WESLEYAN THEOLOGY AND THE USE OF MODELS

by

Alden Aiken

In a world that is very much aware of the importance of communication, we who hold to the Wesleyan position on Christian holiness should be concerned about how we can best "tell it like it is" regarding holiness. We would do well to give careful attention to the relationship between the spiritual realities of which we speak and the words used to indicate those realities.

It has often been pointed out that the New Testament is written in Koine Greek, "the language of the masses." What has that to do with what goes on in the holiness pulpit? Lots! Lots if you are aware of the fact that language is made up of individual words, words that so often come out of purely empirical experience. The writers use the ordinary language of the people to communicate truth about what happens in man's heart and life as he is touched by the grace of God. That means that ordinary words like destroy and death of are used to speak of what happens to the sin nature as man is deeply affected by the grace of God.

Turner argues for the use of substantive terms in explicating Wesleyan theology. He says, "Concrete terms and pictorial language are widely used in Scripture with no impairment to effective communication . . ."¹ I would suggest that the spiritual meaning of those words will come through clearly and without misunderstanding only as we carefully articulate the way in which those words are used. I am suggesting that we see those words as models.

Ian Ramsey (1915-1972, Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at Oxford and Bishop of Durham) suggests the use of models in speaking to the non-Christian the truth of the gospel. My reading in Ramsey and in John Wesley led me to see that the philosopher/theologian of the twentieth century and the revivalist/theologian of the eighteenth century have something in common in the way in which they use words to communicate spiritual reality.

The idea of speaking of the sin nature as a "thing" is often given extremely rough treatment by Wesleyans. It rather seems to me that about the only time that idea is not "kicked" is when it is thought to be dead. Not so with Wesley! How could anyone ever suggest that Wesley speaks of the sin nature as a thing? It is my thesis that, after trying to stomp the idea to death over and over, we must deal with the fact that Wesley does indeed speak of the sin nature in that way. Back to that later.

Ramsey and Models

My purpose in this paper is to show how Ramsey's thought may help us to clarify some thinking about the Wesleyan concept of holiness, and to suggest that the use of models will help us to communicate our ideas on the abundant life to other Christians.

A major thesis of Ramsey is that in order to speak meaningfully of God we must use words that have an empirical base, words that are associated with the bare facts of human existence.

My own interest in Ramsey's thought was aroused as I read of his concept of models and qualifiers. He wants us to realize that when we speak of God we are using models. He says that the model is close in meaning to metaphor. The models are not descriptive miniatures; they are not picture enlargements. He does say that between the model and the phenomena there is a "similarity-with-a-difference" and that indeed "generates insight."² That "difference" is very important to Ramsey.

Ramsey says that language about God "eludes direct statement."³ He maintains that when we talk about God we must not use language that is "descriptive through and through."⁴ I see some dangers in Ramsey's position and I maintain that we must hold to the conviction that our concepts regarding spiritual truth are reliable. But we must also admit, because mystery is involved, that we do not speak in the same way of the workings of God in the human heart that we speak in when we refer to empirical reality When we speak of what God does in the hearts of persons, we do not speak with the same sort of directness with which we speak when we say, "The cat is on the mat."

With me at first that was "rubbing the cat the wrong way. " I had been exposed to Francis Schaeffer with his strong insistence upon the reliability of propositional truth. And I had been brought up in the Church and was taught to sing

But of one thing I am sure! . . .

I have no question about my relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ. But through contact with Ramsey, I have learned to look differently at the language we use when we speak of God and the issues in our lives that are related to Him. Ramsey is really telling us that when we speak of spiritual realities such as being saved or being sanctified we do not speak with the same kind of directness that is there when we say, "The cat is on the mat." For me, that does not shake faith in the certainty of spiritual propositions; but it is a recognition of the fact that when we speak of spiritual realities we must use words that come out of human existence as it could be without direct reference to God. Words like cleansed and destroyed reflect a spiritual reality but they have their base in empirical experience.

It is Ramsey's position that the model will "never talk with complete intelligibility about what is ultimately mysterious."⁵ I do not agree entirely with Ramsey, but what is important to this study is that no one model can ever reflect a full understanding of a spiritual experience. He puts it this way--"A model by its very character will never give us the full story."⁶

One example of Ramsey's use of models and qualifiers is to be seen in the way in which he speaks of God as Heavenly Father. Father is the model and heavenly is the qualifier. When we use the word father as a model we are saying in effect, "There is something about God that is something like an earthly father. " He is not exactly like an earthly father so we must qualify the model with the word heavenly. He suggests also that we qualify models with the use of other models in some cases. We also speak of God as

Judge, King, etc. Then we spread the models out before our minds and with them qualifying one another we have a significant disclosure regarding the nature of God.⁷

Ramsey also discusses the atonement in terms of models. He sees redemption as a model. He makes this incisive comment:

The way in which redemption has sometimes been understood in the Church, is in Ramsey's opinion, an example of the failure to see that when we talk about spiritual realities we are not using language that is "descriptive through and through."

I see a very important distinction between what is called symbolical use of language to speak of God and Ramsey's use of models. I am not suggesting that we may speak only symbolically of God or of the workings of God. It is my understanding that symbolical language leaves us in the position where we in fact forsake the concept of meaningful propositional truth. It is my observation that when we are speaking symbolically of God we must at some point deny the symbol or speak incorrectly of God. But we need never abandon the model.⁹ For this reason I see the model-qualifier method, rather than the use of symbol, as a reliable way of speaking of God.

We may speak reliably and preach with authority with this understanding of the use of words. So often the words we use to communicate spiritual truth have their base in empirical experience. We do well to recognize that fact and to see that the words are models and that used with the proper qualifiers they may lead to significant disclosures.

The Bible and the Use of Models

In any approach to truth and meaning it is appropriate that we very soon deal with the question as to whether that approach is consistent with truth and meaning as it is set out in the Bible. I want to deal with a few passages from the New Testament and will attempt to show that in those passages models are used.

A few years ago I had what was to me an interesting conversation with a Lutheran pastor friend. He insisted that since the New Testament promises us that by faith in Christ we become God's sons that we are always God's sons. I must be, he earnestly contended, the son of my (earthly) father regardless of what notorious or despicable thing I may do. I tried to tell my friend that sonship is only one of the ways in which the New Testament speaks of the relationship to God that I enter into by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I wish that I had known about models. The model concept clarifies what I was trying to say. Of the relationship to God that I enter into by faith in Christ, son is a model (Romans 8:14-15) and servant is another (John 12:26). If we think of sonship and servanthood as more than models then the two ideas clash. A son is not a servant. There is a very different relationship between a man and his son and a man and his servant. We are not at times the sons of God and at other times his servants. But we are indeed in a grace relationship to God by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. One model of that relationship is son and another is servant. If we see the se as more than models, then the ideas clash and we end up with what is indeed "unedifying discourse."

Speaking of sons and servants, one is reminded of a rather well-known statement of Wesley. He records, "I had even then [while a missionary in Georgia and before] the faith of a servant, though not that of a son."¹⁰ As he looks back, he is convinced that his faith was not all that it should have been and yet he does not make an outright denial of having been converted. Curnock says that Wesley later comes back to this entry and writes (in relationship to his conversion), "I am not sure of this."¹¹ With my understanding of models I hold that all the way along we must have both the faith of a servant and the faith of a son. Both are models.

The Lord Jesus says, "No longer do I call you slaves; . . . but I have called you friends" (John 15:15).¹² He proceeds (in verse 20) to tell them to go on thinking of themselves as his slaves, "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A slave is not greater than his master. ' . . . they will also." The inference is clear that the friend of Jesus is also the slave of Jesus. Both of those models give meaningful insight into the relationship to God that is mine by faith.

We may properly say that our relationship to God is something like that between a son and an earthly father-not exactly (the model never presenting the full story) but something like that (the model indicating a similarity-with-a-difference). Or we may say that our relationship to Him is something like that of a servant to a master, not exactly but like that. And there are other models such as friend, and considered together they qualify one another and they give us a reliable representation of our relationship with God in Christ.

John Wesley and the Models Idea

Of course it would be anachronistic to say that John Wesley is Ramseyan in the use of models. It is my thesis that Wesley has an understanding of the Scripture and of communication that enables him to use, at various points in setting out doctrine, the kind of thinking that Ramsey espouses.

What I attempt here is by no means a comprehensive view of Wesley's thought. I want to touch on some of his writings and I cite what I see to be representative statements. We must not overdo the "early" and "late" Wesley. He says, "I defy any man living to prove that I have contradicted myself at all in any of these writings which I have published from the year 1738 to the year 1788.''¹³

I deal here with some words that he uses as he speaks of the second work of grace and some issues related to it and to some of its results.

It is important to see that Wesley is not rigid and hard in his use of theological terms. He can use words as "models." He writes, "I met about thirty persons who had experienced a deep work of God. And whether they be saved from sin [italics mine] or no, they are certainly full of faith and love."¹⁴ In several places he makes reference to individuals who believed that they were "saved from sin" (italics mine). And he talks about "persons whom I believe to be saved from sin" (italics mine).¹⁵ These statements suggest to me the "models" kind of thinking. In the first case (mentioned in this paragraph) the satisfactory model is "full of faith and love " and in the other the model he uses is "saved from sin."

Wesley is not prepared to "argue to the death" in every case that the model saved from sin must be used. He sees that as a model. He can use the model at one time and not insist upon it at another. And he doesn't get uptight about it because "a model by its very character will never give us the full story."¹⁶ When you understand that a word or a phrase is not intended to tell the whole story, then you can tentatively drop it without feeling that the bottom has dropped out of your whole theological system. We can learn from Wesley that we do not need to be rigid about the use of words when there are so many models pointing in the same direction.

Now back to this matter of Wesley speaking of the sin nature as a "thing"--reading Wesley with a certain slant, one discovers that he is the "ring leader" of that notorious batch of "thing thinkers." He cites, plainly with favor, the testimony of one Grace Caddy, ". . . I felt the remains of sin [all italics in this paragraph mine] in my heart, which I longed to have taken away."¹⁷ In the sermon, "The Scripture Way of Salvation," he says that one should not assume "that all sin is destroyed, root and branch the moment a

man is justified."¹⁸ Now sin is not only something that remains but now it has root and branch. Then when we go to his sermon, "The Repentance of Believers," he might appear to be getting into hopelessly deep theological water over his "thing thinking" about the sin nature. Here he not only calls sin the "inbred monster" but he gives it a "face."¹⁹

E. H. Sugden comments on the paragraph (in the sermon "The Scripture Way of Salvation") in which Wesley makes reference to the moment in which "sin ceases to be" and goes on to say "that the Lord should destroy sin." Sugden comments:

It seems obvious to me, from the above quotes from Wesley, why Sugden would say that. But he is not correct. He is taking Wesley to be using language that is "descriptive through and through." He gets too "articulate" with Wesley's words here and as sure as anything the "unedifying discourse" follows. Wesley's words here should be seen as models.

What I am suggesting is that we must distinguish between the way in which Wesley often speaks (especially in preaching) of the sin nature and the way in which he thinks of the sin nature. That is crucial to understanding him, and anyone who uses the models kind of thinking. Wesley does not see sin as a thing to be removed. He sees it, in his own words, as a "proneness to evil" or a "tendency to self-will."²¹ But how do you communicate the stark and shocking reality of that "proneness" or that "tendency" that is so strong? You use models.

We do well to say, "Yes, Wesley does speak of the sin nature as a thing!" But when he does he is using language in the way that Ramsey advocates. Sin is real and it so profoundly affects persons that to even approximate adequacy in communicating its reality, we must, in one sense do "thing thinking!" We must use words that would suggest "thingness" of the sin nature but realize all the while that we are using models, words indicating a "similarity-with-a-difference." We are human, and for now at least anchored to an empirical world, and models enable us to come to a meaningful disclosure of spiritual realities. And we see too that the grace of God is so effective in dealing with man's deep need, that when it is dealt with, it is something like a root being pulled out or an evil thing being destroyed, so powerful and effective is the grace of God.

According to Wesley, what sort of life is possible when the "monster with the ugly face" ceases to be? What can be said of the life that is the result of the second work of grace?

Wesley sees the possibility of a life of Christian perfection. In the sermon, "The Scripture Way of Salvation," (and other places as well) he uses perfection as the model and Christian as the qualifier. In that sermon he carefully sets out the ways in which the Christian is not perfect (having infirmities, etc.). But there is a perfection qualified by the word Christian. And by Christian he means one "that . . . sinneth not."²²

In "A Short History. . .," Wesley says that in Dublin about forty persons enjoyed "the pure love of God." He goes on to say that about the same number received the remission of sins. In just a few pages in "A Short History . . .," I took note of three references in which love is the model and pure is the qualifier.²³

It is interesting to me that Wesley often uses salvation as the model for the life that flows out of the experience of entire sanctification. He quotes a letter from Samuel Meggot in which the writer says, "at least twenty persons have found peace with God, and twenty-eight the great salvation [italics mine]. This morning one found peace with God and one the second blessing."²⁴ Clearly the great salvation grows out of the second blessing. At other times Wesley uses salvation as the model and full as the qualifier.

Wesley asks at one time why it is that there are so few witnesses to full salvation. He gets the answer, "We never expected it to come in a moment, by simple faith, in the very same manner as we received justification."²⁵

Wesley is not out to drive into everyone's head "holiness properly so-called." He even advises one woman that she should "not be careful about this or that name [for the blessing received]. Do not reason one moment what to call it, whether perfection [italics mine] or anything else."²⁶ He is able to see that no one word or phrase says it all. There are a number of models that could be used. Each contributes some insight. Together they lead to meaningful disclosure.

Telling it Like it Is

Wesleyans have not always clearly articulated the relationship between the spiritual realities spoken of and the words used to indicate them. I am suggesting that we set forth that relationship in terms of models.

I am not simply trying to make a case for the use of more than one word to express what takes place in the second work of grace. It is not the case that one model tells the story from one point of view and another from another. No one model tells the whole story.

I would suggest some work with a formula:

A (baptized with the Holy Spirit)²⁷

B (cleansed from sin)

C (sanctified wholly)

S (the full articulation of the second work of grace)

First of all I would suggest what we must not assume: It is not correct to say that

A = S, or that B = S, or that C = S.

And it is not correct to say

A + B + C (+ any other number of models) = S.

It is correct to say

A is less than S, B is less than S, C is less than S,

and to say,

A gives meaningful insight into S,

B gives meaningful insight into S,

C gives meaningful insight into S.

We could set it out this way-

In the formula, I use only A, B, and C; but a number of models could be added. That same sort of work could be done with the models that point to the lived-out life of holiness.

Well, I don't talk like that in the pulpit--I'm just a "plain old country boy preacher." As I pray for the anointing of the Holy Spirit, I preach at one time on the baptism with the Holy Spirit and at another time on cleansing from sin and at another time on entire sanctification. One model gives enough insight to John so that he understands enough of the experience to be hungry for it. Mary may be led to hunger for a deeper relationship with Christ through insight from the baptism model. And Sue may need lots of preaching and teaching on various models before the "light comes on." I almost always say, when preaching on one of these subjects, "This is only one way to say what God does in the deeper work of grace."

Ramsey suggests that various models (redemption, etc.) enable us to say something meaningful about the atonement. But he cautions, "When we become to any degree articulate in terms of these models the discourse bristles with difficulties."²⁸ In that statement is a good word for the Wesleyan theologian. We've used the word destroyed to describe what happens to the sin nature when one experiences the second work of grace. I see that word as a model and it is true that when we try to stretch the model out too far or w hen we become too articulate, our discourse "bristles with difficulties." We should see such words as destroyed, cleansed, death of as models to describe the work of God in the heart (another model) of the believer as He deals with the sin nature. If we run these models too far down the wrong path we will be faced with the same problem that confronted those who took the redemption model too far. The question is asked, "To whom was the ransom price paid?" If we fail to see these words as models indicating the way in which the sin nature is dealt with then we can find ourselves in similar difficulty: "If the sin nature was really destroyed, then how could the individual ever sin again?" Seeing these words as models we will not become too "articulate" and so will avoid needless theological difficulties.

Even though Wesleyans use more than one word to describe the results of the second work of grace, we must be alert to the fact that no one word or phrase tells the whole story. No word presents a literal account.

I realize at least some of the danger of being misunderstood when suggesting that we are using words that are not literal descriptions of what takes place. Yet we do accept this (I hope) in relation to the atonement. We understand that we are being biblical when we sing with great joy, "Redeemed-how I love to proclaim it!" But we do not hold that God laid so much "cash on the barrelhead" to set us free from that cruel master Satan. The word is a model.

I am not suggesting that all biblical words are models. This is no attempt to set out a complete hermeneutic. When we read of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus we are not seeing a model. That is literally what took place. I am calling for a certain view of a number of words that we use in relation to the second work of grace and the life that grows out of that (although I tried to illustrate that view with reference to some other areas also). It is my understanding that the Bible gives us a number of models that, qualifying one another, lead to meaningful insight regarding the abundant life possible by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I do not see these models as synonyms. One model may or may not be even close in meaning to another.

The statement of John the Baptist is a good indication of this usage in the New Testament: "I baptize (baptizo) you in water.... He Himself will baptize (baptisei) you with the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 3:11).²⁹ It is clear that Jesus will not do with the Holy Spirit exactly and literally what John does with water.

When the Lord Jesus is around the table with His followers at that solemn supper, near in time to His death, He will "dip (bapsas) the morsel" (John 13:26). The morsel gets affected through and through by the stuff it is dipped into. It is not the whole story, but to be baptized with the Holy Spirit is to be affected by the Holy Spirit in a way somewhat like a body is affected by water poured over it or into which it is immersed. Or the spirit of man is affected something like bread is affected by the liquid it is soaked in. Surely that model will give some insight. The word baptism understood as a model has ethical content. It does not simply indicate an experience: The Spirit, being holy, has an influence in the direction of a holy life.

In one familiar reference the Apostle Paul says "Be filled (plerousthe) with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18). John in another place tells us that Mary takes a pound of very costly spikenard-ointment and anoints the feet of Jesus. The house is "filled (eplerothe) with the fragrance of the ointment" (John 12:3). What a way to model the life of holiness! The life that honors the Lord Jesus is the life that is filled with the fragrance of the Holy Spirit.

The words we use regarding the relationship between the believer and the Holy Spirit are reliable ones. No one is "descriptive through and through" of the second work of grace or of the resulting life. It is something like being baptized or being filled. Other models such as dwell (Rom. 8:9 and 1 Cor. 3:16) could be used. All give some insight. Together, qualifying one another, they present a reliable account.

Paul prays for the Thessalonians, "May the God of peace Himself sanctify (hagiasai) you entirely" (I Thess. 5:23). Jesus says, "For their sakes I sanctify (hagiazo) Myself" (John 17:19). Surely what Paul prays for the Thessalonians is not exactly what Jesus does to Himself on our behalf. In both cases models are used. Jesus says that the temple "sanctifies (hagiasas) the gold" (Matt. 23:17). The temple sets apart the gold for sacred use. It had t o be the very best when presented. No impurities! The entire sanctification of the person is something like that-not exactly like that because persons are not like chunks of metal, not even precious metal.

The writer to the Hebrews promises that the blood of Christ (will) "cleanse (kathariei) from dead works" (Heb. 9:14). A little farther on (9:22) he says that according to the Law one can almost say "all things are cleansed (kathariksetai) with blood." Surely cleansed cannot mean exactly the same thing in both cases. Models!

Matthew tells of an instance where Jesus stretches out His hand to a leper and says, "Be cleansed (katharistheti) (Matt. 8:3). How can you describe the working of God in the human personality? It is similar to but not exactly like the cleansing of a leper. In what way is it similar? In what way is it different? The answers are found only in diligent study of the Word.

Purkiser points out the fact that the soul, the conscience, and the heart are all mentioned as objects of the divine cleansing.³⁰ I suggest that each is a model of the self.

With the realization that we are dealing with models there is not any need to explain why the New Testament teaches that the mind is to be renewed, the conscience is cleansed, the "you" is filled with the Holy Spirit, the innermost being is the "place" from which flow rivers of living water. It seems to me that there would be need to explain, were we dealing with exact and literal descriptions, why it is the mind that is renewed rather than the conscience, etc. And we do not need to get uptight about the Bible's lack of smooth transitions from one type of text to another.³¹

I am not at all suggesting that the etymology of these words be ignored. We just can't be honest with the texts without being aware of the work that has been done regarding the developed meaning of these words. But we should see the development of these words as the development of models.

I recommend Christian perfection as one important model and qualifier to point to the life that is lived out of the second work of grace. Perfection is a biblical word. Some preaching has claimed more for the word than some of us understand should be claimed. The model is open to misunderstanding (just as is love and many other models). But even with that, I see it as a good model-both Christians and non-Christians need to hear clearly the ethical demands of the faith. The model is qualified by the word Christian and that should help us to be on our guard against the unbiblical use of the model perfection. It is appropriate that Christian be the qualifier because it points to the believer's relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ. We must give careful attention to that which enables us to make Christ clearly visible in our teaching and preaching.

Just as we are forbidden to make graven images, so we are hindered by this approach from building shrines around certain words. It is incumbent upon us that we be mindful of the vast wealth of models in the Bible, pointing to the second work of grace and the life of holiness.

Concluding Remarks

It has been my thesis that the writers of the New Testament employ a number of models to point to various aspects of our relationship to God and to express the meaning of the workings of God's grace in the lives of persons. I attempted to show that Wesley does this sort of thinking, at certain points at least. And I tried to show that our theologizing would be helped by this approach. It seems to me that in using this approach we are simply being consistent with truth. There are some important practical results that could come out of this study.

This insight, first of all, should have a decided effect upon our preaching. We must keep in mind the fact that "a model by its very character will never give t he full story."³² The holiness preacher must not stay with a group of texts that deal with one or a few models. We should fight the temptation to get so wrapped up in one type of text that we forget others that deal with the abundant life in Christ. When we go all-out for one model and neglect the others, then we fail to come to an adequate understanding of what the second work of grace is all about. Difficulties are created by any excessive emphasis upon a very proper model when that leads to the neglect o f others. Various models must be used, in order to bring our listeners to the point where through the Holy Spirit they come to a degree of understanding that could be thought of as a "significant disclosure," and that could be used by the Spirit in order to conviction.

We don't really give the full story even if we preach every Sunday on entire sanctification! We need to wrestle with truth while doing careful exegesis on all sorts of texts and come up with sound expository preaching. It is my impression that the Wesleyan movement would benefit from a greater emphasis upon expository preaching.

In a comment on Ramsey, I came across a good word of advice about preaching with this understanding--Barbour says of Ramsey, "He urges us to use as many models as possible; but we are to avoid mixing discourse deriving from different models."³³ How very important that is! When preaching on a text having to do with being filled with the Spirit, I must not, without any logical cross-over, go on to discuss the implication s of entire sanctification. Filled is a model as is sanctification: Both point in the same direction but have their own distinct meanings. With this approach the problem is not what to preach on but how to find enough time to mine the truth that is in so m any individual texts.

Another potential consequence of this perspective is the improvement of communication with our brothers and sisters of the Keswick position. I've heard persons say, in speaking of another of a different theological position, "Well we 're really saying the same thing, they're just using different words." And of others I've heard it said, "They really don't have anything in common with us." Neither statement is true of those who hold to the Keswick position. I suggest that it is proper t o say, "When the Keswick theologian is using certain models he/she is indeed saying the same thing." When using other models he/she is not saying the same thing.

In his biography of Duncan Campbell, Woolsey speaks of Campbell's second crisis experience. He writes, "Sometimes he referred to it as the 'baptism of the Holy Ghost' [I wish that he had said "with" rather than "of"!], 'the fullness of the Holy Spirit,' or an experience of 'full salvation.'"³⁴

Stephen Olford is a preacher rather than a theologian in a formal sense. It is my view that he accurately represents the Keswick position. I am to some degree familiar with his writings and I believe that when he says (in commenting on Acts 2:4) "God fills [italics mine] only the hearts and lives of those who have a receiving faith" that he is meaning by fills the same thing that I, as a Wesleyan, mean when I preach about being filled with the Spirit.³⁵

We do have our differences on the second work of grace and on the life of holiness, and related theological issues must not be ignored, but we should be very much alert to the fact that their position is in some ways like ours. They use some of the same models that we use. As we discuss with them the idea that we are both using models, sharing some, that discussion should lead to a deeper appreciation of those ideas that we do hold in common and to a greater willingness to discuss more openly the points on which we disagree.

There is another important outcome of this understanding--we are encouraged to celebrate. When we recognize that many models are necessary to express even one result of God's grace in Christ then we get some insight into how amazing that grace really is! With that realization we turn in grateful praise to the Lord Jesus Christ in whom we are made new creatures, who baptizes with His Holy Spirit, through whom we have the promise of the Spirit who will dwell, who suffers that He might sanctify, through whom the body of sin is destroyed, whose blood cleanses from all sin, who has perfected those who are sanctified.

All honor is His!

Notes

¹ George Allen Turner, Christian Holiness (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1977), p. 99.

² Ian Ramsey, Models and Mystery (London: University Press, 1964), p.

³ Ramsey, "A Logical Exploration of Some Christian Doctrines," Chicago Theological Seminary Register, LIII, no. 5 (May 1963), p. 2.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid., p. 30.

⁶ Ramsey, Christian Discourse (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 44.

⁷ Ibid., p. 38.

⁸ Ibid., p. 42.

⁹ For example, when we use height as a symbol of where God is, we must at some time abandon the symbol or we speak wrongly. And, on the other hand, when we use the model wise to speak of God and qualify that model with the word infinite (or infinitely), we never speak incorrectly of God.

¹⁰ The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., ed. Nehemiah Curnock (London: Charles H. Kelly, 1909), 1:423. Cited hereafter as Journal.

¹¹ Journal, 1:422, Editor's footnote.

¹² This and all quotations from the Bible are from the New American Standard Bible.

¹³ Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., ed. John Telford (London: The Epworth Press, 1931), 8:179. Cited hereafter as Letters.

¹⁴ "A Short History of the People Called Methodists," The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A. M, ed. Thomas Jackson, 3rd ed. (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1872), 13:350. Cited hereafter as Works.

¹⁵ Letters, 8:110.

¹⁶ Christian Discourse, p. 44.

¹⁷ Works, 13:364.

¹⁸Wesley's Standard Sermons, ed. Edward H. Sugden, 3rd ed. (London: The Epworth Press, 192 1), 2:456. Cited hereafter as Sermons.

¹⁹Sermons, 2:396.

²⁰Sermons, 2:459, Editor's footnote.

²¹Sermons, 2:454. ²²Sermons, 2:158, 163.

²³Works, 13:353-55. ²⁴Ibid, 13:361.

²⁵Works, 13:351. In some cases, as in this one, it is not possible to irrefutably distinguish between a model for the second work of grace and a model for the life that issues from that experience.

²⁶Letters, 4:183.

²⁷I am aware of some of the current debate in the Wesleyan Theological Society around the question of the relationship between the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the second work of grace. It may be that the view of baptism as a model could shed some light on that discussion.

²⁸Ramsey, Christian Discourse, p. 43.

²⁹Please see footnote 27. Beyond the few words that I deal with here are others that could be seen as models.

³⁰W. T. Purkiser, Sanctification and Its Synonyms (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1961), p. 47.

³¹It is important to remember the biblical writers' lack of concern about being systematic in their theology. As Wesleyans we've sometimes made some very neat distinctions between the results of the first and second works of grace. It is my impression that, especially with Paul, the emphasis is upon what is accomplished in the life of the believer. The stress is not upon a sharp distinction between the two works of grace. Rather Paul, as J. Harold Greenlee ("The Greek New Testament and the Message of Holiness" in Further Insights into Holiness [Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 19631, p. 83) says, places his emphasis "upon the facts and the fruit, as well as the necessity, of forgiveness and of holiness rather than upon the mechanics of the experience."

³²Ramsey Christian Discourse, p. 44.

³³Myths, Models and Paradigms (New York: Harper and Row, 1 974), p. 63.

³⁴Duncan Campbell (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1974), p. 52.

³⁵Stephen Olford, Heart Cry for Revival (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1974), p. 81.

Edited by KimberLee Bingham for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene University, 2000.