SANCTIFICATION AND SELFHOOD:
A PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE WESLEYAN MESSAGE

Rob L. Staples, Th. D.
Professor of Theology, Bethany Nazarene College

I . INTRODUCTION

We must begin with a disclaimer. The term "phenomenological analysis, " as used in the subtitle does not refer to all that the term connotes in contemporary philosophy. I do not propose to apply strictly all the epistemological techniques advanced by the phenomenologists such as Brentano, Husserl, Scheler, Otto and others. 1

And yet, at the risk of seeming to contradict myself, I do propose to use this epistemological methodology in a rather limited and elementary way. That is, I shall attempt to examine the Wesleyan message by "bracketing out" all that is "transcendent" in the Wesleyan understanding of sanctification and looking simply at that which is experienced subjectively. This means that we will not concern ourselves at first with what Kant would call the "noumenal, " or the "things-in-themselves" which transcend the bounds of our experience. Instead we will start with a descriptive analysis of inner experience, a type of reductionism ( not unlike that of Descartes), restricting our attention to phenomena, that is, to the data of pure consciousness. 2

Translated into theology, and applied to the problem at hand, this means that we will not be concerned about what God does for man when he sanctifies him, but simply with man's perception of what he experiences in his own human subjectivity.

In theology, as in other areas, it is often difficult to see the proverbial forest for the trees. Worse yet, sometimes we cannot even see the trees for the underbrush that has grown up and obscured our view By such a reductionism as here proposed. I would hope that we can clear the ground of some needless theological underbrush, so that the sturdy doctrinal trees of our Wesleyan faith may stand tall and unobstructed.

I will sketch my thoughts along this line by stating and briefly elaborating five theses. Martin Luther offered "Ninety-Five Theses" which sparked a Reformation. My list is more brief. I offer only five. And my goal is much more modest. No Reformation is anticipated! I hope only to stimulate some thought regarding (if I might again press into use an admittedly tired term) the "contemporary relevance" of the Wesleyan message.

The "phenomenological analysis" I am suggesting centers in thesis number three. But first it is necessary to lay a foundation in theses one and two. Then theses four and five will follow through with some implications arising from such an analysis. Now to the matter at hand.

II. SUBSTANCE AND STRUCTURE

Thesis 1: In John Wesley's thought, there is a clearly discernible distinction between the "substance" of sanctification and the "structure" of sanctification- a distinction which later Wesleyanism has tended to obscure.

First some definitions are called for. By "substance, " I refer to the essential content of sanctification, the "what" of holiness. By "structure, " I refer to the "how" and the "when. " Substance refers to what holiness is, structure to the process involved in attaining it.

Admittedly these terms are not Wesley's own, but I am insisting that the concepts represented by the terms are his and that the distinction between them is crucial to an understanding of his doctrine. Perhaps other pairs of words could serve just as well-content and method, for instance, or end and means, or the Aristotelian terms matter and form. But I shall adhere to substance and structure if only for the convenience of alliteration .

Regarding the substance, Wesley always described the content of sanctification in terms of love. This has been documented many times. J. Ernest Rattenbury says:

The content of his (Wesley' s) doctrine, on the statement of which he always fell back when challenged, was very simple; it was to love God with all the heart, mind, soul, and strength, and one's neighbour as oneself, with the implication that such as love involved deliverance from all sin. 3

From the time of his encounter with the writings of William Law around 1727,4 Wesley's descriptions of Christian perfection contained the idea of love to God and neighbor. 5 It was in terms of love that the idea of perfection first made its impact upon him, and through all the developing sequences of his thought it is this original emphasis of love which recurs unchanged. 6 In his Oxford sermon of 1733 entitled The Circumcision of the Heart, love is the dominant note. 7 And in 1775 he could still write: "There is nothing deeper, there is nothing better in heaven or earth than love . . . Here is the height, here is the depth of Christian experience!" 8

In his sermon The Scripture Way of Salvation, Wesley says:

What is perfection? The word has various senses: here it means perfect love. It is love excluding sin; love filling the heart, taking up the whole capacity of the soul. 9

Similarly, in a letter to Walter Churchey, he says: "Entire sanctification, or Christian perfection, is neither more nor less than pure love-love expelling sin and governing both the heart and life of a child of God. 1l 10 Here is the most concise definition that Wesley ever gave of what we are here calling the substance of sanctification. It is love excluding, or expelling, sin.

Now let us consider Wesley's view of the structure of sanctification. Wesley had a great deal to say about states, stages, and degrees in religious experience. David L. Cubie has clearly shown how Wesley used these terms. 11 Under the category of states, Wesley compares men in different conditions of life, while stages and degrees occur within the life of grace. The three states are: ( l) "the natural man, " (2) the man "under the law, " and (3) the man "under grace." 12

The stages are expressed in various ways by Wesley. With- in the Christian life there are stages of faith, of assurance, of sinlessness, and of love. 13 Like the stages, the degrees occur within the Christian life, but whereas the stages are perfectible, there is no "perfection of degrees. 1'l4 Degrees express the gradual increase of God's work in the soul and increase throughout eternity.

The stages differ from the states in that they are stages of grace within the Christian life. They differ from degrees in that they represent recognizable levels of achievement within the Christian life. 15

We are interested primarily in the stages, particularly the stages of love within the total process of sanctification. In the sermon The Scripture Way of Salvation, Wesley gives a fairly detailed account of the stages of the Christian life. 16 From this and other sources it is obvious that Wesley viewed salvation as a teleological process comprising a series of stages and aiming at the perfection of man. 17 Sanctification is seen as a gradual process within which there is the supervention of two instantaneous events. In the sermon Working Out Our Own Salvation, Wesley says that sanctification "begins the moment we are justified" and "gradually increases from that moment . . . till, in another instant the heart is cleansed from all sin, and filled with pure love to God and man. 1l18 These two "moments" or "instants" are factors to which later Wesleyan theologians such as H. Orton Wiley refer as "initial sanctification" which is concomitant with justification, and "entire sanctification" which is subsequent to it. 19 These two "moments" are basic to what we have designated as the structure of sanctification.

Thesis number one contains the suggestion that later Wesleyanism hastened to obscure Wesley's distinction between substance and structure. To Wesley the structure was less important than the substance. Sometimes in our zeal for holiness evangelism we have inverted this emphasis almost to the point of making the substance incidental to the structure, and the structure, more than the substance, has been communicated to our people as being the Wesleyan "distinctive" and the test of Wesleyan "orthodoxy." To the extent that this is true, we have departed from Wesley's admonition: "Let this love be attained, by whatever means, and I am content; I desire no more. All is well, if we love the Lord our God with all our heart and our neighbour as ourselves." 20

III. SCRIPTURE AND EXPERIENCE

Thesis 2: For the "substance" of sanctification, Wesley's primary authority was Scripture, but for the "structure" of sanctification his primary authority was experience-a fact which later Wesleyanism has tended to ignore.

There can be little doubt about the first claim, namely that Wesley had scriptural authority for his idea of the goal of sanctification as "love excluding sin. " From as early as 1730, when he began to be homo unius libri, love was accepted as the "one thing needful" and the goal of his religious quest. 21 Throughout his ministry, perfection was described as "the love of God and man producing all those fruits which are described in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, 1l22 and First Corinthians 13 was thought to contain "the height and depth of genuine perfection . . . the love of our neighbour flowing from the love of God. 1l23 He insisted that to define perfection as anything other than love was unscriptural. 24 "Pure love reigning alone in the heart and life" was "the whole of scriptural perfection, 1l25 and "this perfection cannot be a delusion, " he said, "unless the Bible be a delusion too." 26 The only way to avoid setting perfection too high or too low, Wesley was convinced, was "by keeping to the Bible, and setting it just as high as the Scripture does." 27 And the Scripture, he was equally convinced, stated perfection only in terms of love. "It is nothing higher and nothing lower than this,-the pure love of God and man; the loving God with all our heart and soul, and our neighbour as ourselves." 28 Of course, in his examination of the religious experiences of many persons, Wesley found support for his concept of "love excluding sin. "129 But the testimonies of these "living witnesses" only confirmed what he had already found in Scripture.

But what about the claim that Wesley's chief authority for the structure of sanctification was experience rather than Scripture? It is significant that although as early as 1729 or 1730 Wesley had a clear idea of the substance, his understanding of the structure did not develop until sometime after the Aldersgate experience of 1738. In the latter part of 1738 Wesley began to collect accounts of the religious experiences of those whose testimony impressed him. This was the beginning of what John Peters calls "that clinical collection of personal testimony which with its emphasis on experience was increasingly to affect Wesley's doctrine of Christian perfection." 30 This collecting of experiential evidence was to continue for over a quarter of a century, 31 during which time he was increasingly convinced of the validity of an instantaneous attainment of full sanctification. For twenty years after Aldersgate the ideas of gradual sanctification and instantaneous sanctification were held in tension, with the stress sometimes predominantly on the one and sometimes on the other. But after several revivals broke out in England and Ireland, in the years 1759 to 1762, in which many persons testified to having been filled with love and cleansed from sin, 32 Wesley began to construct a synthesis of the gradual and the instantaneous, after the analogy of physical death:

It is often difficult to perceive the instant when a man dies; yet there is an instant in which life ceases And if ever sin ceases, there must be a last moment of its existence, and a firat moment of our deliverance from it. 33

Thus the process of sanctification-or "love excluding sin"- which begins in the new birth is brought to completion in a second crisis moment which is "not so early as justification" and "not so late as death. "34 This is the structure of sanctification to which Wesley was impelled by the authority of experience.

But did Wesley find any scriptural authority for the structure? 35 For certain aspects of the structure, he did. First, he was certain that Scripture, as well as experience, taught that sin remains in believers after the new birth. 36 Secondly, he found support in Scripture, as well as in experience, for the possibility of entire sanctification in this present life. 37 Even here, however, the weight Wesley gave to the authority of experience is seen in his willingness to stop preaching the possibility of perfection in this life if it could be shown that no one had attained it. In such a case he would assume that he had interpreted the Scriptures wrongly. 38 But when Wesley went to the Scriptures to determine if entire sanctification was given gradually or instantaneously, he came to a startling conclusion:

Does he work it gradually, by slow degrees; or instantaneously, in a moment?. . . The Scriptures are silent upon the subject; because the point is not determined, at least not in express terms, in any part of the oracles of God. Every man therefore may abound in his own sense, provided he will allow the same liberty to his neighbour. 39

Thesis number two, then, appears valid. Wesley's authority for the substance, "love excluding sin", was scriptural, but his authority for the structure (a process comprising two instantaneous crises: "initial" and "entire" sanctification) was primarily experiential, i.e. psychological.

IV. SANCTIFICATION AND SELFHOOD

Thesis 3: The twofold structure of sanctification arises out of, and is implicit in, a twofold structure which is inherent in normal personality development-a fact which Wesleyanism in general has seldom recognized.

What was there in "experience" that convinced Wesley? Did he rightly interpret the data of experience? Is there any way to test his interpretation? If, as he said, "the Scriptures are silent" regarding the structure of sanctification, does psychology have anything to say?

Here is where phenomenological analysis may help. In phenomenological analysis we look for meanings in the original utterances and experiences of man before they have become the building blocks of a dogmatic system. This is no criticism of dogmatics. Rather it is to recognize an elemental sequence, that life precedes logos, that experience precedes dogma. Be- fore we plunge very far into the theology of the church it is well to tarry awhile in the sphere of the "profane" (profanum, outside the temple), where much of man's life is lived. In phenomenological analysis we seek to do just that. We look for man's understanding of himself in his firsthand expressions and aspirations, more than in the creeds he constructs at second or third hand. Metaphorical descriptions precede metaphysical definitions. "Man is a poet before he becomes a propagandist. "40 He lives life, before he writes theology.

As in phenomenological analysis we take this "profane" or "humanistic" view, and scrutinize man's "lived life. "We put our doctrinal formulations to the test and invite others to see if our descriptions are true to the manner in which they see things . With reference to the Wesleyan message, if we state that sanctification involves two (i. e. a second in addition to conversion) instantaneous "works of grace, " is there any point of contact in man's "profane" experience which enables him to understand this statement? If not, there is little point in making the statement. But our third thesis proposes that there is such a point of contact.

There is a twofold structure in normal personality development. There are two supreme "moments" in the journey toward selfhood; two stages in one's becoming a whole person. We may call the first stage personal identity. Before we can become a mature person, both the umbilical cord and the apron string must be cut, psychologically as well as physically. The key word here is freedom. The question, "Who am I?" must find some kind of answer. We see this in infancy, as the child gradually distinguishes the "me" from the "you" and the "it. " It becomes crucial in adolescence, as the youth seeks to "do his own thing," singing "I've got to be me. " This search for identity and freedom is fraught with danger, but it is a necessary step on the road to selfhood. Such freedom is never absolute, but it is nevertheless real. Freedom, self-identity, knowing what and who I am- these constitute the first essentials in becoming a person.

The second stage may be called interpersonal responsibility. Freedom and self-identity are ultimately meaningless apart from responsible interpersonal involvement with other selves. Self- identity is logically prior to the development of responsible relationships; one who has not become a true self will not be able to sustain meaningful interpersonal relationships. But freedom grows stale unless it is invested. True self-consciousness must eventuate in self-commitment and self-communication. The key word here is love. 41

These two movements (the first toward self-interest and the second toward other-interest) are both essential to mature personhood. Interestingly, the two key words freedom and love figure prominently in the vocabulary of today's youth. Moreover, men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Buber have recognized these two phenomena in human existence and their significance in becoming a person. Two recurring phrases in Bonhoeffer's writings are "to be a man" and "a man for others." 42 Buber speaks of the "I-Thou relationship. " He says: "Love is responsibility of an I for a Thou. "43 But, as he makes clear, one can- not say "Thou" until he is able to truly say "I." 44

If, using phenomenological analysis, we "bracket out" all the transcendent or "religious" factors inhuman experience, the residue that remains will include this twofold structure of personality-identity and responsibility, freedom and love. I am suggesting that it is precisely this that gives validity to John Wesley' s twofold structure of sanctification. This is why experience was to him a valid criterion of truth. Wesley was no phenomenologist. But what phenomenology can uncover by means of an intricate reductionistic analysis of consciousness, Wesley "felt for" and found in his observations of the experiences of "living witnesses. " The Scriptures were silent (so he thought) regarding the structure of sanctification, but God had written it large in the very nature of the being whom He created in His own image.

V. THE LITURGY OF SANCTIFICATION

Thesis 4: This twofold structure which is inherent in personality development is embodied in the central liturgy of holiness evangelism-a fact which gives the liturgy its value and validity.

The word "liturgy" comes from the Greek leitos and ergon, and means literally "the people's work. " It refers to the ceremonial rites, rituals, and exercises performed by the worship- ping congregation in a church service. The liturgy is not an end in itself, but a means of bringing about the spiritual end that is sought. Liturgy may be an empty form; but it may also be a means of grace. Some liturgies are more elaborate than others but all churches have liturgy, and Wesleyan churches are no exception.

Here we are focusing on evangelistic liturgy, more particularly the liturgy of holiness evangelism. In most Wesleyan denominations this centers around the evangelistic invitation or the "altar call. " Sinners are invited to come to the altar and pray for forgiveness. Believers are invited to come seeking entire sanctification. These "two trips to the altar" constitute the central evangelistic "liturgy" or Wesleyan churches. Like all liturgies, this one may be a dead and empty form. But on the other hand, like other liturgies, it may be a means of grace; through these "two trips to the altar" one may find spiritual reality or substance, namely "love excluding sin. "

The writer does not know exactly how this liturgical form evolved in our history, but the important thing is to understand what it signifies. In thesis four, we are contending that the value and validity of this liturgy lies in the fact that it embodies the twofold structure of personality development, which, in turn, is the experiential ( psychological) basis of Wesley's two fold structure of sanctification.

Two important consequences follow from viewing our liturgy in this light: First, since it is seen as mere liturgy, it will not be idolized as an end in itself. We will, without apology, practice what we know to be true- -that the Holy Spirit is not confined to any liturgical form. We will let the wind blow where it wishes, 45 remembering Wesley's words: "There is an irreconcilable variability in the operations of the Holy Spirit on the souls of men." 46 Secondly, we will not be inclined, on the other hand, to cast lightly this liturgy aside in favor of other forms which do not have such psychological authenticity.

VI. BACK TO THE SCRIPTURES

Thesis 5: The kind of analysis outlined above, if followed through, can clear the way for a genuinely biblical proclamation of the Wesleyan message, in which the structure of sanctification, as well as its substance, will have firm scriptural support.

In our opening remarks, we mentioned the need for clearing the ground of some needless theological "underbrush" in the Wesleyan proclamation. This underbrush includes much unsound exegesis, faulty logic, and inappropriate analogy, by which we have often tried to "prove" two works of grace Non-Wesleyan evangelicals have often accused us of being unbiblical. And some- times their accusations have been correct !

We have shown that Wesley found no scriptural support for the instantaneousness of entire sanctification. This does not mean that Wesley was right, or that his is the final word. Certainly later Wesleyanism had done much "proof-texting" of this aspect of the doctrine, sometimes going to greater lengths to find scriptural support for the structure of sanctification than for its substance. I am not suggesting that we try to read the Scriptures completely devoid of presuppositions. This is impossible. We all bring to the Scriptures some pre-understanding. But some of the traditional presuppositions with which Wesleyans have approached the Scriptures have been unproductive and misleading. Being uncomfortable with Wesley's failure to find biblical support for the instantaneous "secondness" of entire sanctification (whenever we have been aware of this failure) we have tried to close this gap. Some of the material with which we have tried to plug it is exegetically weak.

If there is any value to our claim that there is something authentic in Wesley's induction from experience of two fold structure in sanctification, and if it is correct that a similar twofold structure is inherent in normal personality development, then we have a valid presupposition with which to approach Scripture- - a presupposition that promises to be productive. This is true for the simple reason that the Bible was written for persons and can be expected to speak authentically to man's personal needs.

Thus the Bible's picture of a Christian person will not differ greatly from the picture of a mature person presented by responsible psychologists. The only difference is that the Bible knows such personhood to be possible only by the grace of God. Still it is true that Christianity, and certainly holiness, does not make men non-human, sub-human or super-human. Sanctification, rightly understood, is a humanizing process, bringing us "to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" 47 who himself was the True Man. Wesley had a clear conception of the continuity between nature and grace. 48

Is there anything, then, in the biblical portrayal of mature manhood which corresponds with the two stages of personality development which our phenomenological analysis has revealed, namely, the stages of (1) personal identity or freedom, and (2) interpersonal responsibility or love? We believe there is. Space permits only one example. It is in the Apostle Paul's use of the Greek indicative and imperative moods. Richard E. Howard has written:

There is a distinction in Paul's thought that it is essential to recognize. It can be described as the contrast of She indicative and imperative. In the Greek of the New Testament it is graphically seen in the use of differing moods. The indicative mood depicts a simple assertion, in past, present, or future time-"this is, was or shall be. " The imperative mood depicts a commanding assertion- "this must be." 49

In his letters, Paul is writing to believers. When he speaks of what his converts "were" or "are" (even "shall be") it is the indicative; when he tells them what they "must do or be" it is the imperative. Moreover, the imperative is based on the indicative. Because of the indicative, Paul could command the imperative; because of what they were, he could point them to what they must be and do.

One instance of this usage in Paul is in the sixth chapter of Romans — a passage which has suffered its share of faulty exegesis at the hands of well-intentioned Wesleyans. In the early part of the chapter, using the metaphor of life and death, Paul employs several indicatives to point out what has happened to the believers to whom he is writing. For instance, they had "died to sin" (v. 2), had been "baptized into Christ Jesus" (v. 3), and "united with Him in the likeness of His death'' (v. 4). Furthermore, their ''old self was crucified'' (v. 6) and they had been "freed from sin'' (v. 7). 50 All of these are indicatives, describing what had already happened to them at conversion, when they had identified themselves with Christ's death. Furthermore, they are aorist indicatives. Although the use of the aorist tense is not, by itself, a sufficient argument for instantaneous or crisis action unless the context warrants it, Paul's use of it here surely points to the decisiveness and completedness (i.e., the crisis nature) of what had taken place.

Then Paul brings in the imperative. Among other admonitions, he tells them: " Present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God" (v. 13b). This imperative is aorist, suggesting that the act of ''presenting themselves" was to be a decisive and completed act. 51 In still another metaphor Paul shows the contrast of the indicative and imperative. He says: "Though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed" (v. 17; cf. v. 22). The context of these repeated indicatives is the analogy of slavery. When they were converted, they were freed from sin's slavery and had already become slaves to God in the sense of ownership (cf. vv. 17-18). Now they were to freely present themselves as slaves of God, in the sense of servitude, becoming his "love slaves."

So Paul voices again the imperative: "Now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification" (v. 19). Like the imperative in verse 13, this is given in the aorist tense.

These two crises depicted by the indicative and the imperative may be called (1) self-emancipation and (2) self-presentation-terms which are both psychological and Pauline. In the first crisis, the self is set free from the old life of sin; in the second this free self is presented (i. e. committed, dedicated, consecrated) to God in a decisive act "resulting in sanctification" (v. 19). 52

In this passage from the pen of Paul, we see the identical twofold structure which Wesley found in the religious experiences of his converts, and which our "phenomenological analysis" has found in the development of personality, i.e. personal identity (freedom) and interpersonal responsibility (love).

The objection could be raised that in Paul and Wesley there are clearly two crises indicated, but that in the phenomenology of personality there are only two "movements" or stages, which often overlap and both of which are usually long drawn out processes. But we must remember that in neither Wesley nor Paul are these crises isolated from all that goes before. To both, they are crises within a process, and apart from the whole process the crises would be meaningless. Conversely, even impersonality growth, progress is seldom at a smooth steady rate. Profound psychological experiences of all sorts commonly work up to a sudden climax, and the idea of crisis experience is not foreign to what we have called the "profane" sphere of normal personality development.

The point we are making in thesis five is that not only the sub- stance of sanctification, but the structure as well, can be found in the Scriptures-providing we approach the Scriptures with an understanding of what it is we are seeking there. The Scriptures are not silent (as Wesley wrongly supposed) regarding the structure. On this point, biblical exegesis and "phenomenological analysis" concur.

These, then, are the writer's five theses. He posts them on no church door-at Wittenberg or elsewhere ! He only hopes that they may stimulate significant thought inside the doors.

DOCUMENTATIONS

l. Rudolf Otto, more directly than the others, applied Phenomenology to religion. Cf. his The Idea of the Holy, trans. by John W. Harvey(London: Oxford University Press, 1923).

2. This Phenomenological method is briefly described in William S. Sahakian, History of Philosophy (New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1968), pp. 327-341.

3. J. Ernest Rattenbury, The Evangelical Doctrines of Charles Wesley's Hymns(London: The Epworth Press, 1941), p. 501.

4. The Works of the Rev. John Wesley (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. 14 Vols.; Reprint edition), XI, 367. Cited hereafter as Works.

5. Cf. Harald Lindstrom, Wesley and Sanctification (London: The Epworth Press, 1950), pp. 129ff.

6. Cf. John Leland Peters, Christian Perfection and American Methodism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1956), p. 54.

7. Wesley's Standard Sermons, ed. Edward H. Sugden (2 Vols.; London: The Epworth Press, 1921), I, 266-279. Cited hereafter as Sermons.

8. The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A. M., ed. John Tel- ford (8 Vols.; London: The Epworth Press, 1951, VI, 136. Cited hereafter as Letters.

9. Sermons, II, 448; Cf. Letters, IV, 192.

10. Letters, V, 223; Cf. Works, XI, 418.

11. David Livingstone Cubie, "John Wesley's Concept of Perfect Love: A Motif Analysis. " Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University Graduate School, 1965, pp. 253-268.

12. Cf. the sermon, "The Spirit of Bondage and of Adoption, " Sermons, 178- 198.

13. Cubie, pp. 254ff.

14. Works, VI, 5.

15. Cubie, p. 257.

16. Sermons, II, 244-48.

17. Cf. Lindstrom. pp. 113-125.

18. Works, p. 509.

19. H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1940), II, 423.

20. Letters, II, 75.

21. Letters, IV, 299.

22. Ibid., IV, 469-70.

23. Ibid., V, 268; cf. VII, 120.

24. Works, XI, 401; cf. p. 430.

25. Ibid., XI, 401.

26. Letters, V, 102- 103.

27. Works, XI, 397.

28. Ibid.

29. Cf. The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A. M., ed. Nehemiah Curnock (8 Vols.; New York: Eaton and Mains, 1909), II, 508, 530.

30. Peters, p. 28; cf. Journal, II, 108- 111.

31. For a full account of Wesley's collection and evaluation of the testimonies of "living witnesses, " see my "John Wesley's Doctrine of Christian Perfection: A Reinterpretation, " Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pacific School of Religion, 1963, pp. 165- 180.

32. Cf. Journal, IV, 366, 370, 372, 480, 532; V, 66, 97, 143, 356; Letters, IV, 133, 466, 465; V, 102, 258-59.

33. Works, XI, 442; cf. 402, Sermons, II, 459; Letters, VII, 222.

34. Works, XI, 441-42.

35. For the material in this paragraph, I am indebted to David Kauffman, one of my graduate students, who wrote a research paper on "John Wesley's Authority for Christian Perfection" (May, 1970) to test the validity of my "thesis number two. "

36. Sermons, II, 370ff.

37. Works, VI, 415ff; VIII, 294-297.

38. Ibid., XI, 405-406.

39. Ibid., VI, 490; italics mine.

40. Carl E. Braaten, The Future of God (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), p. 34. I am indebted to Braaten for the ideas expressed in this paragraph. Cf. pp. 31-57 where he applies phenomenological analysis to a different problem.

41. Dr. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop has helped me to see the significance of these two stages in personal growth and their importance for theology. She must not be held responsible, however, for any deficiencies in the application I am here making.

42. Cf. Letters and Papers from Prison (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967).

43. Martin Buber, I and Thou, trans. Ronald Gregor Smith (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), p. 15. Cf. Between Man and Man, trans. Ronald Gregor Smith (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955).

44. I and Thou, p. 3.

45. Cf. John 3:8.

46. Letters, VII, 298.

47. Eph. 4:13, RSV.

48. Works, VI, 512.

49. Richard E. Howard, "The Epistle to the Galatians, " Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1965), IX, 23. It is Professor Howard, my esteemed colleague, who has taught me the significance of the Greek indicative and imperative for Wesleyan theology. Cf. also his comments on pp. 90, 93, 111.

50. Scripture quotations in this and the following paragraphs are from the NASB.

51. There is some question about the significance of the aorist aktionsart in the imperative mood; of. C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1953), pp. 20, 135. But Blass and Debrunner state unequivocably: "The present and aorist imperatives differ in the same way as the imperfect and aorist indicatives; the present imperative is durative or iterative, the aorist imperative punctiliar. " Cf. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans. by Robert W. Funk (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 172. Of greatest importance in Romans 6:13 and 6:19 is Paul's decisive change from the present to the aorist imperatives.

52. In Romans 12:1, Paul again brings up the idea of "self-presentation, " using an aorist infinitive with imperative function.