The Arminian Magazine--Spring, 1996
HOW IS ONE TO SEEK THE EXPERIENCE OF CHRISTIAN PERFECTION?
--Joseph D. McPherson
Many examples could be cited that would trace the holiness
movement's departure from early Methodism's heritage and teachings.
One important example of such departure is found in the
instructions currently given to those who are seeking holiness of
heart or Christian perfection. Directions normally received by
such seekers today have an unmistakable origin in the teachings of
persons other than Mr. Wesley. One of those persons was a lady by
the name of Phoebe Palmer.
Phoebe Palmer was one of the influential personalities of the
holiness movement in the last century. She was the principal
sponsor of a weekly prayer meeting held in New York City, beginning
in 1835. This meeting was held every Tuesday for the said
"promotion of holiness." In the years that followed, the Tuesday
Meeting became popular in many places across this nation. Some
believed that such a meeting was "filling a void left by the
gradual death of the Methodist class meeting." Although she was
not theologically trained, Mrs. Palmer was a strong-minded woman,
successfully gathering an impressive following that included
bishops, denominational leaders, ministers, educators, and lay
people of various denominations. As a self-appointed teacher, she
added some of her own peculiar twists to the doctrine of Christian
perfection which continue to the present day.
Among a number of her teachings that departed from orthodox
Wesleyanism, Mrs. Palmer taught that consecration was the condition
for entering into entire sanctification. Once consecration was
complete the believer was to exercise faith and, without any
sensible evidence lay claim to this inward work. One of her
favorite scriptural texts was, "The altar . . . sanctifieth the
gift." This gave rise to what was eventually called "the altar
terminology."
Let us now observe Mr. Wesley's contrasting views concerning
scriptural entrance into this experience and how he believed we
could know that we had attained. The following is in question and
answer form and had its origin in the Methodist Conference session
of 1759. Christian perfection was "largely considered" at that
gathering and some of the discussion was later published in Mr.
Wesley's Plain Account of Christian Perfection.
Q. When may a person judge himself to have attained
this [perfection or entire sanctification]?
A. When, after having been fully convinced of
inbred sin, by a far deeper and clearer conviction than
that he experienced before justification, and after
having experienced a gradual mortification of it, he
experiences a total death to sin, and an entire renewal
in the love and image of God, so as to rejoice evermore,
to pray without ceasing, and in everything to give
thanks. Not that "to feel all love and no sin" is a
sufficient proof. Several have experienced this for a
time, before their souls were fully renewed. None
therefore ought to believe that the work is done, till
there is added the testimony of the Spirit, witnessing
his entire sanctification, as clearly as his
justification.
Mr. Wesley acknowledged the fact that "some imagine they are
sanctified, when in reality they are not." He believed the reason
to be that "they do not judge by all the preceding marks, but
either by part of them, or by others that are ambiguous."
After explaining the gradual and instantaneous process of
"death to sin, and renewal in love" experienced by serious seekers
after perfection, Mr. Wesley comes to a consideration of that
question about which we are most concerned in this discussion. How
are seekers after entire sanctification to be directed? What are
the conditions to be met? He gives answer in the following:
Q. How are we to wait for this change?
A. Not in careless indifference, or indolent
inactivity; but in vigorous, universal obedience, in a
zealous keeping of all the commandments, in watchfulness
and painfulness, in denying ourselves, and taking up our
cross daily; as well as in earnest prayer and fasting,
and a close attendance on all the ordinances of God. And
if any man dream of attaining it any other way, (yea, or
of keeping it when it is attained, when he has received
it even in the largest measure,) he deceiveth his own
soul. It is true, we receive it by simple faith: But God
does not, will not, give that faith, unless we seek it
with all diligence, in the way which he hath ordained.
This consideration may satisfy those who enquire,
why so few have received the blessing. Inquire, how may
are seeking it in this way: and you have a sufficient
answer.
Prayer especially is wanting. Who continues instant
therein? Who wrestles with God for this very thing? So,
"ye have not, because ye ask not; nor because ye ask
amiss," namely, that you may be renewed before you die.
Before you die! Will that content you? Nay, but ask
that it may be done now; today, while it is called today.
Do not call this "setting God a time." Certainly, today
is his time as well as tomorrow. Make haste. man, make
haste! Let
Thy soul break out in strong desire
The perfect bliss to prove;
Thy longing heart be all on fire
To be dissolved in love!
We have observed that "complete consecration" was stressed by
Phoebe Palmer as the seeker's single condition for entering into
the experience of Christian perfection. Following this formula,
those seekers were then to believe that the work was done and lay
claim to it, even in the absence of God's witness to their hearts.
This teaching continues to the present time as the most popular and
prevalent formula for one's entrance into an experience of holiness
of heart.
It should be pointed out that Mr. Wesley did not overlook the
necessity of dedication and consecration. The text of his Covenant
Service is sufficient proof of this. He believed in the necessity
of being "inwardly and outwardly devoted to God; all devoted in
heart and life." To suppose, however, that he considered one to be
truly justified and regenerated in heart who had not already
consecrated himself in full devotion to Christ is to misunderstand
Mr. Wesley. He considered Christ as necessarily Lord of all who
have been justified or initially saved. To deny Him as Lord by
withholding full devotion would be to exclude Him as Savior.
We see that under Mrs. Palmer's direction, seekers after
sanctification were to be their own judges concerning the
accomplishment of this inward work. No "witness of the Spirit"
seems to have been necessary. Nor was it necessarily to be looked
for. The seeker determined for himself when he had met conditions
and provided a "testimony" of his own making. Last of all he was
required by Mrs. Palmer to make public his own testimony of having
attained the blessing of entire sanctification.
With such a teaching still prevailing to the present time, is
it any wonder that we see so little evidence of holy living? It is
absolutely imperative that the scriptural truth known and taught
among eighteenth century Methodists be revived one again. This, we
believe, is the vital key to another such movement of God in our
time.
GLIDING WITH GRIDER
--Vic Reasoner
The most recent attempt to state the Wesleyan interpretation
of theology is found in Kenneth Grider's A Wesleyan-Holiness
Theology (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1994). Among Grider's
positive contributions:
1. He interprets "the old man" as the unregenerate life, not
original sin. Grider first made a case for this interpretation
in the Nazarene Preacher's Magazine in February, 1972 and again
in his 1980 book on entire sanctification. Thus we put off the
old man or old life when we are born again (Romans 6:6; Ephesians
4:22; Colossians 3:9).
2. In harmony with Arminius and early Methodism, Grider
understands that Romans 7 is the picture of an unregenerate man.
3. He understands that salvation is not an act of human will.
He cautions the Arminian-Wesleyan evangelist not to tell a
congregation, "You do your part and God will do His part." He
also argues against the promise that "God will meet you halfway."
Grider explains, "We cannot initiate our own salvation. . . .
God must come all the way to where we are and initiate in us our
'first faint desire' to turn to Christ."
4. He is an authority on the life and teachings of James
Arminius and this contributes to the richness of his
presentation. He has a very adequate sections on original sin
and prevenient grace.
5. He presents the view that "predestination does not have to do
with a pre-decision of God regarding the eternal destiny of
people, but that it has to do with what God graciously decides
for believers temporally - only having to do with Christians."
6. He teaches that saving faith must be "durative." Scores of
New Testament passages exhort us to a present tense or continuous
faith. It is possible to cease to believe and then suffer the
loss of saving grace.
7. He advocates a return to the historic Wesleyan eschatology of
postmillennialism or realized eschatology.
However, since Grider claims to represent the Wesleyan-
Arminian viewpoint in this authoritative 589 page theology, I am
concerned that our position is not adequately represented at the
following points:
1. Grider refuses to take a position that the Bible is totally
without error. The fact that we do not have the original
autographs is a fact accepted by all parties. However Grider
asserts that "no doubt the Holy Spirit guided writers to make
certain changes in the New Testament between autograph and
canon." He declares,
Our canon is richer than the autographs had been. It
contains what the Holy Spirit had persuaded people to
add to the autographs. It might even contain deletions
from the autographs, if the original writers did not
write precisely what the persuading, not coercing,
Spirit had wanted them to write. It contains changes
in the writing that the believing communities had found
to be functional.
But how can Grider know that changes were made if he has
never seen the original? I thought there was a warning not to
add anything to Scripture. He claims that "even if the inspired
autographs had read quite different from our canonical
Scriptures, that would not greatly matter."
But only the original manuscripts were inspired by the Holy
Spirit; no theologian extends inspiration to the transmission of
copies. Grider seems to teach that the Holy Spirit may have not
quite got it right the first time and had to redo it. Grider
seems to have more faith in the copies than in the original.
Grider seems to labor under a false assumption that the
Scriptures are authoritative because they are declared to be by
church councils. They are authoritative, however, because they
are God-inspired.
Grider concludes that the Scriptures are "basically genuine"
and are "inspired and inerrant on doctrine and practice matters."
But if the Bible has one mistake in it, it may as well have a
thousand. Wesley taught if there was one falsehood in the Bible,
it did not come from the God of truth. If the Bible is a
fallible record, then it could be a false witness. Who
determines what parts of the Bible are then in error? What is
the purpose of inspiration if not to insure infallibility?
This basically comes down to an issue of who we trust. Do
we believe that God inspired holy men of old to accurately write
His words or do we put our faith in theologians who tells us not
to worry, the alleged mistakes are of no consequence? Will
someone operating on Grider's premise someday "discover" a
mistake of consequence?
Grider then carries his own premise to a dangerous
conclusion. Based on his view of the written Word, he then
argues that "Christ was sinless, not that He was totally
errorless on unimportant matters." In 1978 there were a series
of editorials in the Convention Herald expressing concern over
Grider's teaching. Grider wrote a letter to H. E. Schmul
stating, "I have never taught either in a class session or in any
publication either that the Bible autographs were in error of any
kind whatever, or that Christ erred in any way whatever."
However, his recent "Wesleyan" theology book seems to leave the
door open to both positions.
2. Grider's discussion of "the first work of grace" has very
little to say about faith. The only discussion of "the witness
of the Spirit" occurs in relationship to entire sanctification.
Grider devotes 17 pages to the new birth and 102 pages to entire
sanctification. Yet we cannot go on unto perfection until we
have entered the kingdom. Early Methodism spent more time
getting people started right, believing the Holy Spirit was able
to lead them once they entered the kingdom.
3. Grider does not adequately emphasize victory over sin.
Even homosexuality, as a tendency, will not always be
extirpated when we are converted or when we are
sanctified wholly. . . . It cannot be a characteristic
of carnality, else all persons would experience it.
When carnality is extirpated, therefore, homosexuality
as a tendency might or might not be corrected.
No doubt the newly formed Wesleyan Holiness Gay and Lesbian
Network will find this position reassuring.
Grider also states that the inclination toward tobacco,
alcohol, and other drugs are acquired desires and are not
necessarily extirpated when one is converted or when Adamic
depravity is expelled. To what extent, then, do we put off the
old life when we are born again? In what sense do we teach
complete cleansing from sin?
4. Grider recommends the term "baptism with the Holy Spirit" for
the second work of grace, but admits John Wesley did not make
this connection. After giving an excellent overview of what
Wesley believed, Grider takes a different view, claiming the
teaching of the Holiness Movement is superior.
He is overly impressed with the historical research of Paul
Bassett who concluded that the early church fathers almost
universally taught that entire sanctification is received through
the baptism with the Holy Spirit. We must avoid reading
nineteenth century presuppositions back into earlier literature.
I considered Bassett's research in my dissertation and concluded
that up until the nineteenth century American holiness movement
no one had ever arrived at a comparable position. In fact Thomas
Oden, in stating the consensual core of Christian belief from the
first five centuries of the Christian church, concluded that
though indwelling is not precisely the same as baptism,
sealing, and filling of the Spirit, none of these is
detachable from the new birth through the Spirit and
baptism in the Spirit. . . . The New Testament
understands baptism of and by the Spirit as the
privilege of all who have faith, all Christian, all who
belong to the body of Christ.
5. Grider denies the progressive side of entire sanctification.
In his preface Grider asserts "entire sanctification as
instantaneous only and not also gradual." His chief argument for
this position is that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is not
gradual. Grider therefore builds one untenable position on the
foundation of another untenable position. Grider knows this is
not Wesley's position, but submits this as another "improvement."
I find it interesting that he claims the writings of
Macarius, a fourth century mystic, are "even closer to the
Holiness Movement understanding of entire sanctification than to
Wesley's view." However, Macarius taught degrees of perfection
and that a person grows and comes to a perfect man only
gradually, "not as some say, 'Off with one coat and on with
another.'"
The hyphen in the title Wesleyan-Holiness indicates the
hybrid nature of Grider's theology. Grider knows they are not
one and the same. Yet hybrids cannot reproduce. Grider is too
Wesleyan to be accepted by the holiness movement and differs with
Wesley on too many points to be the true Wesleyan standard
bearer.
|
