Issue 2, Fall 2001, Volume 19

THE PROMISE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Lance Fredrickson

Is this promise of the Holy Spirit in Galatians 3:14 received at regeneration or at entire sanctification

In the Old Testament, a New Covenant was promised by God whereby he would pour out his Spirit and do a work in the heart, enabling those who follow him to be able to keep his law. In the New Testament, John the Baptist identified Jesus as the one who would inaugurate this dispensation of the Spirit: "he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." At the Passover just before his crucifixion, Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant.  He told his disciples that it was to their advantage that he went away for he would send to them "another comforter," that is the Holy Spirit. Jesus said he would "send the promise of my father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from upon high."

The Day of Pentecost fulfilled Jesus’ words of sending the promise of the Father and thus baptizing the disciples with the Holy Spirit. The work of the Holy Spirit is said to cause spiritual regeneration, or the new birth. This new birth is linked to entering the spiritual kingdom of Christ. As Jesus told Nicodemus, entering the kingdom hinges upon being born again of the Spirit.

The Church, including early Methodists such as John Wesley and Adam Clarke, has traditionally associated the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the new birth. In the 1830s starting mainly with Asa Mahan and Charles Finney, some in the Holiness Movement began to associate the baptism of the Holy Spirit with entire sanctification instead of the new birth.

Those who hold this new teaching have many interpretive hurdles to jump if they are to prove their position from the scriptures. They first of all must prove that everyone in Acts who received the Spirit already were born again Christians. Many holiness writers go to great lengths to try to demonstrate this. They also face the tenor of all the New Testament Epistles that presuppose that all Christians have been baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Among holiness writers, there is not universal agreement on the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the regenerate and then in effecting entire sanctification. Some see two advents of the Spirit, one in regeneration then the other as "the baptism of the Spirit" which is said to effect entire sanctification. This view recognizes the tenor of the New Testament that all believers have the Spirit and also seeks to preserve the teaching that Spirit Baptism effects entire sanctification.

Some holiness writers recognize that born again believers have received the Holy Spirit but have not yet been baptized with the Spirit. E. E. Shelhamer writes, "Regenerated souls have the Spirit and consequently the fruit of the Spirit" [Bible Holiness, How Obtained and Retained].  Donald Metz in his book, Studies in Biblical Holiness, follows a similar line of thought. Others believe born again believers do not receive the Holy Spirit until they are entirely sanctified. Rev. Lyle Potter’s testimony in Spiritual Death Route Holiness by L. S. Boardman asks this question, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed" This same question is repeated at the end of each chapter in the book When the Holy Ghost is Come by Samuel Brengle.

The emphasis that all Christians have received the Holy Spirit agrees with the experience of those who are truly born again and the tenor of the New Testament epistles. But the problem with this position, just described in the previous paragraph, is that it teaches two advents of the Holy Spirit, one at salvation, the other is termed "the baptism of the Holy Spirit" occurring at entire sanctification. Where is the scriptural evidence for teaching two advents of the Spirit

Paul is instead extremely explicit that the pouring out (baptism) of the Holy Spirit occurs at regeneration: "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:5-7). In this passage Paul ties the pouring out of the Spirit with regeneration and justification, not with entire sanctification. Paul here teaches that there is a cleansing that occurs in those who are born again. The Titus 3:5-7 passage links together the concept of "the baptism of the Holy Ghost" spoken of by John the Baptist and the new Spiritual birth that Christ counseled Nicodemus about as one and the same event occurring at justification.

Others recognize the lack of scriptural basis for two advents of the Spirit and argue for a single advent. They place the timing of this advent at entire sanctification.  Yet if all believers who do have the Spirit are entirely sanctified, do we say the Galatians were in an entirely sanctified condition These same Galatians were flirting with going back to the Old Covenant, apostatizing, and being circumcised. Yet Paul presupposes that they have the Spirit, they began with the Spirit, and will be perfected by the Spirit. Paul recognizes that they had received the promise of the Father. He commands them to "Walk by the Spirit."

The traditional view, when compared to the above options, has much merit. This view holds that the disciples, who were "sons of the covenant," were believers in the Old Testament sense. It views the events recorded in Acts as transitional between the Old and the New Covenants. The gospel mandate was to offer the blessings of the New Covenant "to the Jew first and then the Gentile." The disciples thus experienced the new birth of the New Covenant on the day of Pentecost. They were baptized with the Spirit as Jesus promised. This view does not limit the further work of the Spirit in the lives of believers, additional anointings (1 John), or fillings of the Spirit, as Paul writes, "be filled with the Spirit." We are also to be receptive to the purifying flame of the Spirit and not put it out, "quench not the Spirit." The traditional view holds that all born again Christians are baptized with the Holy Spirit at the point of justification.

Acts has been the much fought over battleground in the timing issue of Spirit Baptism. Acts is primarily a historical narrative and secondarily doctrinal. If Acts were all we had to go by, arguments for or against associating Spirit Baptism with entire sanctification may be advanced. But when Acts is read together with the doctrinal epistles, the traditional view is greatly strengthened while the view advanced by Finney and Mahan loses out.

In the debate Galatians 3:1-14 has been largely ignored. This is very unfortunate. Paul makes very explicit statements about the timing of receiving the "promise of the father." He ties Spirit baptism and justification together as occurring at the same time. Paul’ s letter to the Ephesians also ties receiving the promise of the Spirit to the believer’s initial justifying faith, "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory" (Eph 1: 13-14).

The "promise of the Spirit" in Galatians 3:1-14 ties to Matt. 3:11,17, John 14:16, 26, Luke 24:29, Acts 1:4, 5, Acts 2:2-4, Acts 2:16-18, Eph. 1:13, 14, Titus 3:5-7, Joel 2:28, and Ezekiel 36:26, 27.

Many commentators pass right by the timing issue in Galatians 3 and hardly notice it. H.A.W. Meyer (Critical and Exegetical Handbook, American Edition) and E. D. Burton (ICC) did not do this. They argue both extensively and exegetically from the Greek that the timing of Spirit baptism occurs at the point of justification. However, The Beacon Bible Commentary is very disappointing in its treatment of Galatians 3:1-14. In the place of exegesis, the commentator resorts to dogmatics and associates Spirit baptism with entire sanctification. This commentator, inexplicitly, does not exegetically address the timing issue of this passage.

The new birth, entering the New Covenant, entering the kingdom, justifying faith, having the Spirit poured out upon us, and the witness of the Spirit are just some of the events that intersect and transpire at conversion. In the new birth we pass from death to life!  "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." Adam Clarke comments: 

It is vain for a man to profess affinity to Christ according to the flesh, while he is unchanged in his heart and life, and dead in trespasses and sins; for him that is in Christ, that is, a genuine Christian, having Christ dwelling in his heart by faith, is a new creature; his old state is changed: he was a child of Satan, he is now a child of God; he was a slave of sin, and his works were death; he is now made free from sin, and has his fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. . . .Therefore, old things are passed away.

The man is not only mended, but he is new made; he is a new creature, ***** ******,  a new creation, a little world in himself; formerly, all was in chaotic disorder; now, there is a new creation, which God himself owns as his workmanship, and which he can look on and pronounce very good.

The timing issue is very important. It not only affects our doctrinal stance but our practice. There has been an effort to undermine the significance of the new birth in Wesleyan circles that dates back to Fletcher’ s Checks. Wesley gave counsel that entire sanctification was not to be overemphasized to the detriment of justification. There is today a general view among many even in the Church that those who are born again live sinful lives just like people of the world. God forbid! My Churchgoing older brother even told me that the only difference between the saved and the lost is that the saved have their sins forgiven. Many are seeking salvation from the penalty of sin, not salvation from sin. We need to have the high view of regeneration that the scriptures hold. There is something very significant and glorious that occurs when the new birth is experienced. "Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God!"

God’s promise in the New Covenant is that he will put his Spirit into us and enable us to live holy lives. We do not have to wait for entire sanctification to be "sons of the New Covenant." Entrance into the New Covenant occurs at regeneration. Romans 5 ties together the giving of the Spirit to us with justification. God’s seal to this event is the giving of the Holy Spirit, whom He pours out upon us. The experience of our lives should be "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" because "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us."  Those who have been born again should be living dead to self, alive to Christ lives from the moment of conversion. Entire sanctification should be seen as a perfecting and heightening of the life of holiness that began at the moment we first believed.

Arminius, the Scapegoat of Calvinism, Part 2

Vic Reasoner

1.  Arminius is misrepresented concerning total depravity

Lars Qualben in A History of the Christian Church states that Jacob Arminius and his followers taught "Man was not totally depraved and could therefore co-operate with God in the spiritual regeneration"[p. 351].   Louis Berkhof wrote, "Man has by nature an irresistible bias for evil.  He is not able to apprehend and love spiritual excellence, to seek and do spiritual things, the things of God that pertain to salvation.  This position, which is Augustinian and Calvinistic, is flatly contradicted by Pelagianism and Socinianism, and in part also by Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism [Systematic Theology, p. 248].  Harbach wrote, "Arminianism, however, under its breath croons the siren song of man's essential goodness."

However, Samuel Wakefield, an early American Methodist theologian wrote, "True Arminianism, therefore, as fully as Calvinism, admits the total depravity of human nature."  Let Arminius speak for himself. 

On account of this transgression, man fell under the displeasure and the wrath of God, rendered himself subject to a double death, and deserving to be deprived of the primeval righteousness and holiness in which a great part of the image of God consisted.

Arminius describes the effects of the first sin of the first man as "the withdrawing of that primitive righteousness and holiness. . . .  The whole of this sin, however, is not peculiar to our first parents, but is common to the entire race and to all their posterity."  Again, Arminius explains the effects of the sin of our first parents.

This was the reason why all men who were to be propagated from them in a natural way, became obnoxious to death temporal and death eternal, and devoid of this gift of the Holy Spirit or original righteousness: This punishment usually receives the appellation of "a privation of the image of God," and "original sin."

Kenneth Grider explains, "Original sin refers to a state of sin in us due to that original act of sin on Adam's part."  In Wesley's 272 page treatise, "The Doctrine of Original Sin," he declared without this doctrine "the Christian system falls at once" [Works, 9:194].  Wesleyan-Arminians do affirm man's sinful nature, our basic inclination to sin, our total depravity which was inherited from Adam.

2.  Arminius is misrepresented as teaching the absolute freedom of the will.

R. J. Rushdoony equates humanism with Arminianism.  He refers to the old humanistic dream that every man, by his own free choice, can effect his salvation.  "If this sounds very much like Arminianism, it is because the same principle undergirds Arminianism and humanism: salvation as man's decision" [Systematic Theology, 2:923].

John MacArthur wrote,

Pragmatism's ally is arminianism, the theology that denies God's sovereign election and affirms that man must decide on his own to trust or reject Christ.  That places on the evangelist the burden of using technique that is clever enough, imaginative enough, or convincing enough to sway a person's decision. . . . to teach or imply that human technique can bring someone to Christ is contrary to Scripture [Our Sufficiency in Christ, p. 152].

In Willing to Believe: The Controversy Over Free Will R. C. Sproul admits that the language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius regarding the fall [p. 126].  He concedes that Arminians teach justification by faith alone.  Yet Arminianism contains "un-Christian elements in it" [p. 25].  For Sproul, the point of departure was that Arminius believed prevenient grace was sufficient, but not irresistible.  

This makes salvation synergistic, not monergistic.  Sproul argues for monergism and that regeneration must precede faith.  Monergism, as defined by Sproul, means that God is the single actor in regeneration.  He defines synergism as a relationship in which God assists and humans cooperate.  This, he says, leads to human autonomy and differs only slightly from the Roman Catholic view of faith as a meritorious work.  I fail to see how "cooperation with" means the same thing as "autonomy from." Sproul asserts that "any view of the human will that destroyed the biblical view of human responsibility is seriously defective.  Any view of the human will that destroys the biblical view of God’ s character is even worse." 

While the rest of the book is devoted to a historical survey of the teachings of Pelagius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Edwards, Finney, and Chafer with regard to their teaching concerning the fall, free will, and regeneration, Sproul never defines the will.  Nor does he show how Calvinism escapes the charge of destroying human responsibility.  His chapter on Arminius ends with a review of the heretic teachings of Clark Pinnock.  The inference is that any who abandons Calvinism is liable to end up just as confused.  Yet Pinnock’s new views go beyond historic Arminianism and orthodox Christianity [pp. 142-3].  Therefore, Pinnock is a straw man.

Early Methodism taught that we were saved by free grace.  Call it by either term, we could only cooperate as we were enabled by prevenient grace.  This emphasis is neither Pelagianism nor absolute human autonomy.  James Arminius declared

But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of any by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good, but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good.  When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.

In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.  And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.

Free Will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without Grace. . . .  I affirm, therefore, that this grace is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the inclination of the will to that which is good:   It is this grace which operates on the mind, the affections, and the will; which infuses good thoughts into the mind, inspires good desires into the affections, and bends the will to carry into execution good thoughts and good desires.  This grace goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and cooperated lest we will in vain.

Wesley said that the will of a sinner is "free only to evil" ["The Spirit of Bondage and of Adoption," Sermon #9, II.7].  In another context Wesley stated that he came to the very edge of Calvinism:

        1.  In ascribing all good to the free grace of God

        2.  In denying all natural free will and all power antecedent to grace

        3.  In excluding all merit from man even for what he has or does by the grace of God [Works, 8:285].

Our emphasis in not upon free will, but upon God's grace, including prevenient grace.  John Fletcher stated that Arminianism asserts "that obedient free will is always dependent upon God's free grace; and disobedient free will upon God's just wrath" [Works, 2:229]. John Wesley wrote, "Natural free-will, in the present state of mankind, I do not understand:  I only assert, that there is a measure of free-will supernaturally restored to every man, together with that supernatural light which 'enlightens every man that cometh into the world'" [Works, 10:229-30]. 

It is not historic Wesleyan-Arminianism which overemphasized free will, it was the later teaching of Charles Finney, a Pelagian, who influenced the holiness movement at this point. Robert Chiles surveyed three major transitions in American Methodism between 1790 and 1935.  He concluded,

The third major change in Methodist theology, 'from free grace to free will,' began with the Wesleyan doctrine of grace as free for all and in all and as the sole power of salvation.  Steadily the areas of achievement assigned to man's freedom were increased. . . .  Repentance and, eventually, faith came to be considered essentially human acts, not God's gifts, and salvation proper became man's divinely assisted effort to moralize and spiritualize his life.

3.  Arminius is misrepresented as teaching a works salvation.          

Louis Berkhof wrote in his Systematic Theology, "The Arminian order of salvation, while ostensibly ascribing the work of salvation to God, really makes it contingent on the attitude and the work of man" [p. 421]. 

J. I. Packer concluded, "Thus, Arminianism made man's salvation depend ultimately on man himself, saving faith being view throughout as man's own work and, because his own, not God's in him."

In contrast, Kenneth Grider stated that "we Arminian-Wesleyans are not Pelagians, since we believe in original sin and since we believe that prevenient grace is necessary to enable us to use our freedom for taking savory directions in our lives."  Grider then clarifies what he means.

This view means that we will not say to a congregation in an evangelistic service, "You do your part and God will do His part."  Unregenerate persons cannot do any such thing until God first does His part of extending prevenient grace to them.

This view also means that the Arminian-Wesleyan will not say, "God will meet you halfway."  We cannot initiate our own salvation. being fallen creatures, inclined to evil and that continually, God must come all the way to where we are and initiate in us our "first faint desire" to turn to Christ - as John Wesley said.

Arminius declared that "faith, and faith only, is imputed for righteousness.  By this alone are we justified before God, absolved from our sins, and are accounted, pronounced and declared RIGHTEOUS by God, who delivers his judgment from the throne of grace."   Arminius also wrote,

Evangelical faith is an assent of the mind, produced by the Holy Spirit, through the Gospel, in sinners, who through the law know and acknowledge their sins, and are penitent on account of them: By which they are not only fully persuaded within themselves, that Jesus Christ has been constituted by God the author of salvation to those who obey Him, and that He is their own Saviour if they have believed in Him; and by which they also believe in Him as such, and through Him on God as the Benevolent Father in Him, to the salvation of believers and to the glory of Christ and God.

Two years after his Aldersgate experience, Wesley explained that he had wandered many years in the "new path of salvation by faith and works," but about two years ago it pleased God to show us the old way of salvation by faith only" [Journal, 22 June, 1740.  Those who claim the Wesleyan-Arminian doctrine teaches otherwise need to read "Justification by Faith," which is the fifth sermon of the doctrinal standards of Methodism.

Arminius did not object to saying, "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us," but he did object to saying that "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for righteousness."  He wanted to avoid saying that Christ's righteousness is a cloak over our unrighteousness.  He believed that in the imputation of Christ's righteousness we are partakers in Christ. 

John Wesley also embraced the doctrine of imputed righteousness, but pronounced a similar caution, "In the meantime what we are afraid of is this: lest any should use the phrase, "The righteousness of Christ," or, "The righteousness of Christ is 'imputed to me'," as a cover for his unrighteousness" ["The Lord our Righteousness," Sermon #20, II.19].

—to be concluded in the next issue

The Cleansing of Initial Sanctification

Joseph D. McPherson

            While the holiness movement has placed much emphasis on the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit in entire sanctification, little is heard of the initial cleansing that takes place in salvation's first work of grace. Mr. Wesley and early Methodist theologians taught that sanctification or cleansing begins when a true penitent is justified and regenerated. To them this was not a new doctrine, for they saw it taught in both the New Testament and early church. A reasonable question then arises. In what sense is one sanctified in regeneration To what extent is he or she cleansed in the first work of grace  While the term justification refers to our legal standing before God, regeneration is that internal work of the Holy Spirit by which we are raised from spiritual death to new life and are given a change of heart. Both regeneration and entire sanctification are wrought by powerful effusions of the Holy Spirit within the hearts of those who seek aright. All who have been justified and regenerated in this Holy Ghost dispensation find that "old things have passed away and behold all things are become new" (2 Cor 5:17).             In various passages of the New Testament we notice that believers are said to be "sanctified" when it is obvious by the descriptions given of them that they were not yet entirely sanctified. Mr. Wesley is careful to remind us that the "term sanctified was continually applied by St. Paul to all that were justified." Moreover, he observes that "by this term alone, [the Apostle Paul] rarely, if ever, means 'saved from all sin' [or entirely sanctified]. Mr. Wesley therefore concludes that "it is not [scripturally] proper to use [the term sanctified] in that sense, without adding the word wholly, entirely, or the like" [Works, 11:388].             Richard Watson, who wrote the first systematic theology of early Methodism, arrives at the same conclusion. He informs the reader that, "The regenerate state is, also, called in Scripture sanctification; though a distinction is made by the Apostle Paul between that and being 'sanctified wholly'" [Theological Institutes, 2:269].             The term sanctification means both to set apart and to cleanse. This is illustrated by the historical account of New Testament believers, such as the Corinthians and Thessalonians who, though not yet entirely sanctified when Paul wrote to them were, nevertheless, separated from a former lifestyle of sin and partially cleansed in their hearts. They were, in truth, sanctified in part. This is that aspect of regeneration which is termed, "initial sanctification" by theologians.             In Titus 3:5 we read that "He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Washing has always carried the meaning of cleansing, while "renewing of the Holy Ghost" has more particular reference to being made spiritually alive and altogether changed in heart. It is evident that while such New Testament believers as those in Corinth and Thessalonica were not yet entirely sanctified, they were partially sanctified and cleansed in three following ways:

            First, they were cleansed from the guilt of sins. They had received remission or forgiveness of sins that are past so that they were now able to richly enjoy the favor and goodness of God.             Secondly, these same New Testament believers were cleansed from the habits and power of sin. For as the Apostle John assures us, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" (John 3:9).             Thirdly, these New Testament believers who were not yet entirely sanctified were cleansed from the acquired defilement of committed sins. Jesus taught that "evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness" are some of the committed evils that "defile the man" (Mark 7:20-23).             This initial sanctification which accompanies regeneration cleanses from all the heart stains and defilement brought about by acts of past sins. Such cleansing is not to be confused with entire sanctification, which is a farther work in the cleansing process— a work that fully cleanses from the root of sin, inbred sin or the principle of sin with which we were all born. H. Orton Wiley writes of initial sanctification as follows:Defilement attaches to sinful acts, and so also does guilt, which is the consciousness of sin as our own. There must be, therefore, this initial cleansing, concomitant with the other blessings of the first work of grace, if this guilt and acquired depravity are to be removed from the sinner. Since that which removes pollution and makes holy is properly called "sanctification," this first or initial cleansing is [appropriately identified as] "partial" sanctification . . . limited strictly to that guilt and acquired depravity [or defilement] attaching to actual sins, for which the sinner is himself responsible. It does not refer to the cleansing from original sin or inherited depravity, for which the sinner is not responsible. . . . Since sin is twofold--an act, and a state or condition, sanctification must be twofold. There is and can be but two stages in the process of sanctification--initial and entire — the full consummation of the process being rightly known as glorification" [Christian Theology, 2:480-481].

             While Mr. Wesley strongly embraced this doctrine of initial cleansing, believing that those justified were also sanctified in an initial sense, he fervently encouraged justified believers to use all the means of grace for their spiritual growth and thus push forward to a completion of this cleansing process. In the following statement he describes the believer who had been regenerated and initially sanctified and yet found in a state that was short of entire sanctification or Christian perfection because of the remains of sin within.

He [the justified man] was humble, but not entirely; his humility was mixed with pride: he was meek; but his meekness was frequently interrupted by anger, or some uneasy or turbulent passion. His love of God was frequently damped, by the love of some creature; the love of his neighbor, by evil surmising, or some thought, if not temper, contrary to love. His will was not wholly melted into the will of God: But although in general he could say, "I come 'not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me;'" yet now and then nature rebelled, and he could not clearly say, "Lord, not as I will, but as thou wilt" [Works, 6:489].

            So it is that although sin is given a deadening blow by an effusion of the Spirit in initial sanctification, it is not entirely destroyed. It is perfection begun because the believer is able to live without committing sin. As Mr. Wesley explains it, this initial work makes "even babes in Christ so far perfect as not to commit sin" [Works, 11:375].

           Samuel Chadwick once wrote that "There is a perfection that is initial, a perfection that is progressive, and a perfection that is final" [The Call to Christian Perfection, p. 28]. This initial stage is, according to Asbury Lowry, "holiness in embryo and infancy" [Possibilities of Grace, p. 204].

            Dr. Leo Cox shows the close connection existing between God's work of regeneration and initial sanctification.The dead soul of a sinner is brought to life; the graces or qualities of this new life are all planted in the believer. This new life is in infancy, as a newborn babe, and is capable of growth. . . . This new creation is perfect in its kind but capable of growth. At the same time that the new life is planted in the soul, God begins the cleansing of sin. The power of sin is broken. Man is made holy, pure, clean, but not entirely so. This cleansing work is the beginning of sanctification. It is holiness begun. It can be called initial because it is just a beginning. This new life exists where some evil is still present [John Wesley's Concept of Perfection, p. 81].

             Those who are newly born of the Spirit have in their hearts a measure of love, patience and other graces of the Spirit. Herein they are to grow while seeking a total cleansing of the evil dispositions which yet remain. In the meantime we may be sure that insofar as they have "the love of God shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto them," they are clean and therefore have attained to a degree of perfection, even though much yet lies ahead for their advancement. Divine love, a fruit of the Spirit, has the power to expel that which is contrary to it.             In his sermon entitled, On Sin in Believers, Mr. Wesley assures us that "There are in every person, even after he is justified, two contrary principles, nature and grace, termed by St. Paul, the flesh and the Spirit. Hence, although even babes in Christ are sanctified, yet it is only in part. In a degree, according to the measure of their faith, they are spiritual; yet, in a degree they are carnal. Accordingly, believers are continually exhorted to watch against the flesh, as well, as the world and the devil."   Once again he assures his readers, "That, although we are renewed, cleansed, purified, sanctified, the moment we truly believe in Christ, yet we are not then renewed, cleansed, purified altogether; but the flesh, the evil nature, still remains, (although subdued,) and wars against the Spirit."In the same sermon, Mr. Wesley raises an interesting and oft heard question. "But can Christ be in the same heart where sin is Undoubtedly he can;" answers Mr. Wesley, "otherwise it never could be saved therefrom. Where the sickness is, there is the Physician,

Carrying on his work within,Striving till he cast out sin.

             The Apostle Paul's first letter to the Corinthian believers does not give evidence of any in that church who had yet been entirely sanctified or perfected in love. Rather, we understand they were yet "babes in Christ," and still "carnal." Nevertheless, he assures them that "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body . . . and have been all made to drink into one Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). They had been "washed . . . [initially] sanctified . . . justified in the name of the Lord Jesus . . . by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11).

The Difference Salvation Makes

Jason Kranzusch

 I am often asked the question when preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ on street corners, campuses, and in various places, "Do you sin"  I will say, "I have sinned on occasion since I was born again."  The typical response is, "Then what’s the difference between you and me"  I believe there are at least six differences between a true Christian and someone who lives a life of sin.

1.   We have different relationships with sin.  Sin no longer has dominion over me (Rom 6:14).  You are "sold under sin"         and are brought under its captivity (Rom 7:14, 23).   The normal Christian life is that we sin not (1 John 2:1).

According to 1 John 3:9, "Whosoever has been born of God does not sin, for his seed remains in him and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God."   The Apostle is not saying that it is impossible for the Christian to commit a sin, but that through grace, it is possible not to sin.   It is, however, impossible to sin willfully and remain a Christian.

2.  We have different attitudes toward sin.  I hate sin; you love sin.  If I were to sin, it would bring grief to my heart, not only over the consequences of a severed relationship with God, but also over the fact that I had hurt, offended, angered, and grieved him.  My consuming desire, at that point, would be to get rid of what had separated me from my God as quickly as possible.

3.  We have a different understanding regarding the awfulness of sin.   I believe what the Bible says about sin.  Its wages are death (Rom 6:23).  God hates sin and the person who commits it.  According to Hebrews 1:9 God hates iniquity.  Psalm 5:5 declares that God hates all who work iniquity.   Sin is worthy of eternal damnation.  If you believed that the Bible says you deserve hell for your sinning, you would find the way of escape (1 Cor 10:13).

4.  We have different attitudes toward the potential of committing sin.  Your attitude is when  I sin.  Mine is if I sin.  Do you see the difference  Sin is not normal for a Christian.  I do not plan to ever sin again.  If you are honest and sincere, you must admit that you not only plan to sin, but that you enjoy sinning.   "Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil" (Eccl 8:11).

5.  We have different expectations and desires regarding holy living.  The just man desires and expects to be sanctified wholly.  He desires to be totally free from sin as a principle. According to Hebrews 4:9, "There remains therefore a rest for the people of God."   We enter into this rest when the very God of peace sanctifies us wholly (1 Thess 5:23).

However, you reject the idea that it is possible to live such a life, that it is commanded, nor do you even desire such a life.  Nevertheless, all God’s commands are matched by the grace necessary to obey.  If you will follow Jesus, he will help you.  "He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it" (1 Thess 5:24).

6.   Our ultimate intentions are different.  Mine is to glorify God in everything.  I know that sin, in any form, does not glorify God.   Your ultimate intention is to enjoy life and please yourself.

How much time do you spend seeking God  The psalmist wrote, "Whom have I in heaven but You  And there is none upon earth that I desire besides You" (Psalm 73:25).   "O Lord, we have waited for You.  The desire of our soul is for Your name and for the remembrance of You" (Isa 26:8).

My Story

            I was once dead in my sins, like you.  I was an evil person, full of hate, rage, bitterness, revenge, lust, selfishness, lies, idolatry, and all other manner of sin.  You may say, "Well, I’m not that bad."  Friend, please don’t deceive yourself.  I was an enemy of God, even though I went to church and was very involved.  My religion was hypocrisy. 

            At one point I began to get very convicted over my sin and rebellion against God.  I realized that I was not really a Christian and that I did not know God.  One night, during a prayer meeting, in a moment of repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ.  I was born of the Spirit of God, forgiven, cleansed, and adopted into the family of God.  

            Oh, what joy!  I found life in November 1991.  I’m not saying that living for Jesus is easy or always "fun," but I know God.  I have purpose.  I am walking with Jesus, just as man was created to do.

Your Turn

            I have shared my heart with you, but more importantly, I have shared with you the truth regarding sin.  If you will be real with yourself and with God, if you will examine your life and attitudes in the light of truth, and if you will ask God to convict you concerning the truth of your own miserable, lost state, then you will find that he will be faithful and just to expose your wickedness. 

            If you are willing, he will take you to the fountain of Christ’s blood and by faith will wash away all your sin.  If you turn away from sin and change your mind concerning it, which is repentance, then he will apply the blood to your life and end your mad pursuit after sin.  He will put his Holy Spirit within you and lead you by his Word.  Your will be forgiven, clean, spiritually alive, and at peace with God.  You will have righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit because you are in the kingdom of God (Rom 14:17).

            "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).  Throw away your excuses.  Start reading the Bible.  Meditate upon what you read.  Think about it deeply, not seeking to excuse sin, but looking for the best that God has for you.  Cry out to God in sincerity, desiring to know the truth of Jesus Christ more than anything else.   He will set you free from sin (Rom 6:18, 22).

REVIEWS

 The Reflecting God Study Bible

             The Wesley Bible, published in 1990 by Thomas Nelson with the NKJV text was reviewed in the Fall, 1994 Arminian Magazine.   While I was in general agreement with most of the comments within the Bible, my evaluation will be limited to the classic Wesleyan understanding of salvation.  Concerning the work of the Holy Spirit the Wesley Bible is both contradictory and tends to reflect the viewpoint of the later holiness movement instead of John Wesley. 

            The Wesley Bible is out of print.  An adaptation of it, which omitted three essays in the back, called the Classic Personal Study Bible is also out of print.  The essays omitted were "Sanctification — Initial and Entire," "Biographies of Significant Quoted Writers," and "The Thirty Texts of Wesley."

            In 2000 Zondervan printed The Reflecting God Study Bible with the NIV text.  It is an adaptation by the Christian Holiness Partnership of The NIV Study Bible.   However, the NIV Study Bible had a Calvinistic bias.  Their task was to edit and revise the existing notes to provide a distinctively Wesleyan emphasis.  The page format could not be changed.   The writers were to review what was written to determine if the notes included material inappropriate from a Wesleyan point of view and rewrite it, or if some opportunity to express a Wesleyan point of view had been missed to add it.   However, regardless of how many words were added or deleted, each page had to end up with the same number of words as the original NIV Study Bible.   Zondervan accepted most of what was submitted.

            Under such limitations, the notes are not that helpful.  While the most misleading notes have been edited, all too often opportunities to expound the Wesleyan emphasis are missed.  I also missed the quotations from leading Wesleyan writers which were contained in The Wesley Bible.   

            In addition to the notes, there are fifteen essays inserted.   These basic introductions, definitely written at a lay level, deal in everyday language with such themes as how to study the Bible in the first section.   The second section contains an overview of Wesleyan doctrine.  Steve Harper deals with prevenient grace, although never using that terminology, in "The Gift of Human Freedom."  "The Miracle of Transforming Grace" well describes the victory of the new birth.  I have felt that the little booklet "Living the Holy Life Today," by Elmer Parsons, a Free Methodist bishop, was one of the most adequate recent presentations of the doctrine of entire sanctification.  In this study Bible Parsons deals very adequately with sanctification in the essay "The Experience of Sanctifying Grace."  The theme of holiness is expanded in other essays to incorporate the church as a holy community and the dimension of social holiness.  The final section of essays deal with the dynamic of holy love in loving God, loving others, loving yourself, and in the final essay by William Greathouse, "Perfecting Love."  

            I would conclude that the essays in the Reflecting God Study Bible are probably better than those in The Wesley Bible, but the notes themselves are not as good.  Although there is a glut of study Bibles on the market, currently the Reflecting God Study Bible, with its limitations, is the only Wesleyan-Arminian study Bible in print.

Reprints

            Previous editions of the Wesleyan Heritage CD contained such classic Methodist material as John Wesley’s 4 volume Old and New Testament Notes, Adam Clarke’s 6 volume Commentary, Watson’s Institutes and Dictionary, Fletcher’s Works, and Ralston’s Elements of Divinity.

            The 4th Edition of the Wesleyan Heritage CD which came out some time ago, added Joseph Benson's  Commentary and Joseph Sutcliffe's Commentary.   This CD is $37.95 + $2.95 S/H or $20 + $2.95 S/H for an upgrade.

            Sulu Kelley is wrapping up the 14 volume set of Whedon's Commentary and expects to resume work on the 6 volume Commentary by Thomas Coke early this fall.  He has about half of it scanned, and have the rest of it ready to scan.   Email him at mr_sulu@iocnet.net or write:

Wesleyan Heritage Publishing1690 Old Harmony Dr., NWConcord, NC 28027-8031

             Schmul's Wesleyan Book Club generally reprints an early Methodist classic book every quarter. At this time they are preparing several books from this era which they consider important and valuable additions to any library. To join the book club or for more information, call them at 800-772-6657 or email Allegheny Publications still has remaining sets of Joseph Sutcliffe’s Commentary.   Within the next six months they are planning to do a limited run of Adam Clarke’s Commentary, as well as Joseph Benson’s Commentary.  Contact Bob Johnstone at bobjohn@raex.com or call (330) 337-0280 for details.

            Watch the next issue of this magazine or check our web site for information on our new Fundamental Wesleyan Commentary on Romans.