Issue 2, Fall 1998, Volume 16

THE ANTINOMIANISM OF

"ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"

Dan Corner

 

The word "antinomian" comes from the Greek anti (against) and nomos (law). It refers to the doctrine that it is not necessary for Christians to obey the moral law. In other words, faith frees the Christian from such obligations.

Though antithetical to Scripture, this view is popularly embraced by many who hold influential positions on radio and TV in our day and believe the teaching of "once saved, always saved" (OSAS). Under the heading of the "carnal Christian," OSAS teachers have especially spread antinomianism. The following are some of their actual teachings:

And so, sometimes out of ignorance or whatever it might be, they attempt to gratify and meet those needs the same way they did before they were saved, and therefore, you can't tell a carnal believer from a lost man. That is, you can't tell the cold from the carnal because the truth is, they're both acting the same way. Now, one of them is in Christ and one of them isn't. One of them is lost and the other one is in Christ. One of them knows about God and know him in the experience of salvation; the other doesn't know him at all (Charley Stanley, "Spiritual vs. Carnal: Study in 1 Corinthians," audiotape #8).

As far as overt behavior is concerned, a carnal believer cannot be distinguished from an unbeliever (R. B. Thieme, Jr., The Prodigal Son, p. 8).

So according to popular teachers of our day, a carnal Christian behaves the same way as the unsaved! Sadly, others, besides the ones just mentioned, have been teaching the same way. Yet, they seemingly go unchallenged.

Paul can only mean that these carnal Corinthians lived like unsaved men. That clarifies why the word carnal can label both unbelievers and believers, simply because the lifestyles of both are the same. The cure for the unbeliever's carnality is salvation; the cure for the believer's is to grow in the Lord (Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation, p. 62).

Ryrie then gives this definition of carnal: "To have the characteristics of an unsaved life either because one is an unbeliever or because though a believer, one is living like an unsaved person" (p. 155).

Chuck Swindoll made a similar assertion about one's understanding of the carnal Christian:

Let me clarify something because many, many in the family of God have no room in their theology for the carnal Christian, which creates tremendous confusion. If you don't understand the carnal Christian, you will begin to believe that you have fallen from grace. You will believe that you have been born again and then you will think later when you do these number of things, you have not been born again ("Clearing the Hurdle of Carnality: Selections from 1 Corinthians," audiotape #5).

According to Chuck Swindoll, one may have a misconception about falling from grace unless he understands the OSAS carnal Christian teaching! This teaching is a dangerous distortion of the image of true Christianity. Multitudes are being deceived by fabricating this new type of Christian, who is behaving just like the darkened, God-hating, hell-bound, Christ rejecters. Some are even open to the greatest possible danger, being thrown into eternal fire, yet are unaware of their danger.

This OSAS concept of the carnal Christian is refuted by Paul:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).

First, Paul stated through the use of a rhetorical question that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God. Then he told us that the wicked can be identified by their behavior. The sexually immoral, drunkards and the greedy, among others, are included in this group and will, therefore, be excluded from the kingdom unless they turn from their sins. No exception is made for those who previously believed on Christ. This is the true grace teaching of the Scriptures. Do not be deceived by the glib-speaking, OSAS teachers of our day who present grace in an antinomian way.

[See the review of Dan's book, The Believer's Conditional Security, in the previous issue of The Arminian. Visit Dan's web site <http://www.hhs.net/evangout or contact his ministry, Evangelical Outreach, at evangout@hhs.net. Also contact Dan for cassette tapes from the Bible Conference on the Believer's Security held at Wesleyan Chapel in Beckley, WV on September 25-27, 1998].

INTERPRETING THE WORD ACCURATELY:

2 Timothy 2:15

Vic Reasoner

The Fallacy of Teaching Two Baptisms

It has been claimed that there are two baptisms; that the Holy Spirit baptizes believers into the body of Christ and that subsequent to the new birth, Christ baptizes believers with the Holy Spirit. However, according to Ephesians 4:5 there is only one baptism.

Theologically, it is absurd to divide up the Trinity and teach that the Holy Spirit baptizes every believer into Christ at the new birth, but that Christ has not baptized every believer with the Spirit at that time. If there is a baptism by the Son and a baptism by the Spirit, why not also a baptism by the Father

Methodism never used the phrase "the baptism with the Spirit" to mark the moment one is entirely sanctified, even though their teaching is sometimes misrepresented by holiness advocates. The more honest writers from within the holiness movement acknowledge that their emphasis is not that of Wesley, but they sometimes claim to have "improved" on his teaching. John Wesley said, "I never yet baptized a real penitent who was not then baptized with the Holy Ghost." He noted that the "One Baptism includes the Outward Sign and the Inward Grace."

The biblical teaching concerning Spirit baptism is located in four passages or clusters of parallel passages. As we examine every passage in Scripture which refers to Spirit baptism, we will discover that this artificial distinction between Christ's baptism and the Spirit's baptism does not exist.

1. A parallel passage in the four gospels is a promise by John the Baptist that Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit. In Matt 3:11 and Luke 3:16 the statement is that "he will baptize you en the fire of the Holy Spirit." en can be translated in, with, or by.

In Mark 1:8 no preposition is used, but "Holy Spirit" is in the locative case. The locative case refers to position. Christ baptizes us into the sphere of the Holy Spirit.

While the declaration made in John 1:33 may not be exactly at the same time as the statement was made in the three synoptic gospels, John also uses the preposition en.

2. Two parallel passages in Acts record the promise of Christ that his disciples will be baptized en the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5; 11:16).

3. Romans 6:3-4 describes being baptized into (ei") Christ Jesus and raised to a new life. The preposition ei" was derived from en and gradually took over its functions until en dropped from usage in modern Greek.

This passage does not specifically mention the Holy Spirit and commentators are divided as to whether this is a reference to water or Spirit baptism. Although many people see the word "baptize" and immediately associate it with water, it is questionable whether Paul is speaking of the ritual of water baptism here. When we are baptized into Christ Jesus we are uniting with him in his death and resurrection. Through this baptism we die to the old life of sin and are raised from the dead that we may live a new life. A similar statement is found in Galatians 3:27, "for as many as were baptized into (ei") Christ, have put on Christ."

James D. G. Dunn says "baptism into Christ Jesus" is a metaphor. "It is drawn from baptism, but does not itself describe baptism, or contain within itself the thought of the water-rite, any more than did the synonymous metaphors of putting on Christ (Gal. 3:27) and being drenched with the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13)."

4. 1 Corinthians 12:13 declares that we were all baptized into one body by, in, or with (en) one Spirit. According to a misguided exegesis, this passage describes the initiation of the forgiven sinner into the Church. This initial baptism is by the Spirit; Christ will then baptize the believer with the Holy Spirit as a later event. The text does not allow for this interpretation for the following two reasons:

1) because this initial baptism is en the Holy Spirit. This same preposition has been the usual preposition used in the passages (listed under #1 and #2) which supposedly teach a subsequent baptism. No valid distinction can be made between a baptism by the Spirit and a baptism with the Spirit. The Greek preposition en can have either meaning.

Nowhere else in the New Testament does the Spirit do the baptizing, therefore en should probably not be translated "by." The Spirit is not the agent, but the element into which we are baptized. It is likely that here, as well, the Spirit is not the agent by which we are baptized, but, as Gordon Fee translates the phrase, "we are all immersed in the one Spirit, so as to become one body."

2) because this same verse gives further explanation that at the same time as this initial baptism we were all given one Spirit to drink. The distinction that we enter the body of Christ initially and that we receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit later contradicts the teaching of this verse. Both the verb "baptize" and the verb "give to drink" are exactly the same form (aeorist indicative passive). This indicates that both actions occurred at the same time.

Gordon Fee writes that the clause "and were all given one Spirit to drink" does not describe a second experience of same kind. Instead it is used metaphorically for baptism and both clauses should be interpreted as a form of parallelism making essentially the same point.

Actually this second verb, potizw (I give to drink), metaphorically carries the same meaning as to be filled. We drink of the Spirit and are filled with the Spirit at the same moment we are baptized with the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ. The command to be filled with the Spirit in Ephesians 5:18 is present passive imperative - keep filled or maintain the fullness of (en) the Spirit.

Having looked at every scriptural passage referring to Spirit baptism, we conclude that Christ is always the baptizer. He baptizes with the Spirit into the body of Christ or into the realm of the Spirit and the Church (the body of Christ).

By making the baptism with the Holy Spirit an experience subsequent to entrance into the kingdom of God, the modern holiness movement has obscured the significance of water baptism. Water baptism and Spirit baptism are two halves of one act or the one baptism. That one act or baptism is entrance into the kingdom of God. Baptism consists of an inward effusion of the Holy Spirit, outwardly typified by the application of water as its emblem. Water baptism, properly understood, is an outward sign of this inward grace. This is one event, not two; it is an act of initiation which occurs at the time of regeneration (see The Hole in the Holiness Movement, p. 46; see also Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit, Systematic Theology: Volume Three, pp. 181-2).

 

THE STRUGGLE FOR HOLINESS

Robert L. Brush

God's Revivalist printed an article entitled "Entire Sanctification: Must There Be a Struggle" (April, 1998). Subsequent letters to the editor expressed both approval and disapproval.

It appears that part of the problem concerning how to seek entire sanctification arises from a mistaken view of it. Entire sanctification is what the term implies, a completion of what was begun previously. It could be called "complete sanctification."

The usual holiness teaching concerning entire sanctification is from a perspective that a "mere Christian" is not fully consecrated, has never "died to self," does not fully follow the Lord, and has not been filled or baptized with the Holy Spirit. In short he is kind of a half-hearted Christian. I cannot find where such a Christianity is taught in the Bible.

Some of the words of Jesus mentioned in that article include Matthew 16:24, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me!" Now this obviously was not talking about some second work of grace subsequent to regeneration. Simply put, the plain, obvious meaning of the text is that to be a Christian at all (not a mature, perfected saint), one must deny himself, take up his cross and follow Christ!

How is this going to happen without some kind of a struggle Denying oneself is not a "walk in the park." Jesus also said, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate!" (Luke 13:24) Don't tell me there is no fighting, struggling, striving, and dying to get to heaven! It is a constant battle!

Not only is there a crisis when we first face the claims of Jesus Christ on our lives, there must be a constant vigil lest we lapse back to self indulgence. Paul said, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest . . . I should be a castaway" (1 Cor 9:27). That's not so easy either!

Two trips to the altar and a profession of the highest state of grace does not make us eternally secure. Often instantaneous sanctification is taught at the expense of the progressive aspect of sanctification. One publication contended that entire sanctification is always an instantaneous blessing, but never cited one single verse of scripture in their whole article.

Yes, there must be a struggle to get to heaven. Cutting off the right hand and plucking out the right eye is not exactly easy. Neither is forsaking all things to follow Christ.

There is not only a struggle to get saved, there is a constant struggle to remain in the grace of God. We are saved by grace through faith, but God does not give saving faith to the half-hearted, uncommitted "seeker." Jesus commanded, "Strive [agonize in the Greek text] to enter in at the strait gate; for many, I say unto you, will seek [half-heartedly] to enter in, and shall not be able" (Luke 13:24).

I fear we have leaned much too far toward the "short cut" method to holiness taught by Phoebe Palmer, which is certainly not scriptural nor Wesleyan. John Fletcher once said, "The soaring faith of an immoral Antinomian is far inferior to the abortive faith of an imperfect penitent, and even to doubting." I had rather die pleading the merits of Christ's blood than resting in a false hope that comes with this so called "taking it by faith."

I doubt if anyone ever gets saved without some kind of a crisis in which there is a real struggle against sin. As far as the "second work" of grace is concerned, there surely would have to be a conviction of inbred sin, which is sin yet remaining in the soul, before one could intelligently seek for complete cleansing from all sin. This, no doubt, would produce a "second crisis," a struggle against inward sin, and a trusting in the merits of Christ's blood until we receive faith to believe God's promises. Then the assurance will come that all my sin, even mine, has been cleansed and I am filled with the fullness of God.

The struggle for this complete holiness has driven some desperate souls to conclude falsely that the blessing was not possible in this life. While the Scriptures teach that Christ is able to save "to the uttermost" (Heb 7:25), it may be that some honest seekers has seen more truth than the glib, name-it-and-claim-it variety who profess to be cleansed from all sin, but have never struggled with their own deceitful heart (Jer 17:9).  

DEFINING BIBLICAL INERRANCY

Vic Reasoner

Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality, or with the social, physical, or life sciences ("The Meaning of Inerrancy," in Inerrancy, produced by The International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy).

In "Words of Faith," an award winning monthly column in the Herald of Holiness for June 1998, Dr. Rob Staples advocates "soteriological inerrancy," but denies "epistemological inerrancy." This has become a popular position within the Church of the Nazarene.

Epistemology deals with the nature, limits, and validity of knowledge. By sweeping this issue aside, Dr. Staples takes the position of limited inerrancy - that the Bible is without error when it deals with salvation, but should not be expected to be inerrant with regard to other subjects. Here Dr. Staples has redefined "inerrancy."

This is also a form of reductionism. To limit the Creator to the domain of "religion" destroys the unity between nature and grace. God is sovereign over every sphere of life and cannot be confined to matters of salvation only.

In the field of apologetics history, nature, prophecy, and miracles have been used to confirm Scripture. If the record is not accurate at these points, how do we know it is reliable when dealing with salvation

Francis Schaeffer said Christians do not have a problem with epistemology because truth can be objectively verified. God has revealed truth - propositional truth which can be verified. Therefore, we can operate on the basis of absolutes. Dr. Staples claims this knowledge is not important to Wesleyans. However, this position reduces Christianity to one of many options since every religion has its own way of salvation.

In his July column, "Authority," Dr. Staples concluded that the final religious authority for Christians is the gospel. Yet Paul warned against "another gospel" (Gal 1:6-9). Unless the Scriptures are accepted as our final authority (a major theme of the Protestant reformation), the content of the gospel can be changed. And in many cases today the gospel is being redefined.

If Scripture is not infallible, we will necessarily declare something else to be infallible. Tradition, reason, and experience are all insufficient authorities. We must hold to the faith delivered once for all to the saints through the writings of the prophets and apostles. A doctrine of limited inerrancy weakens the authority of Scripture.

Samuel Wakefield anticipated this position of limited inerrancy in 1862:

Some who advocate the doctrine of Divine inspiration limit it to the prophetical parts of Scripture; while others extend it to the doctrinal parts also, but not to the historical. There are many who maintain that the inspiration of the sacred writers was only occasional; that they were not always under that immediate and plenary [full] influence of the Holy Spirit which renders their writings the unerring word of God; and that consequently, as they were sometimes left to themselves, they then thought and reasoned like ordinary men. According to this notion, an intermixture of human infirmity and error is by no means excluded from the Sacred Scriptures. But if it is once granted that they are in the least degree alloyed with error, an opening is made for every imaginable corruption. And to admit that the sacred writers were only occasionally inspired, would involve us in the greatest perplexity; because, not knowing when they were or were not inspired, we could not determine what parts of their writings should be regarded as the infallible word of God. To tell us, therefore, that they were inspired only on certain occasions, while we have no means of ascertaining what those occasions were, is the same as to say that they were not inspired at all.

After taking a position for limited inerrancy, Dr. Staples then concedes that we cannot "separate the Bible's teachings about salvation from its statements about other matters and claim that the latter may contain errors, while those texts that speak of salvation do not. This would be a precarious position." Here Dr. Staples seems to be back-peddling.

If the Bible is inerrant only concerning matters of salvation, but if we cannot separate biblical teaching on salvation from others subject matters, then the conclusion is that the Bible has a single message - the message of salvation.

In a broad sense, salvation is the message of Scripture. Yet that message is set in "time and space." Would Dr. Staples argue that the Jewish exodus from Egypt depicts salvation, but the actual historical setting is unimportant I suppose the Mormon scriptures also depict a plan of salvation, but evangelicals reject these books because they contains anachronisms and historical inaccuracies. Shall we simply focus on the salvation message in the books of Mormonism and ignore these inaccuracies as unimportant details

I believe that God chose to reveal himself to mankind and that he inspired human writers to convey his revelation. If they did not get the message right, then God was not successful in revealing himself. It is impossible that an inerrant God could err in the transmission of truth.

At several points in his article, I feel Dr. Staples muddies the water. First, he speaks of the divisiveness that occurs when inerrancy rears its ugly head. I presume that this is epistemological inerrancy - the kind which he does not advocate.

Divisiveness did not come from the ugly head of inerrancy, it came from the ugly head of liberalism. Historically, the Church held to biblical inerrancy until higher criticism taught the Scriptures were simply the product of human evolution.

Second, Dr. Staples wants us to believe that "fundamentalism" is mostly a Calvinistic problem. Since we are Wesleyans, we should not be fundamentalists. At this point the Church of the Nazarene wants desperately to re-write its own history. As early as 1916 J. B. Chapman, editor of the Herald of Holiness, stated that Nazarenes believed in the fundamentals and then proceeded to give his list of fundamental doctrines. He raised the question whether Nazarenes are Fundamentalists, using the term as a proper noun, and then answered, "Yes, with reservations." While Chapman had reservations about certain Calvinistic tendencies among Fundamentalists, there was no reservation, however, concerning the inerrancy of Scripture. It has been claimed, however, that this was Dr. Chapman's position and not the position of the Nazarene Church. However, Dr. Staples wrote to me that his column and the one on "Authority" to follow in July, "show pretty well my position (and that of the Church of the Nazarene) on Scripture."

How can Dr. Staples write a column that speaks for Nazarenes today, but when Dr. Chapman published his statement as the denominational editor, it did not reflect the position of the church As late as 1948 Ross Price wrote in the Herald of Holiness

Our Lord, in this argument, assumed the absolute truth of the Scripture, and its changeless, indestructible authority. . . . The Bible is correct astronomically, geologically, historically, medically, botanically, zoologically. meterologically, prophetically, and spiritually. It is the final court of appeals on matters of faith and practice (29 Nov. 1948).

Third, Dr. Staples asserts that Wesleyans are not concerned about whether or not the Scriptures are true. We are only concerned, he says, with how to be saved. Then he quotes John Wesley's statement that he only wanted to know one thing - the way to heaven. However Dr. Staples omits some other quotations from Wesley:  

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (consequently, all Scripture is infallibly true)" ("The Means of Grace," Sermon #16).

 

"We know, 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,' and is therefore true and right concerning all things" ("On Charity," Sermon #91).

 

"If he is a Christian, he betrays his own cause by averring that 'all Scripture is not given by inspiration of God, but the writers of it were sometimes left to themselves, and consequently made some mistakes.' Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth" (Journal, 24 July, 1776).

 

Wesley wrote a letter to the Bishop of Gloucester in response to the Bishop's tract "On the Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit." In it the Bishop claimed that the Holy Spirit so directed the writers that "no considerable error should fall from them." Wesley objected to this language by writing, "Nay, will not the allowing there is any error in Scripture, shake the authority of the whole" (Works, Jackson ed., 9:150).

Nor does Dr. Staples quote Adam Clarke who concluded, "Men may err, but the Scriptures cannot; for it is the Word of God himself, who can neither mistake, deceive, nor be deceived" (Works, 12:132, see also Commentary, 5:11).

Dr. Staples is also at odds with Richard Watson who taught that the Bible must be factually correct in all matters about which it speaks (for example, see Theological Institutes, 1:248). It sounds like early Methodism held to "epistemological inerrancy."

Finally, Dr. Staples concludes with a very misleading statement. He said that "some people try to make the Bible say what God never intended for it to say and then come to swords over whether it is inerrant in saying it." Here he confuses the issues of inspiration and interpretation. Perhaps a few misguided fanatics claim their interpretation is infallible, but most of us believe it is the text itself which is inerrant. The Bible is not inerrant in what is does not say, but it is inerrant in everything which it does say. This was the historic position of the Church of the Nazarene.  

A WORD FROM WATSON

The name "Watson" is usually associated with G. D. Watson, a popular holiness author. Few people have had any exposure to Richard Watson, the first Methodist to publish a systematic theology. We think part of the problem is that the wrong Watson has been reprinted and read. This is the fifth extraction from Richard Watson to be published in the magazine.

The testimony of the Spirit is to assure us that we are the children of God. The Holy Spirit gives witness to the great fact that our sins are forgiven and that we are now adopted into his family.

The Spirit is the only witness who can give direct evidence of this. He is not only a competent witness, but the only competent witness. Our own spirits cannot bear testimony to this fact of our reconciliation to God. So far as direct testimony is concerned, our own spirits have nothing to do with it. They are not competent to bear witness on it. He alone can do this to whom it is perfectly known.

For the illustration of this, remember that the act of pardon takes place upon our believing in Christ. Whenever we believe with the faith which God requires from us, then are we forgiven, we are justified, and restored to the favor of God. But this act of mercy is one which takes place in the mind of God. Who can be conscious of that act Until it pleases God himself to reveal it, it must remain unknown. If he sent a special messenger, human or angelic, to inform me of it, he himself must first have communicated the fact. "What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him Even so the things of God knoweth no man." The spirit of one man knows not the spirit of another man. That which passes in our own minds is only known to ourselves. How, then does man become acquainted with that act of the Divine mind by which the true believer is freely justified for the sake of our Lord Jesus The apostle tells us elsewhere: "The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:11). "For the Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of God" (1 Cor 2:10). We can be conscious of the fact of forgiveness and adoption only if that fact is made known to us by the testimony of the Spirit. For the promises of God are all general. Our names are not written in the sacred pages. And whether or not I have so believed as to come up to the requisitions of the Gospel in this respect, is not for me to know. God is the proper and only Judge. When God accepts my faith, he forgives my sins. He does this by an act of his own mind, of which he makes no general and open revelation. The method by which he has appointed to convey the knowledge of this fact to the heart of the individual, for his own personal comfort and benefit, is this testimony of the Holy Spirit. [edited from Richard Watson, Sermons and Sketches of Sermons, 2 vols. (New York: Lane & Scott, 1851), 2:343. Sermon #104, "The Spirit of Adoption"]  

JOHN FLETCHER REVISED

Vic Reasoner

 

Laurence W. Wood, "John Fletcher and the Rediscovery of Pentecost in Methodism," The Asbury Theological Journal, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Spring, 1998), 7-34.

This entire issue of The Asbury Theological Journal is devoted to previously unpublished works of John Fletcher. For this, every student of early Methodism should be grateful. However, these writings are introduced by an essay by Laurence Wood which misinterprets the emphasis of early Methodism. Since some who have probably never read the primary sources are already touting Wood's article as proof that the baptism with the Holy Spirit became synonymous with entire sanctification in Methodistic circles, beginning with John Fletcher, and fully endorsed by John Wesley, it has become necessary to review this article by Wood.

The logic of Wood's argument is:

1. John Fletcher was a great man intellectually and spiritually.

2. John Fletcher frequently used pneumatological language or made references to the Holy Spirit.

3. John Wesley put his seal of approval on Fletcher's writings.

4. Therefore, Wood concludes that Wesley connected the baptism with the Holy Spirit and Christian perfection.

Yes, early Methodism did use pentecostal language, but they did not explicitly connect it with Christian perfection. While they preached on the baptism with the Spirit, they did not preach it as entire sanctification.

In his introduction, Wood asserts that Fletcher's unpublished manuscript on the new birth made a distinction between the birth of water (justification) and the birth of the Spirit (full sanctification). Apparently, Fletcher's incomplete essay on the doctrine of the new birth is based upon John 3:5. However, Fletcher's essay says something different than what Wood claims it says. Fletcher said the Wesleys earnestly contended "for the birth or baptism of the Spirit and for the perfection of Christianity." Fletcher argues against baptismal regeneration by preaching that those who are born again are not only baptized with water, but with the Holy Spirit.

Fletcher then refers to John Wesley's sermon, "Salvation by Faith," in which Wesley compares the faith of the apostles before and after Pentecost. According to Wesley saving faith is faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. The apostles did not have this faith before Pentecost. Or, to use the words of Fletcher in his essay on the new birth, Wesley makes a distinction between "the faith of ante-Pentecostal, imperfect Christianity; and the faith of Pentecostal, perfect Christianity." Note that Fletcher is not defining Christian perfection, but saving faith. He continues by connecting "this important distinction" of "faith in Christ" with the full dispensation, baptism, or seal of the Spirit. Fletcher declares "in the language of the Scriptures the giving - the pouring out - the shedding forth - and the baptism of the Holy Ghost, are phrases of the same import. And to receive the Holy Ghost, - to be sealed with the Spirit of promise - to be baptized with the Holy Ghost - and to have the Holy Ghost falling upon one -and to be endured with power from on high, are expressions, which convey the same meaning."

The context continues to describe what it means to be born of the Spirit. It may be the opinion of Dr. Wood that John 3:5 teaches two works of grace, but early Methodism taught that water baptism was the outward sign of Spirit baptism, which is regeneration.

Wood tends to write with sweeping generalities of the connection between pentecostal language and Christian perfection. In a 1979 paper Dr. Staples concluded that John Wesley did not describe entire sanctification in precise Pentecostal language. John Fletcher introduced that language, but spoke of many baptisms making no simple equation between entire sanctification and the baptism with the Holy Spirit. After Fletcher's time this baptismal language was not used by the Methodist theologians of the nineteenth century. When this language did become part of the holiness movement, it came from a source outside the Wesleyan tradition. While Wood claims that "Methodist preachers everywhere were accustomed to speaking of full sanctification in terms of the Pentecostal baptism with the Spirit," he offers no specific examples.

It has been suggested that Joseph Benson was influenced by Fletcher to adopt pentecostal language and that he experimented with it briefly, perhaps for a decade. Benson received the famous letter from John Wesley in 1770 in which Wesley objected to this language.

If they like to call this "receiving the Holy Ghost," they may: Only the phrase, in that sense, is not scriptural, and not quite proper; for they all "receive the Holy Ghost" when they were justified. God then "sent forth the Spirit of his Son into their hearts, crying, Abba, Father."

O Joseph, keep close to the Bible, both as to sentiment and expression! Then there will never be any material difference between you and [me].

Wood argues that Wesley, in this letter, misunderstood Fletcher and Benson, thinking they had adopted the view of Zinzendorf, who taught that regeneration and entire sanctification occurred in one act. This theory is not convincing and although Wood claims it is based upon "recently uncovered information," he does not disclose what that information is.

Benson was admitted into the Methodist Conference in 1771 and apparently came to accept Wesley's advice. After his death in 1821 Benson's seven-volume Sermons, and Plans of Sermons on Many of the Most Important Texts of Holy Scripture was printed (1825-28), which contains 262 sermons covering Genesis to Revelation, the sermon on Matthew 3:11 makes no connection between the baptism of the Spirit and Christian perfection. There is no sermon from Acts 2. His sermon on Acts 19:2 declares "without the Holy Spirit, our faith cannot be a saving faith" and the thrust of the message is to seek spiritual life. I could find no evidence that the connection Wood makes exists in these sermons. He does declare that we are made members of the body of Christ by being "baptized" with and "made to drink into one Spirit." Members of this one body are all inhabited by one Spirit.

As a Spirit of truth, he enlightens them in the knowledge of themselves, of God, and of Christ, and of the way of salvation: as a Spirit of grace, he quickens them, begets in them repentance, faith, the new birth: as a Comforter, he assures them of their justification and adoption, and inspires them with hope and joy, as a Spirit of power, he strengthens them; as a Spirit of holiness, he renews them.

Benson makes the usual connection in Methodist theology between water and Spirit baptism when he says that the "one baptism" is baptism of water, "an emblem of regeneration; the same sign and the same thing signified" ("Christians Exhorted to Unity," Sermon #185).

Wood also claims that in his biography of Fletcher Wesley noted a key category for Fletcher was "full sanctification in terms of the Pentecostal baptism with the Spirit." This time there is a footnote, but you will search the reference in vain looking for what Wood has claimed.

Wood then claims that Wesley "explicitly linked perfection with Pentecost," in three later sermons, "The General Spread of the Gospel," "The Mystery of Iniquity," and "The Signs of the Times," but again Wood cites no specific examples. I have been reading these sermons for over twenty years, but never found what Wood claimed. I went back and surveyed them again. I rejoice, along with Dr. Wood, in the hope Wesley preaches that there will be a time of "latter-day glory." As the Holy Spirit is poured out there will be an increase in Christian virtue among all people, but I fail to see that this hope is an explicit link of Christian perfection with the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

The historical record that both Wesley and Clarke preached from the text, "They were all baptized with the Holy Ghost" tells us nothing about the content of their messages. Wood can only infer that the subject matter links Pentecost and Christian perfection. However, Wesley's printed sermon on the text, "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost," does not deal at all with Christian perfection. It is entitled "Scriptural Christianity.

Then Wood claims that Adam Clarke linked Pentecost and Christian perfection in his comments on Acts 1:5. However, if Clarke's comments are read in their entirely it becomes obvious that he interprets this verse as describing the work of the Holy Spirit "to illuminate, regenerate, refine, and purify the heart." He makes no reference to Christian perfection.

However, whenever Wood sees phrases like the dispensation of the Spirit, the seal of the Spirit, purification, or divine love, he assumes early Methodists are referring to a second blessing.

This is due to an inadequate view of the new birth. According to Fletcher, the new birth is entrance into the dispensation of the Spirit. The seal of the Spirit is assurance of the new birth. The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts when we are born again. And Paul spoke of the washing of regeneration, which is an act of purification.

Wood asserts that Macarius had a Pentecostal interpretation of Christian perfection. Fletcher quotes from the writings of Macarius in his essay on the new birth and concludes that Macarius preached "the baptism and dispensation of the Holy Spirit." But the connection between this emphasis and Christian perfection exists in the mind of Dr. Wood, not Macarius.

Wood claims that Wesley's experience at Aldersgate was entire sanctification and tries to say that this was also Fletcher's interpretation of Wesley's experience in "The Language of the Father's Dispensation," although there is no direct reference to Aldersgate in Fletcher's essay.

Finally, Wood says the clearest indication that Wesley approved of Fletcher's use of the baptism with the Holy Spirit as a designation for full sanctification is found in Wesley's edition of Fletcher's Equal Check to Antinomianism and Phariseeism. However, in the preface of this essay Fletcher declares that believers under inferior dispensations did not always have assurance. Fletcher argues that with the opening of the Christian dispensation at pentecost "nobody can truly believe . . . without being immediately conscious both of the forgiveness of sins, and of peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." While this most important truth had been derided and denied, it had been gloriously revived by Wesley and his associates. Note that Fletcher says nothing of Christian perfection, but of the witness of the Spirit in the new birth!

I believe the Wesleyan doctrine of Christian perfection. However, with 43% of the American population claiming the new birth, it is obvious that there is a woefully inadequate understanding of regeneration. We need to make it clear that while the new birth does not do everything, it does something. A recently published testimony from an Asbury professor tells how he was led into the experience of entire sanctification. After hearing a message he came to see his Christianity was counterfeit. He went to the preacher and told him that he was not sure he was a Christian. It did not take the preacher long to diagnose his case.

He was counseled to make Jesus king of his life, which, he was told, amounted to entire sanctification. When that surrender was made, for the first time in 15 years of profession, there was assurance and "a new victory over sin." While today this is heralded as the second blessing, anyone who understands the Scriptures or Wesley's teaching knows that this man was born of the Spirit, not entirely sanctified.

Wesleyan scholars such as Herbert McGonigle, Rob Staples, Kenneth Grider, Donald Dayton, George Allen Turner, Mildred Wynkoop, Kenneth Collins, Leo Cox, and William Greathouse have all concluded that early Methodism did not connect the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost with entire sanctification, as did the later American holiness movement. Laurence Wood certainly has not provided clear proof that early Methodism equated Spirit baptism and Christian perfection.