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.