sanctification

Expressed in the most general terms, sanctification addresses the entire work of transformation in human lives by the Holy Spirit from the moment individuals are born again until they are given glorification in death. The ultimate end of the Spirit's work is to restore the full image of God in humanity, making humanity like Christ. When the Spirit takes residence in human lives in regeneration, what Wesley also called initial sanctification, He begins the process of transforming their attitudes, interests, and actions. This process of inward transformation and outward conformity to Christ is progressive sanctification.

As we have already stated, Wesley has a high view of the new birth and the renewal in moral image, expecting entire consecration to God before conversion and freedom from willful sin at conversion. After conversion Wesley does not expect Christians to commit willful, deliberate sin, which he believes will destroy a believer’s relationship with God, if left unchecked. This sin is the deliberate refusal by a believer to follow God or obey God.

At this point, let us take a moment to examine what sin Wesley expects in believers after conversion and the work of progressive sanctification to address it. First, Wesley expects that after conversion Christians will continue to commit sins of infirmity, which he believes does not impact believers’ relationship with God because they are not willful. At times Wesley is reluctant to call these sins, referring to them as sins “improperly so called,” while also acknowledging they stand in need of the atoning work of Christ. These sins arise out of ignorance/misunderstanding of God’s law or standard or are due to physical ailments/limitations. Progressive sanctification occurs as Christians become more knowledgeable of God’s law and will for their lives and they are empowered to bring their lives into greater conformity with Christ’s life.

Second, Wesley expects that after conversion Christians will commit “sins of surprise,” which will impact believers’ relationship with God to the degree to which their wills cooperate with sin. These sins are not premeditated or intentional, but arise either as a result of a prior decision over which there was some control, as in an inordinate outburst of anger as a result of lack of sleep, or as a result of a “sudden assault” from the devil, the world, or our sin nature, as in an involuntary response rooted in pride, selfishness, or a “trap from the devil.” While there is some level of cooperation of the will, these tend to be spontaneous reactions within Christians. Progressive sanctification works to free Christians from their orientation toward pride and selfishness and helps liberate them from such involuntary actions rooted in “inward sin.”

Therefore progressive sanctification works to address ignorance of God’s will, the traps of the enemy, poor decisions that eventually lead to sin, and transform the inner heart of a believer. This process of inward transformation and outward conformity to Christ is progressive sanctification.

G. Repentance of Believers

As the Spirit transforms Christians in their attitudes, interests, and actions, He begins confronting them with an internal principle of selfishness and sin, persisting stubbornly in them. From his observations of conversions in the Wesleyan revival, Wesley believed new Christians may not be able to initially detect the inward sin that remains in them. The momentum of their conversions may make them initially feel that they have been completely set free from both outward sin, deliberate willful sin, and inward sin, a heart prone to selfishness, pride, and rebellion against God. They may initially feel that they love God with all of the “heart, soul, mind and strength” and their neighbor as themselves.

However, as times passes, they grow to realize there is sin that remains in them. While they live in obedience to Christ, their heart is divided and there is a natural pull toward selfishness and pride. There is an internal principle persisting stubbornly in them, making them fall into “sins of surprise” and making them “prone to wonder.” Wesley believed that as they began to struggle against their internal sin, they come to realize there is little they can do about it. They recognize their state of sin and repent of it. As they repent, they are brought to the realization that if they are going to be delivered from this “nature” of sin, they God will have to do it. With this they throw themselves on the mercy of Christ to set them free from this inward nature of sin so they can be completely His.

H. Sanctifying Faith

As people positively respond to convicting grace through repentance, then they open themselves up to divine grace capable of creating sanctifying faith. As with saving faith, John Wesley believes sanctifying faith is a gift from God and is the only thing “immediately necessary” to appropriate entire sanctification. Specifically, he believes that God gives people grace that enables them to believe God to sanctify them from their internal state of sin. Only when grace has been made available to create sanctifying faith, grace mediated through the means of grace, can a person have sanctifying faith. They must persist in the means of grace until God works.

From this perspective Christians actively seek entire sanctification, availing themselves of the various means of grace, waiting for God's grace capable of creating faith to appropriate it. Thus, a person cannot be entirely sanctified at any given moment, but only in those times and places in which God's grace is being made available that can create such faith. For example, while Wesley describes faith that sanctifies entirely as a trust that “God hath promised it in the Holy Scripture,” that “God is able to perform” it, that “He is able and willing to do it now,” and a “that He doeth it,” he makes clear that it is a “a divine evidence and conviction,” it is a faith that God creates and enables through the means of grace.

I. Entire Sanctification or Christian Perfection

On the most basic level John Wesley defined entire sanctification or Christian perfection as a work of God’s grace whereby Christians are cleansed from the internal nature of sin or original sin and set free to love God with all heart, soul, mind, and strength and set free to love others as themselves. They are delivered from the internal principle of selfishness and sin, persisting stubbornly in them. In the new birth believers are set free from outward sin, but in entire sanctification they are set free from inward sin, releasing them to serve God and others with their whole heart without reserve, fulfilling the two great commandments.

On another level, Wesley taught entire sanctification or Christian perfection as complete renewal in the moral image of God in humanity. As we saw in the first unit, the moral image of God in humanity enabled humanity to enjoy true righteousness, holiness, love and love of God in the immediacy of a relationship with God. The moral image formed the guiding principle of humanity’s disposition, thoughts, words and deeds. While the moral image was completely destroyed in the Fall, the image is partially restored in the new birth and completely renewed in entire sanctification. As such, the fully renewed moral image forms the trajectory of all human actions in thought, word and deed.

Because of the problematic nature of the language “entire” and “perfection,” Wesley endeavored to be clear in his many discussions about what entire sanctification or Christian perfection does and does not entail. For Wesley, entire sanctification or Christian perfection does not consist of perfection of knowledge, freedom from mistakes, freedom from infirmities, and exemption from temptation. As such, Christian perfection is not Adamic or divine perfection. While Christians may be renewed completely in the moral image, the natural and political images are still marred, resulting in sins of infirmity from clouded reasoning and mistakes in judgment. This is one of the reasons Wesley was reluctant to call it a “sinless perfection.” Furthermore, it is not divine perfection because it is mutable, subject to change, either positively or negatively. Entire sanctification can intensify or grow throughout life or be subject to loss through surrendering to temptation and sin.

J. Further Growth in Grace Beyond Entire Sanctification

As has been already intimated, Wesley did not see entire sanctification as a static state in Christians. While the moral image has been completely renewed, the natural and political images must continue to be renewed as well. As a Christian grows in knowledge of God, knowledge of self and wisdom, the person is better enabled to fulfill the perfect will of God. As such, this teaching makes a distinction between entire sanctification and Christian maturity. It is possible for a person to be set free from inward and outward sin, perfected in love, and empowered for ministry, but not have the wisdom, experience and knowledge necessary for Christian maturity. Yet, a Christian cannot become fully mature without the experience of entire sanctification. A believer can know what to do in a given situation, but not have the power or proper motivation to execute it in a way fitting for spiritual maturity. Holiness is ultimately a dynamic experience intensifying and growing throughout the life of a Christian, continuing beyond entire sanctification.

Furthermore, while the moral image has been completely renewed, there is an increasing intensification or a deepening of love and holiness in a person who has been entirely sanctified.

K. Glorification

John Wesley believed that when Christians die the complete image of God is restored in humanity. The natural image which gave to humanity reason or understanding, free will, and perfectly ordered emotions or affections is completely restored. The political image which gave to humanity the power of governance, whereby humanity exercised dominion over the created order and related rightly in all human relational spheres is completely restored. The natural and political images are perfectly restored and Christians are set free from all infirmities. At this point their holiness becomes incorruptible, whereby their perfection supersedes the perfection Adam and Eve enjoyed before the Fall, and they become like God in His incorruptible holiness and love.

II. HISTORICAL AND PERSONAL ISSUES RELATED TO JOHN WESLEY’S DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN PERFECTION

John Wesley in his Plain Account of Christian Perfection clearly traces how he arrived at his understanding of Christian perfection. While reading Jeremy Taylor’s Holy Living and Holy Dying in 1725, Wesley began (1) to form his understanding of the purpose of humanity - to live in the constant presence of God, and (2) to see the importance of purity of intention in holy living. A year later while reading Thomas A Kempis’ Imitation of Christ, Wesley saw that "simplicity of intention and purity of affection" were the “one design in all we speak or do, and the one desire ruling all our tempers” and are "the wings of the soul without which she can never ascend to the mount of God.” Subsequently, while reading William Law’s Christian Perfection and A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, Wesley became convinced more than ever, of the absolute impossibility of being half a Christian; and setting his determination by God’s grace to be fully devoted to God. So by 1729 Wesley states that he had a clear understanding of the goal of Christianity – Christian perfection, but was not sure how to attain it. This is seen so clearly in his 1733 sermon, “Circumcission of the Heart.” Ten years would pass before the Moravians, Peter Bohler and Aldersgate would help Wesley to see how to obtain his heart’s desire - by grace through faith.

After 1738 Wesley knew not only the end of Christianity, but the means to that end, which Wesley testified to in private, in public, and in print. The most important treatises, sermons, and works of sanctification after Aldersgate include: 1740 “Preface to Hymns and Sacred Poems,” 1741 “Christian Perfection,” 1742 “Principles of a Methodist,” 1742 “Character of a Methodist,” 1759 “Thoughts on Christian Perfection,” 1762 “Blow to the Root,” 1762 “Cautions and Directions Given,” 1763 “Sin in Believers,” 1763 “Further Thoughts on Christian Perfection,” 1763 “Scripture Way of Salvation,” 1766 “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection,” 1767 “Brief Thoughts on Christian Perfection,” 1768 “Repentance of Believers,” and 1777 “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.”

Inevitably, questions arise concerning John Wesley’s personal experience of entire sanctification or Christian perfection. Did John Wesley experience entire sanctification? This question has been an issue of considerable debate among scholars with no consensus. While not conclusive, there appears to be some evidence pointing to a personal experience of entire sanctification. Perhaps there is no better evidence than a letter John Wesley wrote to Dr. Conyers Middleton on January 4, 1739. After describing the Christian life in ways that can only be understood as Christian perfection, Wesley states, “So Christianity tells me; and so I find it, may every real Christian say. I am now assured that these things are so: I experience them in my own breast. What Christianity promised (considered as doctrine) is accomplished in my soul. And Christianity, considered as an inward principle, is the completion of all those promises. It is holiness and happiness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit, a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life.” This testimony appears to be further substantiated by Wesley’s letter to Thomas Maxfield on November 2, 1762 in which he says, “But I dislike your supposing man may be perfect as an angel; that he can be absolutely perfect; that he can be infallible, or above being tempted; or that the moment he is pure in heart he cannot fall from it. I dislike the saying, “This was not known or taught among us till within two or three years.” I grant you did not know it. You have over and over denied instantaneous sanctification; but I have known and taught it (and so has my brother, as our writings show) above these twenty years.”

Still, these testimonies are not conclusive. If Wesley had experienced entire sanctification, why are there not more direct statements by Wesley regarding his experience? In response, we must keep in mind the culture in which Wesley lived. English Christians of his age were reluctant to talk about their personal spiritual lives and Wesley was especially careful not to widely publish his personal crisis experiences because of the fear of abuse or ridicule. Even Wesley’s Aldersgate experience receives little attention in his published works. The only access we have to Wesley is his published thoughts which were intended for a general audience. We do not know what he may have shared in conversation with his intimate friends. He may have felt too much emphasis on his own experience might cause others to copy it. We also know that the influential mystics in Wesley’s life cautioned their adherents to not talk about their personal experiences because of the threat of pride.

However, the fact that Wesley must have had some measure of Christian perfection can be seen in the lack of personal challenges to him on the subject. Also, as we read his writings, he appears to know personally, experientially what he wrote about and it is difficult to read him without feeling that he in some measure experienced this holiness of heart and life which drove his life.

John Wesley's Doctrine of Salvation: Part Three

2006-08-14T12:45:00.000-07:00

PART THREE: THE DOCTRINE OF THE WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT/ ASSURANCE OF SALVATION

INTRODUCTION

Previously, we examined Wesley’s ordo salutis addressing prevenient grace, convicting grace/repentance, faith, and the new birth (justification, adoption, regeneration). We also focused upon the historical development of Wesley’s doctrine of justification and atonement. Now our attention will turn to Wesley’s doctrine of Christian assurance or what he often called the “witness of the Spirit.” We will begin with Wesley teaching on the doctrine and then examine the social-historical context in which he develops his doctrine.

I. WESLEY’S ORDER OF SALVATION: ASSURNACE OF SALVATION

John Wesley believed that those who had been pardoned and accepted by God through faith would not be left without an assurance of their right standing before God. Assurance is a witness to the Christian’s relationship with God as Father. To begin, Wesley’s doctrine of the assurance of salvation was grounded in his understanding of Romans 8:16, “For the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.” As such he taught that there are two participants: God’s Spirit and our spirit. God’s Spirit is the subjective witness, the “inward impression upon the soul” testifying to the human heart that a person is a child of God, that a person has been brought into a right relationship with God and is in a right relationship with God. This inward impression may bring feelings or joy or a sense of forgiveness and confidence in relationship with God or it may not. It is a gift of God that God gives as He chooses. Our spirit is the objective witness. In an examination of our heart and lives under the direction of the teaching of scripture we can see if there is evidence of the new birth in our lives. Ultimately, for Wesley the assurance of salvation is an inner experience with objective quality.

Next, Wesley believed that assurance of salvation was the privilege of every believer, but every believer may not have this assurance. The assurance of salvation is not necessary to salvation. As such Wesley believed that the witness of the Spirit is “remotely necessary” after justification, but not immediately necessary to the new birth as faith is. Again, as stated earlier, this assurance is a gift of God that God gives as he chooses. Wesley states in this regard, “But that, as to the transports of joy that usually attend the beginning of it, especially in those who have mourned deeply, sometimes giveth, sometimes withholdeth them, according to the counsels of his own will.”

Finally, Wesley believed that the witness of the Spirit or assurance of salvation is a testimony of present salvation and not final salvation. Christians can know they are presently saved, but because final salvation is contingent upon continued faith and cooperation with divine grace, there can not be any confidence about final salvation. Wesley believed that people can experience progress in the way of salvation by cooperating with divine grace; likewise, people can regress in the way of salvation through refusing to cooperate with divine grace. Therefore, while people can know that they are presently Christians, if they do not continue to cooperate with divine grace, they may find themselves in a place where they no longer have faith and are no longer Christians. Generally this does not happen in a moment, but in an on-going, day by day refusal to cooperate with the grace God makes available. So people can know that presently they are in a right relationship with God, but may not be five years from now.

II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE OF SALVATION IN WESLEY’S LIFE AND THOUGHT

As we examine John Wesley’s doctrine of assurance, we need to keep in mind the context in which Wesley develops his understanding. First, in regard to the larger context of the Roman Catholic tradition arising from the Council of Trent there is no doctrine of the assurance of salvation and no teaching on the witness of the Spirit in the work of salvation. Salvation was primarily by merit and the only way a Catholic could have any confidence in being saved was by active participation in penance. The Roman Catholic tradition at the time of Wesley could not begin to relate to an idea of people “knowing” they are saved. Second, in regard to the Anglican context of Wesley’s day, as has already been intimated, the focus was on reason and works in the doctrine of salvation. Justification was earned. As such, the doctrine of subjective assurance was seen as a form of “enthusiasm,” a form of “subversive and radical” experientialism. There was an underlying fear of emotion. Any form of subjective experience of assurance was denounced, as seen in Bishop George Bull’s appraisal of assurance as a “horrid thing” and his testimony that at best he could testify that “I am probably saved.” Finally, more specifically, in the Epworth parsonage in which Wesley grew up, any doctrine of assurance was not taught. The way Wesley would come to articulate his doctrine of assurance would not have been known by Wesley’s parents during his years in their care.

The most formative influence in Wesley’s life in the discovery and development of the doctrine of assurance was his contact and interaction with the Moravians. During his missionary journey to the American colonies, in the midst of a severe storm with the threat of the ship’s destruction, Wesley observed a group of Moravians who exhibited perfect peace and confidence. They had an assurance of salvation. This assurance of salvation by the Moravians was further clarified for Wesley through his conversations with Peter Bohler when he had returned to England. Through Bohler, Wesley became convinced of this assurance, while he himself has not experienced it yet. However this assurance would come to him in his Aldersgate experience. Wesley testifies, ““In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation: and an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from me from the law of sin and death. I began to pray with all my might for those who had in a more especial manner despitefully used me and persecuted me. I then testified openly to all there, what I now first felt in my heart.” In Wesley’s first sermon after Aldersgate, “Salvation by Faith,” Wesley argues that assurance is not rational, rather it is a disposition or expression of the heart that has been saved from guilt and fear. Biblically, Wesley saw the doctrine of assurance in (a) Hebrews 6:11 which speaks of the “full assurance of hope” of eternal salvation, (b) Hebrews 10:22 which states, “Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance…” and Romans 8:16, “For the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.”

Initially, Wesley believed as did the Moravians that assurance of salvation was necessary for salvation. However, as Wesley matured he began to observe that human personality comes to play in the work of assurance. As such, assurance may come more easily to some than others. At times and places in a believer’s life there may be a stronger assurance of salvation than at other times and there may be times in which a believer has little or no assurance at all. While his doctrine of assurance was critiqued and ridiculed by many of his Anglican peers, Wesley continually defended it as a biblical teaching that was the privilege of every believer.

John Wesley's Doctrine of Salvation: Part Two

2006-08-07T05:40:00.000-07:00

PART TWO: CONVICTING GRACE, FAITH, JUSTIFICATION, AND THE NEW BIRTH

INTRODUCTION

We have seen that because of the Fall in the Garden of Eden the natural, political, and moral image of God in humanity has been completely destroyed. John Wesley often called this state the “natural state” of humanity. As such humanity is dead to God, dead in sin, self focused and incapable of any spiritual movement. If humanity is going to be redeemed, then God must be the One to take the initiative. We also saw that God takes this initiative through prevenient grace.

No we will begin to explore John Wesley’s conception of how God works to restore the image of God in humanity and brings humanity to God’s ultimate purposes. This process is often called Wesley’s ordo salutis or order of salvation. This construct should not be understood as a “neat and orderly” process; the actual realization of salvation in an individual’s life may not be as linear and clear as the ordo may appear, but it should be seen as general conceptional framework out of which Wesley preached, instructed and led people in the way of salvation. Fundamental to Wesley’s soteriology is the divine initiative. God’s grace initiates, under girds and makes possible every step or advancement in the way of salvation.

I. WESLEY’S ORDER OF SALVATION: PREVENIENT GRACE, CONVICTING GRACE, FAITH, AND NEW BIRTH

We will begin our examination of Wesley’s ordo salutis by relating Wesley’s view of prevenient grace more specifically to his soteriology and then working systematically through his understanding of convicting grace/repentance, saving faith, and the new birth.

A. Prevenient Grace

As stated earlier, Wesley contends that God does not leave humanity in the natural state of complete depravity. Rather, God takes the initiative by extending prevenient grace to all humanity. Primarily, this understanding of prevenient grace is God’s work to partially restore the natural and political image of God in humanity, enabling humanity the ability to cooperate (or not to cooperate) with the future work of God in the restoration of humanity. Fundamentally, this happens at two levels. First, rationality is partially restored in human beings, enabling some apprehension or understanding of the world, the conditions of humanity, and social relationships. Second, a measure of free will is restored. Humanity is made capable of responding to God, capable of cooperating to further offers of God’s grace, and resisting the influence of original sin, making possible some semblance of human civilization.

According to Wesley, this initial prevenient grace makes possible with more prevenient grace the recognition of general revelation, (a) allowing humanity to discern from the created order that there is a God who exercises power over the created order and (b) giving humanity a moral conscience, helping humanity understand what is right and wrong and work toward the right.

B. Convicting Grace and Repentance

Wesley believed that as a result of preaching or communication of the Gospel, as humanity is exposed to scriptural teaching, God communicates grace to human beings, bringing conviction of their utter sinfulness before God and knowledge of their state of spiritual destitution. God further works to exhort them to turn from their sinful ways and to completely turn their lives toward God. Because of prevenient grace, people can choose to either cooperate with what God is doing or not. They can choose to turn toward God or not. For Wesley, turning from sin and turning to God resulted in people exemplifying “fruit worth of repentance,” made manifest in genuine sorrow over sin and active participation in the means of grace, understood as the “instituted” means of grace - prayer, reading the Scriptures, Holy Communion, fasting, and Christian conferencing and the “prudential” means of grace, consisting of rules for ordering the Christian life, such as “doing no harm,” “doing good,” and “attending all the ordinances of God.” Through repentance and bringing forth “fruit worthy of repentance,” through actively placing themselves in the means of grace, Wesley believed people would eventually be led to saving faith, faith that appropriates the new birth.

At this point, we should be aware that Wesley saw repentance as “remotely necessary” and not “immediately necessary” to the new birth. By this Wesley meant that people need to be convicted of sin by divine grace and turn toward God, but may not need to bring forth “fruit worthy of repentance” before grace is given capable of creating saving faith.

C. Saving Faith

As people positively respond to convicting grace through repentance, then they open themselves up to divine grace capable of creating saving faith. One of the keys to understanding Wesley’s teaching on salvation is his belief that saving faith is a gift from God. Specifically, he believes that God gives people grace that enables them to believe. However, they must choose to cooperate and believe. Only when grace has been made available, grace mediated through the means of grace, to create saving faith can a person have saving faith. They must persist in the means of grace until God works. Wesley states, “Faith is the work of God; and yet it is the duty of man to believe. And every man may believe if he will, though not when he will. If he seeks faith in the appointed ways, sooner or later the power of the Lord will be present, whereby (1) God works, and by his power (2) man believes.” (Letter to Isaac Andrews, January 4, 1784 Letters of John Wesley 7:202)

Wesley describes this saving faith as “… a sure trust in the mercy of God in Christ, …the conviction that the Son of God loves me and has given himself for me.” Take note that this faith is a “sure trust” and a “divine conviction,” as such it is a work of God beyond our human abilities of creating. While repentance is “remotely necessary,” faith is “immediately” necessary in appropriating the new birth.

D. The New Birth

In the moment when people exercise faith, Wesley teaches that God justifies, adopts and regenerates believers. In justification, God pardons people of sin and receives them into His favor. Their sins are forgiven and the righteousness of Christ is imputed (reckoned) to them. They have a new standing before God. The barrier of sin has been removed. From Wesley’s perspective, justification is what makes possible the rest of the work of salvation. In adoption, the human beings are brought into the family of God, become heirs with Christ Jesus to the Kingdom of God, and have confident access to the throne of God. Finally, in regeneration, God begins to restore the moral image of God, bringing about a change in heart, mind, will and action. This is what God does in believers, imparting to them righteousness, raising them from death in sin to life in Christ. So powerful an event is this, Wesley teaches that Christians are set free from outward, willful sin as a result of regeneration. As such Wesley also calls regeneration initial sanctification.

Justification and adoption appeal to the more objective side of salvation and deal with humanity’s relationship with God. Regeneration is a subjective change, actually taking place inside of the individual. With the objective and subjective changes Wesley believes God makes a person righteous on the inside and out.

II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION IN WESLEY’S LIFE AND THOUGHT

At this point in our examination of Wesley’s theology, information on the historical theological framework of Anglicanism, the context in which Wesley grew up and did ministry, may be helpful. In order to better understand John Wesley’s view of justification and his initial struggles to grasp it, we must look at the Anglican Church’s teaching on this subject.

To begin, the Anglican Church’s foundational understanding on justification can be seen in her attempts to navigate a “middle way” (via media) between Roman Catholicism and the Reformation. This can be seen in the formative work on justification by Richard Hooker in the sixteenth century. In Roman Catholicism emphasis is placed on infused grace which is mediated through baptism, the Eucharist, and good works, which ultimately justifies Christians. Problems however arise when people focus more on acts which infuse grace rather than the Infuser. In the Reformation, the focus in justification is placed on imputed grace. Justifying righteousness is not something in Christians, rather it the righteousness of Christ “reckoned” to believers in a single divine act. Justification is not what is infused in human beings, rather it is what God does for them. The middle way taken by Hooker on justification was to argue for imparted grace, where the righteousness of justification indwells and transforms human nature.

Later, William Law, the Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury, brings human responsibility to the fore in justification. From his perspective humanity is saved by faith, but faith is understood as a mental accent to propositional statements about God. Humanity through reason chooses to accept a body of Christian truth. Furthermore, Law teaches that faith is demonstrated through a person’s actions.

Bishop George Bull later will teach that justifying grace is not a means to righteousness but is a consequence to it. God doesn’t justify people to make them righteous, but justifies them because they are righteous. Humanity is justified because they deserve it. “God embraces those who are already leading a holy life and determines them worthy…”

Therefore at the time of John Wesley, while the Church of England held to a biblical view of the atonement, the application of it came from works, knowledge and mental assent to propositional truths. These are how the benefits of the atonement are applied to an individual’s life. It sounded biblical by the talk of faith, but in reality the Church had moved away from the Bible. This is the background of John Wesley’s parents and the ideas that were taught to John. This false understanding of faith kept John struggling for many years, until his contact with the Moravians and his experience of Aldersgate.

Specifically, in 1725 while Wesley was serving as a fellow at Lincoln College, Oxford University, he read Jeremy Taylor’s Holy Living and Holy Dying. From Taylor, Wesley began (1) to form his understanding of the purpose of humanity - to live in the constant presence of God, (2) to see the importance of purity of intention in holy living, and (3) to recognize the relationship between spiritual disciplines and the formation of the fruits of a holy life – frequent observance of holy communion, fasting, hourly prayer, Bible reading, and strict observance of the Sabbath, which he began to aggressively incorporate into his life. Most importantly, he made the decision to give the entirety of his life to God without reserve.

In 1726 Wesley read Thomas A Kempis’ Imitation of Christ. Commenting on this, Wesley wrote, “The nature and extent of inward religion, the religion of the heart, now appeared to me in a stronger light than ever it had done before. I saw, that giving even all my life to God (supposing it possible to do this), and go no farther would profit me nothing, unless I gave my heart, yea, all my heart, to him. I saw, that "simplicity of intention, and purity of affection," one design in all we speak or do, and one desire ruling all our tempers, are indeed "the wings of the soul," without which she can never ascend to the mount of God.

In 1727 and 1728 Wesley read William Law’s Christian Perfection and A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, convincing him, more than ever, of the absolute impossibility of being half a Christian; and setting his determination by God’s grace to be fully devoted to God. However, while this was his intention and desire, he did not have an understanding of justification by grace through faith that would make this possible. From his spiritual unbringing by his parents and the influence of the spiritual leaders of his day, Wesley believed justification and holiness occur through good works and right knowledge. The end is clear, but the means are not understood.
Clarity of the means would not begin to come until Wesley’s encounter with the Moravians in his missionary stint in the American Colonies, and more specifically his engagement with the Moravian Peter Bohler. Peter Bohler through Biblical argumentation was able to help Wesley see that saving or justifying faith was a personal trust or confidence in the death of Christ for salvation. Wesley began to recognize that salvation only comes by grace. A person cannot do anything for God to pronounce a person justified. Grace is what justifies, but faith is the instrument that puts justification into place. While Wesley cognitively recognized this truth, he still lacked it in experience. In response to Bohler’s exhortation, “Preach it (salvation by grace through faith), till you have it,” in March of 1738 Wesley began to preach this message and people were converted through his preaching.

At this point, we may ask, “If Wesley knew salvation was by grace through faith, why didn’t he immediately exercise faith and be saved?” Or we may ask, “How could a person desiring salvation not immediately experience salvation?” The answers to these questions are wrapped in the understanding of faith. Faith, understood as a personal trust and confidence in Christ, is a gift of God’s grace. Faith is not a power human possess that can be exercised at any given moment. God must give grace to enable the exercise of faith. More specifically, God gives grace that enables a person to have the capacity to exercise faith. Until grace capable of creating that capacity is made available, faith is not possible.

However, on May 24, 1738 in a Moravian meeting in which Luther’s Preface to his Commentary on Romans was being read, Wesley experiences saving faith. John Wesley describes his Aldersgate experience as having his heart “strangely warmed.” As a result he testifies, “I felt I did trust Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins. He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.” Wesley’s doctrine of justification by grace through faith is settled at Aldersgate.

John Wesley's Doctrine of Salvation: Part One

2006-07-27T17:12:00.000-07:00

JOHN WESLEY’S
DOCTRINE OF SALVATION

PART ONE: THE DOCTRINE OF HUMANITY, ORIGINAL SIN
AND PREVENIENT GRACE

INTRODUCTION

While John Wesley’s theological thought often has been overlooked in certain streams of Protestant Christianity because he never wrote or established a formal systematic theology, his theology, as seen in his pastoral works - sermons, translations and commentaries on Scripture, hymns, treatises and letters, exhibits a certain consistency of thought in many theological areas. Nowhere is this truer than in his understanding of salvation. As a pastor-theologian whose intention was to lead people in the way of salvation, Wesley operated out of a well developed, identifiable soteriological framework that informed his care of human souls. The key to Wesley and his theology is found in his doctrine of salvation. The purpose of our present article is to help us grasp Wesley’s ordo salutis (order of salvation), the conceptional theological understanding of salvation informing his pastoral practice. Thus, we must begin with (I) Wesley’s understanding of humanity before the Fall, (II) Wesley’s understanding of humanity after the Fall, and (III) Wesley’s understanding of humanity after the Fall assisted by prevenient grace.

I. JOHN WESLEY’S UNDERSTANDING OF HUMANITY BEFORE THE FALL

As created perfect in the Garden, John Wesley’s doctrine of humanity is grounded in his understanding of the image of God in humanity, which is comprised of three parts: the natural, political and moral. The natural image gave to humanity immortality, reason or understanding, free will, and perfectly ordered emotions or affections. The political image gave to humanity the power of governance, whereby humanity exercised dominion over the created order and related rightly in all human relational spheres. The moral image enabled humanity to enjoy true righteousness, holiness, love, and knowledge of God in the immediacy of a relationship with God. The moral image formed the guiding principle of humanity’s disposition, thoughts, words and deeds. As created in the Garden, before the Fall, the image of God enabled human beings to will and to do perfectly God’s intentions for humanity. Holiness, righteousness and love informed humanity’s reasoning, understanding, will and emotions, which resulted in the rightful exercise of dominion in the created order, rightly ordered relationships with fellow humanity, and perfect love and obedience to God.

According to Wesley, through cooperating or concurring providence God empowers the natural procreative processes of the human body, enabling men and women to generate human life according to their nature, so that whatever constitutes humanity, human parents are enabled to bring into being. As such, the uniqueness of humanity is not found in how human life is generated, because human life comes into being in the same way as other animal life, rather, it resides in the fact that human beings bear the image and likeness of God, an aspect of humanity that parents are empowered to transmit to their children in procreation. In the created order untouched by the corrupting influence of sin, perfect humanity was empowered to beget perfect humanity. The perfect image of God in Adam and Eve before the Fall was capable of being transferred to their offspring through the procreative processes.

II. JOHN WESLEY’S UNDERSTANDING OF HUMANITY AFTER THE FALL

However, after the Fall the image of God was lost through total corruption. The Fall completely reversed the original conditions of human life. Morally, humanity was completely dead to God, self-focused and helpless to change; naturally, human reason, understanding, free-will, was destroyed and human affections became inordinate and undisciplined; politically, humanity’s relationship to the world and ability to organize socially was destroyed. The natural, political and moral image of God was replaced with the image of the Devil, with pride and self will. Humanity sank into “sensual appetites and desires, the image of the beasts that perish.” In this state humanity stands under the condemnation of God and is deserving of God’s wrath and judgment

Although created holy and wise, humanity in the Garden sought their own will instead of God’s, seeking happiness in the world and in the work of their own hands instead of God. Humanity rebelled against God and as a result suffered spiritual, temporal and eternal death. Humanity physically became mortal and spiritually died. Knowledge of God and Love of God were lost.

Furthermore, because God operates through cooperating providence, human beings are still able to create according to their nature, albeit a totally corrupted nature and divine image. Corrupted humanity begets corrupted humanity, with all of the consequences associated with it. Thus Adam and Eve after the Fall begot children according to their corrupted nature and were subject to God’s condemnation and wrath. For Wesley this state of sin is the source of all sin. Human beings sin because they are sinful. The corrupted image of God leads to all acts of sin.

According to John Wesley this is the natural state of humanity. Humanity has no internal resources to offer or contribute to the work of salvation. Humanity in the natural state is without any awareness that there is a God, any awareness that humanity stands under divine condemnation, and any awareness that humanity even needs to be saved. Humanity is incapable of doing any good. Humanity is dead to God and dead in sin. As such, John Wesley is completely in the Reformed tradition, in agreement with John Calvin and Martin Luther. If human beings are going to be redeemed, then God is the one who must take the initiative.

III. JOHN WESLEY’S UNDERSTANDING OF HUMANITY AFTER THE FALL, ASSISTED BY PREVENIENT GRACE

However, at this point, Wesley begins to separate his theology from the Reformed views of Luther and Calvin, who, with their view of God as sovereign King and Judge, argue that God takes the initiative by divine and irresistible election. God in His Wisdom chooses certain people to save. Because God is sovereign King, these people elected for redemption can not help, but be saved; the rest are justly consigned to eternal punishment. On the other hand, Wesley, with his understanding of God as loving Father develops his doctrine of prevenient grace.

Wesley contends that God does not leave humanity in the natural state of complete depravity. Rather, God takes the initiative by extending prevenient (from the Latin root “prevenio,” which means to “come before”) grace, also called preventing grace, to all humanity. Primarily, this understanding of prevenient grace is God’s work to partially restore the natural and political image of God in humanity, enabling humanity the ability to cooperate (or not to cooperate) with the future work of God in the restoration of humanity. Fundamentally, this happens at two levels. First, rationality is partially restored in human beings, enabling some apprehension or understanding of the world, the conditions of humanity, and social relationships. Second, a measure of free will is restored. Humanity is made capable of responding to God, capable of cooperating to further offers of God’s grace, and resisting the influence of original sin, making possible some semblance of human civilization.

According to Wesley, this initial prevenient grace makes possible with more prevenient grace the recognition of general revelation, (a) allowing humanity to discern from the created order that there is a God who exercises power over the created order and (b) giving humanity a moral conscience, helping humanity understand what is right and wrong and work toward the right. Wesley also argues that prevenient grace absolves humanity of any guilt or responsibility for original sin. Similarly, prevenient grace becomes saving grace for those who do not have the capacity for making moral decisions, such as infants and the mentally handicapped. As we will see in a later lecture on the atonement, this absolution is tied to Wesley’s understanding of the benefits of the atoning work of Christ applied to all of humanity. As such, humanity is only help responsible for their own willful sins, when they willing choose to cooperate with the sinful inclinations of their heart.

With this understanding of prevenient grace, while Wesley articulates a doctrine of the natural state of humanity, where the image of God is completely destroyed in humanity, he does not believe any person is brought into this life completely in the natural state. Primarily, prevenient grace makes a person capable of cooperating with more grace, the grace God makes available in a given moment, the grace made available through the communication of the Gospel, grace that is capable of restoring the moral image of God in humanity. Thus, the prevenient grace given to all does not change the fact that humanity still remains dead to God and has no ability to change the human relationship to God. To prevenient grace, more grace must be offered, but this initial gift of prevenient grace makes possible the ability for humanity to cooperate or not to cooperate with this additional grace.

Evaluating Theological Content in Church Songs

2006-07-14T06:37:00.000-07:00

Like many of you I have agonized over the poor or shallow theological content in Church music found in many worship services. I have been working on developing a rubric that can help worship leaders think theologically in the choice of worship music or in the writing of worship music. Below is an explanation of that rubric. I would welcome any feedback to help make this better.

EVALUATION OF THEOLOGICAL CONTENT IN CHURCH SONG TEXTS

INTRODUCTION

The key criterion in evaluating Church song texts is the extent to which they are biblically and theologically sound. If a song text leads people away from clear Christian teaching through its presentation of ideas or misappropriates biblical teaching for a particular end, then, no matter how creatively arranged and aesthetically pleasing, the song text should not be included in Christian worship. Below are some helpful guidelines in discerning the fidelity of musical texts to Christian teaching, guidelines that form a theological rubric for use by worship leaders in the evaluation of song texts.

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVAULATING CHURCH SONG TEXTS

In Christian teaching, there are some doctrines that are more important than others. Faithful adherence to certain doctrines is essential to being the Church, while belief in others is not. While there can be latitude of interpretation and application of some Christian doctrines, there cannot be with others. Likewise, in evaluating the fidelity of a song text to Christian teaching, this distinction must be kept in mind. Whether the song text strikes at the heart of Christianity or addresses a more peripheral issue will make a difference in how strictly a text is evaluated and will help determine the appropriateness of its use in Christian worship.

In Christian teaching levels of biblical and theological importance are made by distinguishing between (A) doctrinal essentials, which express biblical teachings that are most central and non-negotiable to Christianity, (B) doctrinal distinctives, which are important, yet debatable Christian interpretations of Scripture, beliefs with which there can be some latitude in understanding and (C) doctrinal opinion, which express ideas of little importance to the essence of Christianity. These levels are helpful in determining the suitability of song texts in Christian worship and form a general framework in which to begin an evaluation.

A. Doctrinal Essentials

Doctrinal essentials include the non-negotiable teachings of Christianity, the fundamentals of Christianity, beliefs without which Christianity would cease to be. To surrender or compromise one of these beliefs would be to render the Christian faith in essence unchristian. Scripturally, these would include beliefs like the bodily resurrection of Christ, the incarnation, the full divinity and full humanity of Christ, the Trinity, and reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ, as well as consensually agreed upon practices like love of neighbor, forgiveness, humility, service, and faithfulness. These are the theological truths all Christian bodies tend to hold ecumenically, as summarized in, but not limited to, the ApostleÂs Creed, The Nicene Creed, and The Athanasian Creed.

Worship leaders must work to inculcate these essentials beliefs in Christians by selecting congregational song texts that help the worshipping community know and understand their meaning, assisting them in seeing their implications for corporate and individual discipleship and providing a framework in which to experience them as a means of grace. While all Church song texts cannot focus on doctrinal essentials alone, there should be a steady diet of them throughout the liturgical year.

While not every Church music text addresses doctrinal essentials, the first question that should be at the forefront in evaluation is whether the text is in accordance with the doctrinal teaching of the Church as expressed in the ApostlesÂ, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds. Is the text faithful to biblical teaching as historically and ecumenically understood? If the text communicates ideas in contradiction to the essentials of biblical teaching or historic orthodoxy, then the text must not be included in Christian worship.

B. Doctrinal Distinctives

While there are biblical and theological doctrines universally held by the Church, there are also biblical and theological ideas distinctive of particular Christian groups, beliefs arising from differences of interpretation of Scripture. Individual Christians and Christian bodies hold to particular Biblical teachings that distinguish them from other Christians and Christian groups. Their beliefs are biblically sound, impact people's lives and the Church, but with which there can be sincere disagreements. They are important; Christians might argue for them, contend for them, but they are not at the core of Christianity. These are theological ideas with which there can be varying degrees of latitude in belief. Examples might include doctrines about predestination, eternal security, conceptions of divine sovereignty, infant baptism, pacifism, as well as a host of other issues.

In evaluating Church song texts, distinctive beliefs belonging to particular churches and Christian groups should be noted. Some beliefs expressed in song texts may be directly opposed to the official teaching of certain Christian groups. Sometimes these doctrines may be embedded subtly in the text, while at other times they may be very explicit. These distinctives need to be taken into consideration when evaluating song texts for Christian worship. Be aware there are many song texts that may have sound biblical teaching, but are contrary to the particular beliefs of other Christians, churches and/or denominations. However, because these are not essential beliefs, some latitude may be given to them. Still, the problems they may pose should be noted.

While there has been a strong movement away from doctrinal distinctives by many local churches and denominations, there is a need to perpetuate particular perspectives. If Christian groups are concerned about inculcating their doctrinal distinctives, incorporating song texts into worship that communicate these teachings is necessary, helping church members connect distinctive biblical interpretations to life and providing a framework in which they can be experienced. While not every Church song text should focus on doctrinal distinctives, being secondary to doctrinal essentials, there should be a regular expression of them in worship.

C. Doctrinal Opinion

Doctrinal opinion addresses biblical/ theological interpretations and practices that are neither essential for Christian discipleship, nor important enough to qualify as doctrinal distinctives. Christians generally do not "lose any sleep" over disagreements in these areas. They might include debates over appropriate dress, dancing, ecclesiastical organization, the appropriateness of smoking and drinking, understandings of obscure passages of scripture, etc. They also include opinions in which Christians, local churches and denominations let their fellow believers and members Âthink and let think.Â

In evaluating Church song texts, there are some texts that have little biblical or theological grounding or have little theological significance. Because they address only peripheral concerns, great latitude may be given to them. However, while they may have some place in worship, because they address only ancillary concerns, they should not be a staple in worship.

II. SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING PARTICULAR TYPES OF CHURCH SONG TEXTS

With the preceding considerations in mind, forming a larger context in which to examine song texts, specific guidelines can be addressed. To begin, a determination must be made as to what type of text a song is. Generally, song texts in Christian worship function in one or more of the following ways: (A) Proclamation, where the purpose is to provide sound biblical and theological instruction to the congregation, (B) Prayer, where the focus is to articulate the emotions, sentiments, aspirations, and intercessions of the congregation or individual to God, (C) Praise, where the intention of the congregation is to exalt God appropriately for His grandeur and glory in His nature, character and action, and (D) Invitation or Call to Action, where the goal is to give opportunity for the congregation to respond to GodÂs grace made available through proclamation of the Word of God and/or the administration of the sacraments. While song texts for worship may be classified with greater specificity in each category and some texts may not fit easily into any one category, these are the four basic functions of song texts in worship.

After a determination has been made of what type of text a song is, an evaluation can begin. Below are some guidelines for evaluating particular types of Church song texts, creating a diagnostic rubric for worship leaders. Each rubric provides a forty point spectrum in which to evaluate a particular song text, with zero (0) being the worst possible text score, meaning a text teaches an idea contrary to Christian doctrinal essentials and must not be used in Christian worship, and forty (40) being the highest text score, meaning a text is the most biblically/theologically helpful of its type for worship.

A. Proclamation

In proclamation, song texts function as a preacher of the Word of God. Generally, proclamation texts pick one or more biblical/theological themes (revelation, the nature and attributes of God, the Trinity, creation, providence, sin, salvation, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Church, death and resurrection, etc.) to illuminate through music. Therefore, the clarity and effectiveness with which a text accomplishes this task forms the basis of evaluation.

To begin, at the lowest end of the spectrum, are song texts that are contrary to doctrinal essentials or call a central teaching of Christianity into question. These are texts that undermine and distort the basic Gospel message. No song text like this should be incorporated into Christian worship. As such, it receives zero (0) points.

Next, are song texts that inappropriately use one or more biblical/theological ideas, but are not contrary to or address a doctrinal essential. Often these are texts that appear to be biblically and theological sound, but really are not on closer examination. For example, the chorus ÂHeÂs All I Need, Jesus Is All I Need,Â may initially appear to be biblical, but Scripture makes clear in Genesis 2, where Adam is alone in the Garden before the creation of Eve, that Adam and humanity are made for more than a relationship with God. Biblically, humanity needs more than a right relationship with God; they need to be in relationships with other human beings as well. However, because the chorus does not compromise a doctrinal essential, some latitude can be given. Song texts like this are given ten (10) points.

Also, there are song texts whose central idea, or an integral secondary one, explicitly deny or contradict a local churchÂs biblically/theologically grounded doctrinal distinctive. For example local churches and Christian traditions strongly adhering to the doctrine of eternal security would not appreciate a song text teaching a contrary position. For worship leaders with a concern for doctrinal distinctives, a song text like this, expressing teaching contrary to a major doctrinal distinctive, is given ten (10) points as well.

Navigating toward the middle of the spectrum, becoming more acceptable for use in worship, are song texts that appropriately use one or more biblical/theological ideas (or a doctrinal distinctive), but do not go beyond a superficial treatment. Basic Christian concepts and vocabulary are identified and rudimentary understandings are provided, but they are not developed. While what is taught is correct, the song text provides little instructional insight to the congregation. A song text like this receives twenty (20) points.

At the higher end of the spectrum are song texts that competently address one or more biblical/theological ideas, clearly developing an idea and providing excellent instruction to the congregation. The song text provides insight into the biblical/theological teaching, moving beyond an elementary level of instruction. A song text like this is assigned thirty (30) points.

The best song text, the text receiving the highest score of forty (40) points, goes beyond excellent teaching, by enabling the congregation to grasp/wrestle with the deeper significance of an idea for their lives and with the implications for Christian discipleship. A song text at this level will contribute to the application and integration of biblical/theological instruction into the individual and communal life of the congregation.

B. Prayer

In prayer, Church song texts function as a formal or an informal address to God by a congregation or individual. Generally, these song texts express one or more types of prayer (invocation, illumination, lament, thanksgiving, intercession, confession etc.). Because prayer in this context is primarily an address to God, the way in which God is addressed forms the basis for evaluation.

To begin, at the lowest end of the spectrum, are prayer texts that violate a doctrinal essential or communicate incorrectly a key Christian tenet about God. For example, God should never be addressed in a way that denies GodÂs triune nature, or confuses GodÂs nature with the created order, or confesses God as another religious deity. A prayer text that does this receives zero (0) points and must not be incorporated into Christian worship.

Next, there are song texts that inappropriately address God or contain ideas contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible or historic Christian doctrine, without violating a biblical/theological essential. For example, some song texts may flippantly address God as ÂDude,Â Âthe Man upstairs,Â Âthe Guy in charge,Â or the Âawesome Surfer of the waves in the sky.Â While these may by culturally sensitive, express what people feel about their relationship with God and not address a doctrinal essential, they fall short of appropriate God language in worship. Because they do not violate a doctrinal essential, but are biblically and theologically questionable, a text like this is given ten (10) points.

Navigating toward the middle of the spectrum, becoming more acceptable for use in worship, are prayer texts that are biblically and theologically sound, but never go beyond a generic address of God. The text uses biblical/theological names (God, Lord, the Almighty, Creator, etc.) or metaphors (Shepherd, Rock of Israel, King, Ruler, etc.) to address God, but misses the opportunity to appropriately recognize and address the Triune nature of God by naming one or more of the divine persons Â Father, Son and Holy Spirit by name, title or work. A generic, but biblically sound prayer text like this is given a score of twenty (20) points.

Because at the very heart of Christianity is the revelation of God as Trinity, one God in Three Persons, at the higher end of the spectrum are prayer texts that address explicitly or implicitly the triune nature of God by naming one or more of the divine persons; where Father, Son and Spirit are addressed or acknowledged by name, title or work. For example, a prayer text may address only the Father, but implicit in the name ÂFatherÂ is relationship to a Son. Likewise, to call Jesus Christ the ÂSonÂ in prayer implies that Christ is related to another who is Father. Similarly, to speak of the Holy Spirit in a text is to imply one who is distinct from the Father and the Son. More explicitly, GodÂs triune nature is brought to greatest clarity when all three Persons are addressed in prayer. Such a text is assigned thirty (30) points.

A prayer text that receives the highest score is one that competently addresses one or more of the divine persons Â Father, Son and Holy Spirit Â by name, title or work and appropriately relates ideas to the respective economies of the divine Persons. For example, a prayer text will primarily, but not exclusively relate ideas about creation and providence to the Father, salvation and redemption to the Son, and illumination and sanctification to the Holy Spirit. While no divine Person works in isolation from the other Persons, sound Christian teaching relates divine action to particular Persons. A prayer song text that perceptively and accurately does this is given the highest score of forty (40) points.

C. Praise

In praise song texts, the worshipping Church exalts God for being God and lauds God for all He has done, is doing, and will do. Praise of GodÂs nature, character and actions is the focus of the song text. Therefore, the degree to which these are described with fidelity to Christian teaching becomes the basis for evaluation. While there are differences, praise texts are related to prayer texts. As such, there is substantial overlap with the prayer rubric. However, additional criteria, unique to the praise text type, must be considered.

To begin, at the lowest end of the spectrum, are praise texts that deny a doctrinal essential or communicate incorrectly a core Christian teaching. For example, in a praise text GodÂs nature and character should never be described in a way that denies essential Christian teaching on GodÂs triune nature or GodÂs essential attributes Â immensity, eternality, transcendence, aseity, etc. Furthermore, a praise text should not diminish or deny essential actions of God, such as creation ex nihilo, GodÂs redemptive work in ChristÂs incarnation, death and resurrection, and divine providence. A praise text that does this receives zero (0) points and must not be incorporated into Christian worship.

Next, there are praise texts that misrepresent GodÂs nature and character or ascribe actions to God not true of God, but what is said does not violate a biblical/theological essential. For example, a praise text may describe GodÂs love in a way that intentionally minimizes or obscures GodÂs holiness; it may attribute to God actions not properly belonging to God or state a doctrine poorly, such as portraying GodÂs sovereignty in a way that makes God the author of sin and evil. Although they are biblically and theologically questionable, because they do not violate a doctrinal essential, a praise text like this is given ten (10) points.

Navigating toward the middle of the spectrum are praise texts that are biblically and theologically sound, but never go beyond a generic description of GodÂs character, nature and action. For example, a praise text might mention attributes of God (goodness, holiness, love, etc) but does not develop them, never seeking to explore a deeper understanding of GodÂs character and nature. Furthermore, as with prayer texts, it misses the opportunity to appropriately praise the Triune nature of God by naming one or more of the divine persons Â Father, Son and Holy Spirit by name, title or work. A generic, but biblically sound praise text like this is given a score of twenty (20) points.

More significant praise texts for worship will go beyond a simple citation of biblical/theological concepts related to GodÂs character, nature and action by developing them. They will help the worshipping community go beyond superficial statements about GodÂs character and actions and assist them in plumbing their depths in praise of God. Again, as with prayer texts, at the higher end of the spectrum are praise texts that address explicitly or implicitly the triune nature of God by naming one or more of the divine persons - Father, Son and Spirit and praising their work. Such texts are assigned thirty (30) points.

A praise text that receives the highest score is one that competently extols one or more of the divine persons Â Father, Son and Holy Spirit Â by name or title, appropriately praises the work belonging to the respective economies of the divine persons, and plumbs their depths in praise. While no divine Person works in isolation from the other Persons, sound Christian teaching relates divine action to particular Persons. A praise song text that perceptively and accurately does this is given the highest score of forty (40) points.

D. Invitation or Call to Action

In an invitation/call to action, song texts articulate for the worshipping community an appropriate response to the proclaimed Word of God and/or the celebration of sacraments. The response can be a declaration of faith, a dedication of personal or communal resources, a surrender of life to Christ or a number of other possible concrete actions. The degree to which this is done with biblical and theological fidelity is the basis of evaluation.

To begin, at the lowest end of the spectrum, are invitation/call to action texts that voice a response that violates a biblical/theological essential. For example, a song text should never encourage Christians to hate other human beings or inflict harm on others. A text like this receives zero (0) points and must not be included in Christian worship.

Next, there are invitation texts that call a person or a congregation to a biblically/ theologically questionable action. For example, a text calling for personal allegiance to country or love of political party might fall into this category. However, because this use does not violate a biblical/theological essential, a text like this is given ten (10) points.

Navigating toward the middle of the spectrum are song texts that invite a person or congregation to follow Christ or calls for some biblically appropriate response. The focus of the text is on an invitation or exhortation to action, not a declaration of what a person or congregation will do. For example, a text might invite people to become followers of Jesus Christ or encourage them to love their enemies, but it does not take the next step and have people declare that they will take these actions. Such a text receives twenty (20) points.

Texts that move beyond invitation to declaration are given thirty (30) points. In this song text a person or congregation declares the appropriate action they are taking or will take in obedience to GodÂs call. For example, a text might state that the Christian community will carry the Gospel message to every nation or have people confess that they will turn from their sins.

At the highest end of the spectrum are song texts that not only move beyond invitation by declaration, but implicitly or explicitly tie the fulfillment of what is declared to divine grace or divine assistance. Any appropriate response to GodÂs Word or celebration of the sacraments is made possible because God enables it through grace. A song text that declares what will be done and recognizes that divine grace makes the response possible receives forty (40) points.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In summary, as has been clearly stated, song texts that compromise or dismiss doctrinal essentials must not be included in Christian worship. While the rubric assigns ten (10) points to doctrinally questionable texts, this does not mean that they are acceptable for Christian worship. Song texts with this score must be used in worship only after careful consideration. If they are included, it should be done rarely. Only song texts with a score of twenty (20) points or more should be incorporated into Christian worship and song texts with thirty (30) or forty (40) points should have preference in song selection.

While the preceding rubric has limitations and is subject to interpretation, it provides a framework in which worship leaders can begin to evaluate church song texts by the most important criterion Â fidelity to Christian teaching. The rubric may take some extra effort in its initial use and may require some modification to fit a local churchÂs doctrinal distinctives. However, as worship leaders become better acquainted with it and modify it for their particular places of ministry, it should become a helpful tool in worship planning.

Note: Because of the layout of the blog, I can't actually post the one-page rubric that this article explains.

Homosexuality in the Thought of the Church: An Appropriate Response

2006-06-16T08:47:00.000-07:00

HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE THOUGHT OF THE CHURCH: AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE

INTRODUCTION

In the past forty years Christian teaching on homosexuality has come to the fore as one of the most divisive issues in the Church. Traditional mainline denominations, as well as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, have undergone repeated questioning of their historic teaching on homosexuality, have agonized through polarizing debates, and have experienced growing uncertainty about how to minister to homosexuals. While evangelical denominations have not yet experienced the intensity of these debates, every indication points to an ensuing struggle within their churches as well.

This article will explore how the Church understands homosexuality from an historical and theological perspective. Our purpose is to listen to the voice of the Church as spoken through the centuries, not just the present, in order to create a larger context in which to develop our understanding of homosexuality, our response to the current debate in the Church, and our ministry to the increasingly visible gay community. To begin, we will present a cursory sketch of the contemporary Church’s response to homosexuality; then we will survey the Church’s historic teaching on same-sex relationships, followed by an exploration of how the Church has understood the causes of homosexual propensity; and finally, we will conclude with a few summary remarks.

I. CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDINGS OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE CHURCH

Presently, as we survey the Body of Christ, from more liberal mainline denominations to more conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Churches, four general positions on homosexuality can be identified: full rejection, partial rejection, partial acceptance and full acceptance. While these positions are not rigid, they help to establish a spectrum of opinion existing in the Church today, assist in helping us to determine where we fall in the current debate, and provide a context in which to locate the Church’s historical perspective.

The first and most conservative position is full rejection of homosexuality. In this perspective homosexual practice and homosexual desire are condemned entirely and are not tolerated in the Church. Homosexuality in any form (desire, orientation, practice) is considered incompatible with the Christian faith. Even people who possess homosexual desires are categorically rejected as Christians and cannot be considered for membership in the Church. Typically, this perspective sees homosexuality as an “abomination” in the eyes of God, one of the most depraved sins, a manifestation of absolute moral destitution, which left unchecked leaves society open to divine judgment and wrath. As such, homosexuality must not be tolerated in secular culture as well. Homosexuality is primarily viewed as a choice people make that quickly leads to the establishment of a spiritual stronghold, which can be overcome only by Christian conversion.

The second position expresses partial rejection of homosexuality because it is careful to distinguish between homosexual desire or orientation and homosexual practice. Homosexuals are ultimately people who practice homosexuality, not people with gay inclinations or orientation. While homosexual desire is not seen as God’s will for human beings, an issue which God seeks to address, homosexual practice is what is condemned. People who seek to keep their homosexual propensities in check and seek to be released from their inclinations are recognized as Christians and are integrated into the full life of the Church. The Church seeks to act redemptively in the lives of people who have repented of their homosexual practice and are seeking to live new lives in Christ Jesus, even if they occasionally stumble. Typically, in this position homosexuality is treated like any other sexual sin. Homosexual orientation is seen as arising from a variety of circumstances – societal influences, personal choices, early sexual trauma, family dynamics, and possibly, genetics. Because there are no simple explanations for the cause of homosexual desire or orientation, homosexuals are treated with respect and compassion. However, unrepentant homosexual practice is not tolerated in the Church.

The third position expresses partial acceptance of homosexuality. While this position affirms God’s heterosexual intention in creation, it also recognizes that the Church exists in a fallen world, where human sexuality has been corrupted to varying degrees. The world does not function as God intended and homosexuality is an expression of corrupted sexuality. The Church functions to help people live as close to God’s original plan as possible, however complete realization of God’s intentions are impossible. As such, the Church encourages people with same sex orientation and desire to approximate God’s ideal to the extent they are able. Homosexuals who are capable of changing their orientation or desires are obligated to do so. Homosexuals who can not change their desires should attempt to live a life of celibacy. If this is not possible, then they should seek to express their sexual desire in committed monogamous same-sex relationships. Given the fallen state of humanity, and the entrenchment of sin, the Church recognizes that Christians can exist in any one of these given states. Typically, in this perspective homosexuality is seen as an inevitable reality among some Christians. Homosexual orientation or desire is seen as arising from a variety of circumstances, all of which are an expression of the corrupted created order. The Church tolerates and supports only homosexual expression it considers responsible and loving.

The fourth and most liberal position in the contemporary Church is full acceptance of homosexuality. In this perspective homosexual orientation is understood as a divine creation and its expression in faithful, monogamous, loving relationships is ordained by God. God in His goodness has specifically created diversity in sexual orientation by making people heterosexual and homosexual. In response the Church recognizes the innate goodness of homosexuality and readily accepts into membership homosexuals seeking to express their sexuality in healthy monogamous relationships. Homosexuals are recognized as Christians, are incorporated into every level of the Church, including clergy, and have their relationships blessed as marriages. Typically, this view treats homosexuality like racism and sexism. At one time the Church condoned such prejudice. However, as the Holy Spirit has led the Church into deeper knowledge and understanding, the sins of racism and sexism have been repudiated. Likewise, as the Church recognizes its historic heterosexism and homophobia it will repent of its sin and will eventually embrace homosexuality as a good gift of God’s creation.

II. THE HISTORIC UNDERSTANDING OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE CHURCH

In order to ascertain the Church’s historic position within the preceding spectrum, it is necessary for us to examine her historic understanding of homosexuality. While the subject of homosexuality does not occupy a prominent place in the history of the Church, when it is addressed, there is a clear message: homosexuality is not God’s intention or will for humanity. When homosexuality is treated in commentaries on Romans 1 by an early Father, a Medieval Mother or a Reformer, when it is addressed in an early, middle or late Church council, when it is listed in a penitential from the sixth or sixteenth century, and when the Church’s teaching is cited as a basis for civil law on sexual conduct in the Patristic or modern period, homosexuality is portrayed always in a negative light. All references to homosexual acts between men, between women, between men and boys and between women and girls are explicit in their rejection of such behavior.

Primarily, the Church’s discussion on homosexuality focuses upon the practice of homosexuality, rather than upon same-sex desire or attraction. The sin of homosexuality is almost exclusively tied to the act of engaging in sexual relations with someone of the same sex. This can be seen in the most basic vocabulary used in the Church to describe homosexuality - sodomy. Sodomites are people who practice sodomy, engage in gay sex, not people who simply experience same-sex desire or attraction. For example, people who struggle with homosexual propensity, but never indulge in sodomy, are not considered Sodomites. Likewise, people who commit sodomy, repent of their actions, and never engage in homosexual behavior again, even if they are sorely tempted or disposed, are not considered to be sodomites. Homosexuality is generally an “act” specific sin in the Church.

At the most basic level, the Church considers homosexual behavior sinful because it is “contrary to nature;” it violates the created constitution and function of men and women. For example, Patristic and Medieval theologians teach that God created men and women to have strong sexual desires for one another, created the male to give and the woman to receive in sexual relationships, in order for their union to bring about children, ensuring humanity’s survival. Men are not created to receive in sexual relationships and women are not created to give. To reverse these relationships goes against humanity’s created nature. Similarly, early Protestant theologians argue that engaging in homosexuality is as contrary to the human body as idolatry is to God. Just as idolatry dishonors God and is not God’s intention in divine-human relationships, so the practice of homosexuality dishonors the human body in human relationships. Homosexual practice uses the body in ways never intended in sexual relationships. In the twentieth century Karl Barth, picking up the idea in Genesis 1 that God created humanity male and female, proposes that the image and likeness of God in humanity is never completed in an individual, but only as the individual is in relationship with the opposite sex. Men and women come into full humanity only in relationship with each other. Therefore homosexual practice is a corrupted “substitute,” without hope of fulfilling the purpose of the sexes – the realization of the divine image in each other.

Because homosexual practice is “contrary to nature,” the Church at times has used strong language in her denouncements, calling it an “abominable” offence, more grievous than other sexual sins and moral offenses. As such, Tertullian declares that homosexual practices are “monstrosities;” John Chrysostom, that they are worse than murder, and Bernadine of Siena, that they will be punished more extensively in hell than any other sin. However, the Church generally has treated homosexual practice no differently than other sexual sins, like adultery and fornication. This can be seen in Basil of Caesarea recommendation that Christians caught in homosexual behavior receive the same discipline as an act of adultery, in the medieval penitentials’ treatment of sodomy in the same way as fornication, and in the Westminster Larger Catechism’s mention of sodomy in a long list of violations of the seventh commandment, giving it no special place of prominence among sexual sins.

As has been intimated already, the Church has recognized that homosexual practice exists among her members – laity and clergy. While the Church has taken extreme measures at times to address homosexual conduct, especially by our standards, the underlying purpose of the Church’s discipline is to integrate fallen members back into the full life of the Church. Examples of specific measures for penance and restoration include the Council of Ancyra’s requirement of 20 years penance before full restoration, the Third Lateran Council’s instruction for fallen clergy to be demoted and kept in monastic reclusion and the Code of Canon Law’s allowance of a presiding bishop to determine the discipline of an offending party, depending upon the “gravity of the act.”

In pastoral guidance to people who struggle with homosexual temptation, the Church has demanded celibacy and offered the hope of healing from homosexual propensity. While contemporary society sees sexual gratification as a human right, even a scared right, the Church has not. As such, the Church has affirmed that under the Lordship of Jesus Christ sexual inclination need not dictate sexual practice. Homosexual desire and attraction does not need to translate into action. Building upon a foundation established in the New Testament, the Church has borne witness and continues to bear witness that faithful Christians can live lives of freedom, joy and service without sexual relationships. Furthermore, Christians with a homosexual orientation are encouraged to seek deliverance from their propensities. While the Church has never guaranteed complete healing of homosexual desire to every Christian in the present life, it has been held out as a distinct possibility by God’s grace in Jesus Christ.

III. THE CHURCH’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSE OF HOMOSEXUALITY

At this point, let us explore the historic doctrine of the Church to help us understand theologically the origin of homosexuality in people. In the past two millennia as the Church has addressed the issue of homosexuality, a variety of answers have been given to the question of its cause. Some responses have attributed homosexuality to simple human choice; others have argued that homosexual orientation originates in environmental factors, such as an absent father, an overbearing mother or an early sexual trauma; another group contends that it is rooted in a genetic predisposition; and still others propose that human choice, social environment, and genetics combine together in various ways to form homosexuality.
Presently, the most provocative answer, stirring the most passionate response in the Church, is the theory that people are born with a predisposition to same-sex attraction. Many in the gay community and their advocates in the Church believe that if they can prove that sexual orientation is innate, they can argue that God is the creator of homosexuality. In response, conservative evangelical Christians, buying into the same logic, vehemently deny such an idea. God would never create a human being with an innate homosexual attraction. Unfortunately, both perspectives have a flawed understanding of the Church’s teaching on divine providence, original sin and the corrupted state of the created order.

Fundamentally, the Church has seen homosexuality (its propensity and action) as an expression of the fallen order of creation and the fallen state of humanity. While some Christian theologians have argued that God directly creates human beings, fashioning them exactly as He wishes, the consensus of the Church has taught instead that God is “indirectly” involved in the creation of humanity. Through cooperating or concurring providence God empowers the natural procreative processes of the human body, enabling men and women to generate human life according to their nature, so that whatever constitutes humanity, human parents are enabled to bring into being. As such, the uniqueness of humanity is not found in how human life is generated, because human life comes into being in the same way as other animal life, rather, it resides in the fact that human beings bear the image and likeness of God, an aspect of humanity that parents are empowered to transmit to their children in procreation. In a created order untouched by the corrupting influence of sin, perfect humanity is empowered to beget perfect humanity.

However, human beings have been corrupted by sin, along with the rest of the created order. Human beings do not exist as God intended and they live in a world that does not function entirely as it should. Likewise, the image and likeness of God in humanity has been extensively marred. Because God still operates through cooperating providence, human beings are still able to create according to their nature, albeit a corrupted nature and a marred divine image. Corrupted humanity begets corrupted humanity. Therefore, when men and women engage in sexual relationships, whether their relationship is within the holy boundaries of marriage or not, whether they are consensual and loving relationships or not, human life is produced bearing the marks of corruption, with something intrinsically wrong.

For babies this corruption is made manifest in a multitude of different ways. Physically, it can be seen in neonatal deformities and diseases, mentally, in learning disabilities and levels of retardation, emotionally, in maternal bonding and agitative disorders, and spiritually, in rebelliousness and a “bend toward sinning.” Likewise, human sexuality and sexual orientation are not spared from the corrosive influence of sin. Human sexual predisposition and drive for the opposite sex, originally created good and holy by God, and at least present in nascent form in babies has been corrupted as well. This corruption can be made manifest in different ways, including homosexual inclinations, which, when combined with living in a fallen order, subjected to the additional corrosive influences of society, and the consequences of personal sin can lead to homosexuality. As such, the Church has recognized that homosexuality is ultimately one manifestation of many expressions of the fallen order in the world.

However, the Church has also affirmed that just because people have been born with a homosexual inclination, exacerbated by the fallen order around them, and fully materialized through personal sin, this does not mean they are without hope of healing from this manifestation of corruption. The redemptive work of Christ made available to believers through the sanctifying work of the Spirit can empower people to keep their homosexual inclinations in check and offer hope of healing of their corrupted sexuality. The practice of homosexuality is sin and same-sex orientation can be a manifestation of the corrupted sexual drive, but both can be overcome through the grace of Jesus Christ made manifest in the loving, disciplined ministry of the Church.

CONCLUSION

In summary and conclusion, the Church has seen homosexuality and its propensity as an expression of the fallen order of creation and the fallen state of humanity. The Church’s traditional understanding of homosexuality and her ministry to homosexuals places her perspective closest to the “partial rejection” position, outlined earlier in our paper. While the Church has accepted that some Christians may struggle with homosexual desire, some people even from birth, the Church has never condoned homosexual practice. Christians with homosexual propensities are called to live celibate lives while seeking to be delivered from their corrupted sexual desires, which can occur through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. When Christians have engaged in homosexual activity, the Church has endeavored to exercise redemptive discipline with the goal of restoring them fully into the life of the Church.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GRACE AND FAITH

2006-06-03T06:06:00.000-07:00

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GRACE AND FAITH
ACCORDING TO JOHN WESLEY

I. INTRODUCTION

One of the defining differences among the various evangelical Wesleyan-Arminian traditions is the understanding of the relationship between grace and faith in personal conversion. As evangelical Wesleyan-Arminians, we all affirm that we are saved “by grace through faith.” However, the question arises, “Is faith primarily a gift of grace or a power that resides in us, either as a result of prevenient grace given to all or an inherent ability residing in our will?” This question may be stated in a number of different ways: Is faith that appropriates salvation primarily a human work or is it primarily a gift of divine grace? Is faith primarily what we do or is it a gift we receive? Do we have the power within ourselves “to believe” at any given moment or must God impart to us the power “to believe?” Is faith a human exercise of the will or is it a divine conviction with which we choose to cooperate or not? Is faith “something” that happens to us, “something” we do, or a combination of both? How we answer this question will not only determine our conception of salvation, but will influence the way in which we seek salvation, guide people in the way of salvation, and will impact how we understand the appropriation of entire sanctification.

II. THE CONTINUUM IN WESLEYAN-ARMINIAN EVANGELICALISM

At one end of the continuum in Wesleyan-Arminian evangelicalism are those who argue that faith is an inherent power within us, either as a result of prevenient grace given to all or the remaining vestige of the image and likeness of God in humanity after the Fall. As such, we have the ability in any given moment to exercise our will to believe the Gospel and be saved. From this perspective, we hear the Gospel, we weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the argument offered by the evangelist (the person sharing the Gospel), we decide to believe that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,” we decide that we matter to God and God desires us to be reconciled to him, and we chose to follow Christ. Thus, faith and our response to the Gospel, is primarily what we do. This perspective would apply as well to the exercise of faith in the appropriation of entire sanctification.

At the other end of the continuum, are those who believe that faith is a gift of grace with which we chose to cooperate or not. Grace from this perspective is the work of the Holy Spirit in us. As the Gospel is being shared, we notice there is something at work inside of us, something that is not us, drawing us, convincing us of the truth that Christ died for us, and compelling us to give our lives to Christ. In this instance, faith is not so much our work as it is cooperating with “grace” at work within us. All we have done is cooperate with what is being wrought in us. Unless the Spirit is working, true saving faith is not possible. As such, only in moments in which the Holy Spirit is enabling saving faith in an individual can a person be converted. Likewise, this would apply to the exercise of faith in entire sanctification.

III. JOHN WESLEY’S DOCTRINE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GRACE AND FAITH

John Wesley was in complete agreement with John Calvin and Martin Luther in his understanding of original sin. As a result of the Fall, the moral image of God (holiness, righteousness, love, and connection to God) is completely destroyed in humanity. Human beings in their natural state are spiritually dead to God, thoroughly sinful, helpless to change themselves, and incapable of even being aware of their state. If human beings are going to be saved God is the One who must take the initiative. If human beings are to have saving faith, then God must give it to them, because they have no internal resources upon which to draw to exercise saving faith.

Specifically, Wesley believes that a person cannot be saved unless the Holy Spirit in a given moment is in that moment drawing, convicting, and convincing a person of salvation in Christ and God’s desire for that individual to be saved (which is, in fact, saving “faith”). While Wesley firmly believes that God desires everyone to be saved, a person cannot be saved at any given moment, but only in those moments when God’s grace, the work of the Spirit drawing, convicting, convincing, is happening. If the Spirit is not doing this work, a person cannot come to Christ. For Wesley, there are times and places when God does this in a person’s life and unless a person takes advantage of those moments, the person may very well miss the opportunity to be saved. These moments, “windows of opportunity,” are not always happening. In other words, there is no guarantee another moment, the moment in which God is drawing, convicting and convincing, will happen.

As with saving faith, John Wesley believes sanctifying faith is a gift from God and is the only thing “immediately necessary” to appropriate entire sanctification. Specifically, he believes that God gives people grace that enables them to believe God to sanctify them from their internal state of sin. Only when grace has been made available to create sanctifying faith, grace mediated through the means of grace, can a person have sanctifying faith. They must persist in the means of grace until God works.

From this perspective Christians actively seek entire sanctification, availing themselves of the various means of grace, waiting for God's grace capable of creating faith to appropriate it. Thus, a person cannot be entirely sanctified at any given moment, but only in those times and places in which God's grace is being made available that can create such faith. For example, while Wesley describes faith that sanctifies entirely as a trust that “God hath promised it in the Holy Scripture,” that “God is able to perform” it, that “He is able and willing to do it now,” and a “that He doeth it,” he makes clear that it is a “a divine evidence and conviction,” it is a faith that God creates and enables through the means of grace.

III. JOHN WESLEY’S TEACHING EXEMPLIFIED

For example, John Wesley describes his Aldersgate experience as having his heart “strangely warmed.” As a result he testifies that while hearing Martin Luther’s commentary on Romans, “I felt I did trust Christ in Christ, Christ alone for salvation…that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.” Wesley’s “faith” here was not so much an action he took, rather it was something happening inside of him, a divine work creating an internal conviction that Christ loved him. It is his heart being acted upon that creates personal faith in Christ, not vise versa. This understanding of Wesley’s experience is substantiated further by the fact that before Aldergate, John Wesley had already been convinced by Peter Bohler that salvation was “by grace through faith,” and he had begun to preach this message before Aldersgate. In a sense, Wesley was intellectually convinced of the truth, but he still struggled with belief until his Aldersgate experience. Don’t we often say, “I believe it in my head, but I struggle with it in my heart.” Or we say, “If I could only convince my heart of what I believe in my head.” It is grace, or the work of the Spirit, that convinces our heart. It is grace that creates faith in our hearts.

This Wesleyan perspective can be seen in a common experience with many evangelical Christians. There are times when we share our faith with an individual and we can sense God is working with the person. We can see that “something” is happening inside of the person, “something” the person is not doing, but is obviously the work of the Holy Spirit. At other times, we share the Gospel and it is like talking to a “brick wall.” We recognize fairly quickly there is little or “nothing” happening inside of the person. Similarly, we see some people come so close to surrendering their lives to Christ; we see the Spirit drawing, convicting and convincing them, but they refuse to cooperate with what is happening inside of them. Two weeks later or two years later, we see them and there is little or interest in God. God was working in the moment, but they did not take advantage of it and they missed their opportunity, at least until they may have another “divine moment.” Similar examples can be drawn from preaching. There are times when we preach, we recognize “something” is happening in our congregation, “something” that transcends the beauty and eloquence of our message. We recognize God is moving. There are other times when we preach we can tell there is “little” or “nothing” happening. From John Wesley’s perspective, there are times and places God is working to draw, convict, and convince a person or congregation of what He wants to do and times He does not. Unless, God draws, convicts and convinces, the work of salvation and entire sanctification is not going to happen.

IV. CONCLUSION

John Wesley definitely believes faith, both converting and sanctifying, are a gift of God’s grace. We are totally dependent upon God for faith. All we are able to do to contribute to our salvation is place ourselves in the means of grace and when God gives grace, choose to cooperate with this work of God.

What do you believe? Where would you fall in the continuum? Would you be closer to Wesley’s view or closer to the other side of the continuum – that faith is primarily, if not exclusively, what I do and that I can choose to believe or exercise faith any time I want?

How Does a Person Experience Entire Sanctification?

2006-05-25T08:24:00.000-07:00

HOW DOES A PERSON EXPERIENCE ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION?
THE THREE ANSWERS IN THE WESLEYAN HOLINESS TRADITION

I. INTRODUCTION

If a person is convinced that there is a work of God that can set Christians free from willful sin and the nature of sin, orienting the heart in love, leading to the fulfillment of the two great commandments, then the question arises: how can a person experience entire sanctification? How does a person enter into this life of holiness? Just as there are different definitions of entire sanctification in the Wesleyan Holiness tradition, there are different teachings about appropriating entire sanctification.

The primary purpose of this article is to explore the three dominant models on becoming entirely sanctified in the Wesleyan Holiness tradition. Historically, each paradigm has been used by God to help people enter into the experience of entire sanctification. However, some are more theologically accurate while others are less so; some are more helpful, while others are less so. While the focus here is on describing the three means, the secondary goal is to set up a critique in the subsequent essay.

II. THE THREE MODELS OF EXPERIENCING ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION

In the doctrine of salvation a distinction is made often between an ordo salutis and a via salutis, between an order of salvation and the way of salvation, between a nice, linear, logical understanding of salvation and the way salvation actually occurs in people’s lives. The two, while having overlap and similarities, can be quite different. The purpose of an ordo salutis is to help guide people in the via salutis. The three models presented below are ordines salutis of entire sanctification; they are theological articulations to help people enter into the experience of entire sanctification, but with any formal expression, the actual experience may not fit easily into any one of these. Thus, an experience of entire sanctification is not bound by them.

The three general paradigms of experiencing entire sanctification in the Wesleyan Holiness tradition are (A) entire sanctification now by consecration and faith - “the shorter way,” (B) entire sanctification by seeking until you receive – “the middle way,” and (C) entire sanctification by long process of growth – “the longer way.”

A. Entire Sanctification Now by Total Consecration and Faith – “The Shorter Way”

The most optimistic model, the teaching that believes entire sanctification is most easily accessible to people, states that Christians can experience entire sanctification now, in the present moment, through an act of entire consecration and faith, whereby believers surrender their lives to the lordship of Christ and trust God to purify and empower them. Entire sanctification is a simple synergism in which the work of consecration and faith by a Christian is met immediately with deliverance from the inner propensity to sin by the Holy Spirit.

What makes this position unique in the larger Wesleyan-Arminian tradition is its understanding of the ability Christians have to consecrate themselves and exercise faith. Every believer has an inherent power, either as a gift of prevenient grace, regenerating grace, or as an uncorrupted part of free will, to do the human work required in entire sanctification. From the moment of conversion any Christian has the ability to appropriate entire sanctification. Because the Holy Spirit is always ready to respond to a personal act of consecration and faith, only ignorance on the part of a believer, an unwillingness to surrender fully to the Lord or a lack of will to believe become the root causes for not experiencing entire sanctification.

Traditionally, this view has been termed the "shorter way" for its emphasis on the immediacy of the experience of entire sanctification, not having to wait any significant length of time to experience after conversion. Primarily associated with the teaching of Phoebe Palmer and the holiness movement, this position can be seen in Keith Drury's Holiness for Ordinary People, in Kenneth Grider’s A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology, and is the most probable position expressed in the Articles of Religion of The Wesleyan Church. This model has been the most popular and dominant teaching in the American Holiness tradition.

B. Entire Sanctification by Seeking until You Receive – “The Middle Way”

The next paradigm for experiencing entire sanctification in the Wesleyan tradition affirms that through personal consecration and faith entire sanctification is realized in a Christian's life. However, unlike the “shorter way,” it does not believe that faith necessary to appropriate entire sanctification is a power inherent at any given moment in a believer's life. Rather, sanctifying faith is seen as a gift of grace, a grace with which a Christian can choose to cooperate or not. The grace capable of creating this faith often requires more grace than is made available at conversion.

John Wesley's teaching on levels or degrees of grace and faith is at the heart of this holiness teaching. Wesley taught that a person is totally dependent on God's grace for the work of salvation. At each stage or level of progression in the way of salvation more grace is needed to move forward. For example, Wesley taught that prevenient grace given to every person enables a person to respond to grace, but prevenient grace does not have within itself the power to generate faith to appropriate the new birth. To prevenient grace more grace has to be given to create the possibility of saving faith. This grace is communicated through the various means of grace, most notably through the preaching of the gospel, but also through other “instituted” and “prudential” means, such as prayer, Bible reading, fasting, Holy Communion, and the General Rules of Methodist societies. Through participation in the means of grace, grace capable of creating saving faith can be communicated, with which a person can choose to cooperate or not. In the same way, to the grace made available at conversion, more grace must be given in order to make possible the creation of faith necessary to appropriate entire sanctification.

From this perspective Christians actively seek entire sanctification, availing themselves of the various means of grace, waiting for God's grace capable of creating faith to appropriate it. Thus, a person cannot be entirely sanctified at any given moment, but only in those times and places in which God's grace is being made available that can create such faith. There are moments, windows of opportunity for believers to experience entire sanctification, those moments when God makes grace available to create sanctifying faith. For example, while Wesley describes faith that sanctifies entirely as a trust that “God hath promised it in the Holy Scripture,” that “God is able to perform” it, that “He is able and willing to do it now,” and a “that He doeth it,” he makes clear that it is a “a divine evidence and conviction,” it is a faith that God creates and enables through the means of grace.

Among the various Wesleyan models, this teaching may be called the "middle way," sympathetic to the optimism and simplicity of the "shorter way," but recognizing the necessity of further grace and God’s timing in making grace available, while at the same time refusing to succumb to the arduous nature of the "longer way," addressed in the next position. The “middle way” is optimistic about the experience of entire sanctification being sooner, rather than later, not being an experience that has to be sought over the course of a lifetime. For the person earnestly seeking entire sanctification and placing herself in the means of grace, opportunities will arise. "The middle way" is seen in Steve DeNeff's Whatever Became of Holiness?, in some of John Wesley's more optimistic pieces like "The Scripture Way of Salvation," and can also be argued as a possible position taken in The Wesleyan Church’s Articles of Religion. Of the three models, this view has received the least attention, often remaining unnoticed in many scholarly discussions and practical teaching on entire sanctification.

C. Entire Sanctification by Long Process of Growth – “The Longer Way”

In contrast to the previous two positions, the third Wesleyan teaching on holiness emphasizes that entire sanctification is realized most often in a Christian's life after a long journey of dying to self, following many years of spiritual development. There will be some Christians who will realize entire sanctification in the present life, but most will not experience it until just before death or at the point of glorification. A belief in the persistence and stubbornness of original sin forms the heart of the doctrine, a recalcitrance that can be overcome only gradually through significant growth in grace, personal denial, and spiritual development.

The analogy of a slow death is one of the most well known descriptions of this view, an analogy which emphasizes the complementary nature of process with an instantaneous moment. In a slow death, there is a long process leading to the point of death, often a painful and arduous process. Nevertheless, there is a point in which a person dies. While this view does not deny the possibility of a short process and early death, or the exercise of personal faith in appropriating entire sanctification, its focus is on the long progression. While the moment in which a Christian dies completely to self is always the goal in the present life, the process leading to the goal takes preeminence.

The movement toward this state of perfection can only be brought about by growth in grace, knowledge, wisdom, experience, and the practice of spiritual disciplines. As such, entire sanctification is not really seen as a possibility for new converts, but only for those who have diligently followed Christ for many years.

In the Wesleyan tradition this view has been called the "longer way," because of its focus on an extended process in the realization of entire sanctification. The "longer way" is described and embraced in Thomas Oden's Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology Volume Three, in Randy Maddox’s Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology, and in John Wesley's more pessimistic writings, such as "Brief Thoughts on Christian Perfection." While not as popular in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as the “shorter way,” and even the “middle way,” the “longer way” has more recently come to the fore in American Wesleyan-Arminian circles, particularly in academic arenas.

III. CONCLUSION

While all three models of entering into the experience of entire sanctification have their proponents in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition and are legitimate Wesleyan holiness views, there differences are great, not easily reconcilable with each other. Depending on what model a person uses in pastoral practice or personal discipleship, will impact how ministry is done, what counsel is offered in guiding people in the way of salvation, and how entire sanctification is sought. Fundamentally, their differences arise over their respective understanding of the operation of God’s grace in salvation and sanctification. In the next entry, these differences will be explored and critiqued.

A Summary of Definitions of Entire Sanctification

2006-05-18T04:19:00.000-07:00

LEGITIMATE AND ILLIGETIMATE DEFINITIONS OF ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION

2006-05-10T13:53:00.000-07:00

LEGITIMATE AND ILLIGETIMATE DEFINITIONS
OF ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION

I. INTRODUCTION

While entire sanctification is defined in different ways by people in the Wesleyan Holiness tradition, five basic understandings can be discerned. While these definitions are hardly exhaustive, providing only the most general of descriptions, they do provide a lens through which most teachings on entire sanctification can be seen. The five distinctive definitions of entire sanctification equate holiness with one of the following: (1) entire consecration, (2) freedom from willful sin, (3) freedom from willful sin and the sin nature, (4) perfection in love, and (5) freedom from the possibility of sin. Their differences center upon their respective understandings of willful sin, the sin nature and fulfillment of the two great commandments – love of God and neighbor.

The purpose of this article is to identify the legitimate definitions of entire sanctification, perspectives which capture the heart of the Wesleyan tradition of holiness and articulate the fullness of salvation made possible by Christ through the Holy Spirit, as well as identify illegitimate expressions, views which “sell short” ” the work of holiness or “promise too much.” I will begin with the inadequate definitions, ones that are not truly Wesleyan, and move to faithful expressions.

II. ILLIGETIMATE DEFINITIONS OF ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION

Of the five definitions of entire sanctification, three are illegitimate: (1) entire consecration, (2) freedom from willful sin, and (5) freedom from the possibility of sin. The first two definitions have “too low a view” of the work holiness in the present life, while the last has “too high a view.”

A. Entire Sanctification as Entire Consecration

The first view, entire sanctification as entire consecration, has its origins in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition, being found prominently in John Wesley’s and Phoebe Palmer’s teaching on sanctification. Wesley assumed entire consecration on the part of Christians at or before the experience of conversion. Wesley did not believe a person could be born-again apart from entire consecration. Entire consecration was essential in becoming a Christian. Palmer, on the other hand, saw entire consecration as an act of a believer subsequent to conversion and an essential element in appropriating entire sanctification. Along with the exercise of faith, entire consecration was the means by which Christians entered into the life of holiness. For Wesley and Palmer consecration was a means to holiness, but not the equivalent of it.

In the American holiness tradition, a transition took place, particularly at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the early twentieth century, making entire consecration synonymous with entire sanctification. The rationale: if people relinquished control of their lives and surrendered everything to the Holy Spirit, then of course the Holy Spirit would take complete control and exercise dominion in their lives. The Spirit always receives and takes control of what people freely give to Him. At the moment Christians fully surrender to Christ, the Holy Spirit performs the work of entire sanctification. Therefore, when people entirely consecrate their lives to Christ, they are said to be entirely sanctified, whether they have had a deeper cleansing work of the Holy Spirit or not. Over time as entire consecration rose to the fore as an equivalent to entire sanctification and the power and hold of sin was not broken, remaining patterns of sin and obvious sin were classified as “struggles,” “infirmities,” and “weaknesses.” They were overlooked or explained away. An emphasis upon freedom from sin and perfection in love receded to the background.

At this point, it may be helpful to clarify that while entire consecration is essential to the realization of entire sanctification, it is not the equivalent of it. A truly Wesleyan definition of holiness has affirmed that it is possible for a Christian to be fully surrendered to the Lord and not be entirely sanctified. To entire consecration faith must be added in the appropriation of entire sanctification. If this is not affirmed, then many Christians will settle for an experience that “falls short” of the salvation made available thorough Jesus Christ, living in the bondage of sin or being forced to live a lie – claiming to be free from sin, when in fact they are not.

In short, entire consecration as entire sanctification as presently expressed falls short of a truly Wesleyan-Holiness definition because it too easily settles for a life characterized by servitude to sin, too quickly glosses over willful and original sin, and misses the role of sanctifying faith in the appropriation of entire sanctification. Entire sanctification entails far more than entire consecration.

B. Entire Sanctification as Freedom from Willful Sin

The next illegitimate definition, entire sanctification as freedom from willful sin, has often been called the Keswick view of holiness, and historically has had a close relationship with the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition at least on two levels. First, like a truly Wesleyan Holiness view, the Keswick understanding believes Christians can be set free from willful sin, often in a second work of grace subsequent to conversion, enabling lives of obedience and surrender to Christ. Like the Wesleyans, freedom from willful sin is emphasized. Second, the Keswick view through the preaching of D.L. Moody and teaching of Hannah Whitehall Smith became intimately entwined with the Holiness movement in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. At times they became virtually indistinguishable, often working in conjunction with one another, allowing much cross pollination of ideas, so that, often Wesleyan Holiness preachers and evangelists preached the Keswick teaching.

The strength of the Keswick teaching is its Christian realism. There is power to live in obedience to Christ, to live as a Christian and truly be a Christian. Yet, the pull of temptation, the desire to serve self, the divided heart, and a strong carnal passion are acknowledged in believers. Christians do not have to give in to the “flesh,” “the carnal nature,” and/or “the law of sin” in them, but they will never be free from this internal bent. The Keswick teaching describes what many people believe is realistically possible in the present life, what they believe they can live in this life. As such, and because of the Keswick’s historic relationship with the Wesleyan Holiness tradition, the Keswick view is a popular definition for entire sanctification among many leaders in Wesleyan circles.

However, the Keswick definition “falls short” of describing the holiness possible in the present life, because it does not take seriously deliverance from nature of sin. There have been a number of expressions used by Wesleyans to describe the inward freedom from the power of original sin. Negatively, "eradication of the sin nature," "overcoming the sin principle, "cleansing from original sin," and "deliverance from inward rebellion" have been some of the popular ways this work of sanctification has been described. Positively, "baptism of the Holy Spirit, "infilling of the Spirit, "perfect love," and "full salvation," have been some of the expressions used to define this work of sanctification. Regardless of the language used, all of these expressions covey a redemption from that part of human existence that sets itself up against the rule of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life, a liberation from the "old man" that cries out "I won't" and/or "I can't" to the call of discipleship. Because the Keswick definition fails to recognize the depth of entire sanctification, it is not a legitimate Wesleyan Holiness view.

Stated more concisely, entire sanctification as freedom from willful sin falls short of a truly Wesleyan Holiness view, because it does not take seriously the possibility that Christians can be set free from the “bent toward sinning” or the sin nature. Christians can overcome willful sin, live in obedience, but that obedience often is “hard fought,” because of the “flesh.”

C. Entire Sanctification as Freedom from the Possibility of Sin

The final illegitimate view, entire sanctification as freedom from the possibility of sin, is the highest view of entire sanctification. Like the other illegitimate views, there is a history with and relationship to the Wesleyan Holiness movement. From the time of John Wesley’s ministry to the nineteenth century holiness movement, through the twentieth century, there have been Wesleyan groups who have so emphasized the power of God’s grace of God and fullness of salvation, they have taught that entire sanctification sets a person free from the possibility of sin. Generally, this optimism has been expressed either as freedom from all temptations, freedom from the possibility of sin, or a combination of both teachings. As a result of entire sanctification a person no longer experiences temptation, and thus has no possibility of really sinning, or they are rendered incapable of sinning, being made immutable in their holiness.

John Wesley encountered this view of Christian perfection in the 1760’s in London. Two Methodist preachers, Maxfield and Bell were teaching that once people were entirely sanctified they were free from every temptation and could not sin. Wesley vigorously denied and refuted such a high view of Christian perfection. The Holiness movement in the nineteenth century had people like G.D. Watson and followers who argued for immutable perfection. Holiness camp meetings in the twentieth centuries have had a long history of people testifying to being freed from all temptation. However, Wesleyan Holiness theologians and leaders have continually rejected this highest view of sanctification.

As a definition of entire sanctification, this view overstates the possibilities of holiness in the present life. While orthodox holiness teaching has affirmed, that a person by grace can have the nature of sin removed, this state of holiness does not place believers in a state of perfection higher than Adam and Eve had in the garden. Even though they did not have the sin nature, they were subject to temptation and capable of succumbing to sin. As such, entire sanctification has not historically been viewed as a state of perfection equal to or superior to the perfection Adam and Eve enjoyed before the Fall. Entire sanctification is not an immutable form of Christian perfection.

In short, entire sanctification as freedom from the possibility of sin promises too much to Christians in the present life. From a true Wesleyan-Holiness perspective, there is no state of perfection in the present life that makes Christians impervious to temptation and/or the possibility of sinning.

III. LEGITIMATE DEFINITIONS OF ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION

In order for a definition of entire sanctification to be a truly Wesleyan-Holiness definition, that definition must address positively freedom from willful sin, freedom from the sin nature (original sin), and freedom to love God and neighbor. This threefold liberation, two of which are negative and one positive, forms the heart of the Wesleyan-Holiness teaching on entire sanctification. Of the five definitions given, two meet these criteria: (3) freedom from willful sin and the sin nature and (4) perfection in love.

A. Entire Sanctification as Freedom from Willful Sin and the Sin Nature

The first legitimate Wesleyan-Holiness definition of holiness, entire sanctification as freedom from willful sin and the sin nature, satisfies the three criteria for Wesleyan holiness teaching – freedom from willful sin, freedom from the nature of sin (original sin), and a heart oriented in love for God and humanity. From this perspective, when the Spirit takes residence in human lives, he begins the process of transforming their attitudes, interests, and actions, while confronting them with an internal principle of selfishness and sin, persisting stubbornly in them. This is often called “initial” and “progressive” sanctification. While it may be described in different ways, this view believes the Spirit can conquer this principle and enable believers to more fully love God, to live in complete obedience to His revealed will and to serve others in love.

Entire sanctification sets people free from sin in order to set them free to love. However, this definition, primarily found in the later American Holiness tradition, recognizes their may be limitations to the expression and experience of this love. People who have been entirely sanctified may have their hearts oriented in love, love may be the natural disposition of their hearts, and yet love may not always be fully expressed or actualized in their lives. They may not always love God with “all of” their “heart, soul and mind” and may not always love their neighbors to the full extent to which they should be loved. These limitations may be a result of ignorance (lack of self awareness of cultural bias), physical limitations (lack of sleep, food), emotional trauma (due to poor modeling of love), etc.

Therefore this view strongly affirms that in entire sanctification Christians are redeemed from self-focused living, and their hearts are renewed, restoring the capacity to fully love God, humanity, and self. However, this view recognizes that this love may be limited in experience and expression, arising from deficiencies created during life or related to our physical limits as human beings. At this point, they may distinguish between the sin nature humanity inherits from birth from which Christians are delivered in entire sanctification and the prejudices, lies, and misconceptions acquired from environment. A Christian’s ability by grace to fully love God and humanity is made possible by the cleansing of the sin nature, but may be limited in expression by other factors. However, as these areas are addressed by the Holy Spirit, this view believes Christians can experience greater depths and expressions of love.

For some in the Wesleyan holiness tradition this would be an expression of a “lower” view of Christian perfection because fully loving God and humanity is made possible by the cleansing of the sin nature, the heart is oriented in love, is naturally disposed to love, but may be limited in experience and expression by other factors.

B. Entire Sanctification as Perfection in Love

The highest legitimate definition of holiness, entire sanctification as perfection in love, primarily found in John Wesley and associated with the American Methodist tradition, differs from the previous view, only in regard to the issue of love. Entire sanctification means freedom from sin and the sin nature, but goes beyond a simple heart oriented in love, more than a restoration of the capacity to fully love God and neighbor. Entire sanctification ultimately entails the actual loving of God continually with all “heart, soul, mind, and strength” and continually loving neighbor as self. In these higher expressions of entire sanctification, this view sees Christian perfection as loving as Jesus loved, being just like Christ, “Christlike” in love of the Father and in love of humanity, which is the fullest expression of human love.

In the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition this is the higher view of Christian perfection. Entire sanctification is not only freedom from willful sin, freedom from the sin nature, but ultimately is perfect love, always loving God and neighbor to the full extent of Christians are capable of doing.

IV. CONCLUSION

In summary, I have identified three illegitimate definitions of entire sanctification, illegitimate not because they are without history in or relationship with the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition, but because they do not meet the three essential criteria of Wesleyan Holiness teaching – freedom from willful sin, freedom from the sin nature, and love of God and neighbor. I have also identified two legitimate definitions, with the difference between them being their respective understandings of fulfillment of the two great commandments. One see entire sanctification as an orientation in love while the others sees love as fully expressed and experienced in the lives of the entirely sanctified. Both understandings have strengths and weaknesses which I will explore later.

What is Entire Sanctification?

2006-05-05T06:06:00.000-07:00

WHAT IS ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION?
DIFFERENCES OF UNDERSTANDING IN THE HOLINESS TRADITION

I. INTRODUCTION

Recently, a group of Wesleyan holiness denominational leaders and scholars issued a Holiness Manifesto, contending for the necessity of a reminted statement and emphasis on sanctification in the twenty-first century. While they offered a helpful critique of contemporary evangelicalism and addressed the imperative of a socially driven, mission oriented expression of holiness, they were not able to offer any specifics as to what entire sanctification or holiness is, beyond the statement that “Holiness is Christ likeness.”

The Manifesto is indicative of the contemporary Wesleyan-Holiness tradition’s inability to articulate clearly, succinctly, and persuasively her understanding of holiness. One of the reasons behind her problem is that there are many different views of entire sanctification existing explicitly or implicitly in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition, some legitimate and some illegitimate, making agreement on understanding difficult. Even in denominations that take their doctrine of entire sanctification seriously, like the Wesleyan and Nazarene Churches, both of which have clearly defined doctrinal articles on holiness, substantially different views exist among their “rank and file” adherents, laity and clergy, as well as members of their Boards of Ministerial Development.

The purpose of my article is to begin to identify the different definitions of entire sanctification that exist officially and unofficially in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition. As such, my focus is not how a person enters into the holy life, the means by which entire sanctification is individually or corporately appropriated, rather my focus is upon how entire sanctification is defined or what holiness is. By beginning to “spell out” the various understandings of entire sanctification, hopefully, a basis for dialogue can be established in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition, leading to the recognition and respect for legitimate differences, the discarding of inadequate views and a greater consensus as to what entire sanctification is.

II. THE DIFFIERENT DEFINITIONS OF ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION

While they may be nuanced differently in proclamation, education, and conversation, there are basically five different definitions of entire sanctification operating in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition. All five views find their similarities and differences coalescing around the issues of willful sin, original sin (the sin nature), and the love of God and neighbor. I will begin with the lowest views, perspectives which may or may not “sell short” the work of sanctification, and work my way to the highest views, perspectives which may or may not overstate the doctrine of holiness. At this point my objective is not to critique but to define. In a subsequent article I will identify what I believe are legitimate Wesleyan-Holiness views and what are not.

A. Entire Sanctification as Simple Consecration (Not Free from Willful Sin or Sin Nature)

The first and lowest view of entire sanctification equates holiness with simple consecration. When Christians sincerely give themselves “entirely and completely” to Christ, when they have surrendered every part of who they are and all they have, when they have offered themselves on “God’s alter,” they are said to be entirely sanctified. To be entirely sanctified means to be fully surrendered to Christ.

Entirely sanctified Christians from this perspective earnestly desire to follow Christ, to love God and neighbor, but still may have strongholds or patterns of sin in their lives over which they have little or no control, may still succumb from time to time to ungodly manifestations of pride, anger, and selfishness, and may still “give in” to temptations in the moments, although this was not their intention. Their intentions are good, but there are times and places where they lack the power to follow through on their intentions. These are people who have genuinely surrendered everything to Christ, yet the power and hold of sin may not have been broken completely in their lives. However, because they have consecrated themselves entirely to God, these “struggles,” “infirmities,” “weaknesses” often are overlooked and they are said to be entirely sanctified.

In the first definition then, the focus is on entire consecration, not freedom from willful sin, not freedom from the sin nature, and not perfection in love.

B. Entire Sanctification as Freedom from Willful Sin (Not Free from Sin Nature)

The second view of entire sanctification equates holiness primarily with freedom from willful sin. When Christians have been set free from willful sin, when they have the power to refrain from deliberate sin, when they have been set free from all strongholds or patterns of sin, they are said to be entirely sanctified. To be entirely sanctified means empowerment to live a life of obedience to Christ.

Entirely sanctified Christians from this perspective can be free from willful sin, living lives of obedience to God, but cannot be completely delivered from original sin in the present life. Christians will persistently struggle with an inner attitude of rebellion, selfishness and pride. This is more than external temptation, but an internal bent to sinning that persists throughout mortal life. The believer can live above the sin nature, but can not be free from it, be victorious over it in any given temptation, but will continue to live with an internal struggle until glorification in death.

This perspective has often taught that willful sin is an exception rather than the norm of Christian life, embracing the Johannine teaching, “those who are born of God will not continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God,” while realizing that “if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense – Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.” While believers will have strongholds of sin broken, patterns of sin ended, because of the ongoing internal conflict, the possibility of willful sin and occasional sins remain. However, because willful sin has been overcome (at least for the most part), these Christians are entirely sanctified.

In this second definition then, the focus is on freedom from willful sin (or relative freedom), not freedom from the sin nature and not perfection in love.

C. Entire Sanctification as Freedom from Willful Sin and the Orientation to Sin (Not Free from Limitations in Love)

The third view of entire sanctification maintains that holiness entails not only liberation from willful sin, empowering Christians to live lives of obedience to Christ, but liberates Christians from the inner propensity to rebellion and disobedience as well, orienting their hearts in love for God and neighbor. To be entirely sanctified means to be set from willful sin and the sin nature, enabling believers to truly love God and neighbor. This perspective believes Christians are set from willful sin and an orientation to sin in order to be set free to love. However, love from this perspective is an orientation. The love of God and neighbor is the natural orientation of the heart. Loving God and neighbor, fulfilling the two great commandments, comes naturally to those entirely sanctified. However, loving God to the full extent to which Christians are capable of loving may not always be present.

The understanding of the sin nature is at the heart of the third view. The sin nature is defined as an orientation, inclination or proclivity to rebellion against and disobedience of God and an orientation, inclination or proclivity to selfishness. When believers are entirely sanctified and set free from the sin nature, their orientations and inclinations are transformed. Christian hearts are oriented in love. This is their natural orientation and inclination, but this does not necessarily bring about the complete realization of the love of God and neighbor at every moment in their lives. There are moments when the entirely sanctified love God and neighbor more fully than at other times. However, because willful sin and the orientation to sin have been overcome and the heart has been established in love, these Christians are said to be entirely sanctified.

In this third definition then, the focus is on freedom from willful sin, freedom from the sin nature, and an orientation in love, but not perfection in love, at least not initially.

D. Entire Sanctification as Perfection in Love (Not Free from Temptations)

The fourth view of entire sanctification, while equating holiness with freedom from willful sin and the sin nature, goes beyond the third view by defining holiness as perfection in love. Entire sanctification is more than an orientation in love, it is truly having the “mind of Christ,” loving God and neighbor “fully and completely,” without equivocation. This perfection in love is made manifest fully not only in attitude but in action as well. Christians who have been perfected in love continually love God and neighbor to the full extent to which they can be loved by Christians in the present life. The fruit of the Spirit is made manifest fully at all times in these Christian lives without diminution.

However, this state of perfect love is not immutable in the present life. Entirely sanctified Christians are not immune to temptations, even as Christ in his earthly life was not, and unlike Christ, they are capable of succumbing to temptation’s lure, even as Adam and Eve were capable in the Garden. Because of the limitations of the present human state, these Christians can defect from their first love.

In this fourth definition then, the focus is on freedom from willful sin, freedom from the sin nature, and perfection in love.

E. Entire Sanctification as Freedom from the Possibility of Sin

The fifth and highest view of entire sanctification surpasses all previous views by defining the state of entire sanctification as an immutable state. Entirely sanctified Christians are set free from all willful sin and the sin nature, set free to love God and neighbor perfectly, to the full extent to which God and neighbor can be humanly loved, and are set free from all possibility of willful sin. Love for God and neighbor is so complete or perfect, defection from this love is not possible, and at time this perspective has argued that even being tempted is impossible. The fruit of the Spirit is so perfected in the entirely sanctified, “works of the flesh” are no longer possible because of the perfection in love.

While different aspects of this position may be brought to the fore, sometimes emphasizing the impossibility of sin and at other times the impossibility of temptation, nevertheless the primary focus is the immutability of this state of Christian perfection. The entirely sanctified Christian can not fall into willful sin. As such, the human perfection and freedom seen in the humanity of Christ is seen as the example and possibility for every believer. Just as Jesus could not sin, even if temptation is granted as a possibility for Christ, so entirely sanctified Christians can not sin.

In this final definition, the focus is on the immutability of the entirely sanctified state, so that freedom from willful sin, freedom from the sin nature, and perfection in love makes Christians impervious to temptation.

III. CONCLUSION AND QUESTIONS

In summary, I have outlined five basic definitions of entire sanctification, realizing that each of these may be nuanced in different ways as they have been taught, preached or explained in various venues. As the preceding discussion has demonstrated there are major differences that exist in these definitions of entire sanctification. As such, entire sanctification in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition can be understood in different ways, which in turn can lead to confusion in any discussion about the subject or detract from any consensus on the specifics of holiness, which may be behind the lack of specificity in the Holiness Manifesto.

For those of you who are from the Wesleyan holiness tradition, (1) which views have you been confronted with or what views have you been exposed to? For those who believe in entire sanctification, (2) which definition would be closest to your own?