The Arminian Magazine--Spring, 1995

WHAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL WESLEYAN --Vic Reasoner

Every generation must apply the timeless truths of Scripture to their contemporary questions. While it is enough under ordinary circumstances to profess faith in Jesus Christ, throughout the history of the Christian Church there have been major disagreements as to the proper explanation of our faith. We do not desire to be divisive, but we believe we are to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

1. We are earnest Christians

God has poured out His love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us. We endeavor to love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind and with all our strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

We have no desire to break fellowship with any brother or sister whom God has accepted into the spiritual family. We seek to maintain the "Catholic Spirit" exemplified by John Wesley's famous sermon by that title. The word "ecumenical" refers to worldwide Christian unity and cooperation. In the early days of the Christian Church there were four major ecumenical councils which reaffirmed the teachings of Scripture and kept the Church on track. These councils did not convene because the Scriptures were not sufficient, but in the face of contemporary questions the councils convened to state a scriptural response.

In more recent times, though, ecumenical gatherings have even included those who have denied the faith. In order to reach a consensus these councils have sought unity at the lowest common denominator. Unlike the early councils which promoted orthodoxy, the modern ecumenical movement has been too willing to compromise orthodoxy for the sake of union. truth is not determined by a denomination board and we dare not surrender our conscience to any ecclesiastical hierarchy.

2. We are Protestants

Although some evangelicals are now expressing a willingness to cooperate with Rome, the greatest unresolved issue is the issue of authority. We maintain, along with Luther, that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. What Luther means by sola scriptura is essentially what Wesley meant by homo unius libri (a man of one book). When challenged that he misunderstood the scriptural teaching on the new birth, Wesley wrote in his Journal, that he turned to his Greek New Testament "resolving to abide by 'the law and the testimony,' and being confident that God would hereby show me 'whether this doctrine was of God.'"

We reject the apocryphal books declared four hundred years ago to be Scripture by the Roman Church at the Council of Trent. In opposition to the Roman Catholic coupling of Scripture and church tradition as joint rules of faith we stand for the sufficiency of Scripture. There is no dual authority. John Wesley explained

The faith of the Protestants, in general, embraces only those truths, as necessary to salvation, which are clearly revealed in the oracles of God. Whatever is plainly declared in the Old and New Testament is the object of their faith. They believed neither more nor less than what is manifestly contained in, and provable by, the Holy Scriptures. The Word of God is a "lantern to their feet, and a light in all their paths." They dare not, on any pretence, go from it, to the right hand or to the left. The written Word is the whole and sole rules of their faith, as well as practice. They believe whatsoever God has declared, and profess to do whatsoever He hath commanded. This is the proper faith of Protestants: by this they will abide and no other ("On Faith," sermon #106).

In his statement on "The Character of a Methodist," Wesley affirmed "the written word of God to be the only and sufficient rule both of Christian faith and practice; and herein we are fundamentally distinguished from those of the Romish Church."

We watch with concern the developments surrounding the manifesto "Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium." The Roman Catholic Church pronounced at the Council of Trent over four hundred years ago that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is anathema.

John Wesley affirmed with Martin Luther that justification by faith alone was "the article by which the Church stands or falls" (see "The Lord Our Righteousness, sermon #20). We stand with Martin Luther and raise our voices in protest against all who deny that salvation is by grace through faith. Until this position os officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, we remain Protestants.

[to be continued]

DEALING WITH ANGER --Robert L. Brush

Anger, in its natural form, is a God-given emotion. However one does not have to read the Bible very long before we see that anger in many cases is sinful. The same section that allows us to be angry without sin also warns "let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you with all malice" (Ephesians 4:26, 31). In fact wrath is listed as a work of the flesh which will keep us from inheriting the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21).

One might conclude all anger is sinful. John Wesley seemed to imply this with his comment on Matthew 5:22, "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause," where he asked, "how can there be a cause" (Sermon #22). Yet in his sermon on "Christian Perfection" he conceded "for all anger is not evil."

The "stock" theory of the holiness churches has been if you get angry and show it you need to be saved; if you feel anger and do not exhibit it you need to be sanctified. After sanctification you do not feel anger, let alone become angry. However, in studying human behavior we have come to understand anger takes different forms. There is inverted anger which causes pouting, resentment, bitterness, a breaking of fellowship, avoiding other people and a hundred other symptoms.

Let's talk about anger a little. If anger is the same thing as the carnal mind, then Jesus as well as God the Father would have sin in them for God in angry with the wicked every day (Psalm 7:11). In fact the total number of references to God's wrath exceeds 580. Without the propitiation of Christ we are still "sinners in the hands of an angry God."

The New Testament records that "Jesus looked round about on them with anger" (Mark 3:5). When Jesus cleansed the temple He was not in what we would call a good mood. Paul seemed to reveal some anger when he said, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall" (Acts 23:3). The contention between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp they broke fellowship. There was something between them akin to anger; at least a sharp contention.

As you can see this definition of anger as being sin, maybe the root of all sin, will certainly not bear scriptural scrutiny. We conclude then there must be good anger and evil anger. How then can we tell the difference What happens then when a sinner is born again, having his heart purified by faith through the baptism of the Holy Spirit When he becomes a new creation he is a temple of the Holy Spirit and Christ is formed in him. What effect does all this have on his emotions

Our emotions are God given and given for our good and protection. It is only when they are perverted by sin that they are sinful. But at the same time they must be guarded and controlled by the Holy Spirit and self discipline or they will lead to sin - yes, even in the entirely sanctified! Paul said he kept his body under - that is under the control of the Spirit. This no doubt included the emotions and the survival instincts which could lead to sin.

Take for example the attraction to the opposite sex. I do not know of anyone who thinks regeneration or sanctification neutralizes this emotion. We all agree however that this must come under the control of the Holy Spirit. The desire to own property is right and good, but can lead to covetousness. The desire to belong is natural and good, but perverted it can cause some to compromise convictions to become accepted. Hatred of evil can lead one to hate evil persons as well. The truth is salvation does not destroy our emotions, only our sinful emotions which are only a perversion of God-give instincts.

How then can you tell the difference between good anger or evil anger At what point does righteous anger become sinful That may be a "hair" very difficult to split. However we know when a person loses his temper and is out of control of the Spirit and common sense that he is sinning and could not be born of God at that time since he that is born of God does not commit sin (1 John 3:9).

However feeling angry when your children deliberately challenge you or talk back and disobey is normal and natural and some show of displeasure and discipline is not only natural, but right. The amount of anger should agree with the transgression.

To be angry when the car breaks down and kick it and "cuss" is, of course, sin and no one who is regeneration will do that. But to become frustrated and anxious when everything goes wrong is a natural thing. However, unless we allow the Holy Spirit to take over in these situations - be warned, sin lies at the door.

Some think the command to not let the sun go down on our wrath means that we should not go to bed angry, but to be reconciled before you retire for the night. Maybe it doe,s but how many of God's people live up to that

Husbands and wives may have little spats and become angry with each other - even if you call it something else - and retire for the night still angry and reconciliation is not made for two or three days, if ever. Is this not one of the "sins" Christians must confess Remember we are to be slow to become angry and quick to listen (James 1:19). When angry be prayful, for sin is close by! "Be ye angry and sin not' (Ephesians 4:26).

GETTING ON THE RIGHT TRACK --Mark Horton

I grew up within the ranks of the American Holiness Movement. As a lad I believe that the holiness people were God's choice instruments to preserve and propagate the real truth of the gospel. It seemed God had truly given us marvelous light.

After leaving home I began to prepare for my call to the ministry. I studied theology in a holiness Bible college. I learned the terminology and the proof texts well. During this time I met several wonderful people whom I believed graced the gospel. But these outstanding individuals were the exceptions rather than the norm.

There were some real problems as well. I had difficulty understanding why our movement for the most part operated on the defensive. If we were right, then God was for us. Who was going to be against us Paul had asked that question in his letter to the Romans and had listed a lot bigger enemies than we were fighting.

Although his enemies were bigger, Paul's bugle call was "victory." We were "more than conquerors." But our movement had the same deficiencies that plagued other movements. There were inconsistency, critical spirits, and prejudice. Legalism held us together organizationally while we were miles apart on the inside. The circle was small and getting smaller while the entrances were guarded to keep us pure.

Of course there were exceptions. Thank God for them everyone. When I think of them I am reminded of people Bill Hybels describes in his book Honest to God

Their character is deeper, their ideas fresher, their spirits softer, their courage greater, their leadership stronger, their concerns broader, their compassion more genuine, and their convictions more concrete. They have joy in difficulties, and wisdom beyond their years.

They knew how to genuinely love beyond borders. But if we had it right, why did we not produce more people of this quality I soon learned that this question haunted many of my background. Excuses were offered. "People are too carnal." "No one wants holiness in these days." Yet I knew that was not getting to the heart of the question.

I began to look for answers. Since holiness was our distinctive I wanted to know it well. I began in my first pastorate to read the current books of prominent authors on the subject. Then I began to work back. I read Wesley's Plain Account of Christian Perfection and was so intrigued that I foraged into his journal and sermons.

I began to notice some obvious differences in Wesley's approach to the subject. Until that time holiness to me was the result of a second work of grace known as entire sanctification. As a pastor, I understood that my job was to hurry the unconverted to conversion and then on to holiness. Without this second crisis no one would see the Lord. In this context I heard numerous sermons from Hebrews 12:14 on "holiness or hell."

Over a period of seven years I read Wesley and I studied the Word. No thoughtful reader of the Bible can escape our obligation to live a holy life. It is clearly the will of God. The job of the Old Testament priest was to help the people distinguish between the common and the holy. The New Testament minister must do no less. But until we properly understand holiness we are unable to lead our people.

I have concluded that we have been our own worst enemy. The doctrine we loved and the experience we proclaimed has suffered more at the hands of her friends than her foes. While we thought of ourselves as Wesleyan-Arminians regarding theology it became apparent we had subtle shifts from Wesley and the Word which have produced disastrous consequences.

For example, notice the use of the words "holiness" or "sanctification" to describe the work of entire sanctification. To Wesley holiness was descriptive of Christian experience from the new birth onward. A new Christian who had been justified and regenerated was a holy person. The difference between the new birth and entire sanctification was one of "degree and not kind." And Wesley also stated, "the term sanctified is continually applied by St. Paul to all that were justified;" and "that by this term alone, he [Paul] rarely, if ever, means, saved from all sin. . . ."

Consider the results from not grasping these definitions. We have preached entire sanctification where it was not and neglected it where it was taught. The precepts and examples that we use to guide our people into this great work are often those Wesley used to teach the new birth. It is amazing to look at Wesley's thirty texts from which he taught Christian perfection and compare that list to the popular holiness texts used today.

No doubt the greatest damage done has been to our understanding of the new birth. The glory of becoming a new creature, of passing from death unto life, of becoming sons of the living God has been short-changed to a second rate experience. Instead of singing "I'm a child of the King" with confidence encouraged by the Scriptures, we are taught to believe "not yet."

By describing the new birth as an experience that is insecure, we have shaken the very confidence that is needed in the lives of believers to help them survive. We have often undermined the work of God by attempting to push people prematurely to Christian maturity.

Think of the misappropriation of Hebrews 12:14 as a text teaching all those who have only the experience of the new birth will go to hell! From what are they saved The same book that earlier encourages the believer not to throw away his confidence (10:35) has been the tool of promoting despair in the ranks of the holiness movement.

What we accept in theory will influence our practices. If we believe that the new birth is an insecure condition, then we are compelled to drive people to safety. This does not allow the believer time to build much of a foundation on which the rest of his life is to be developed. He often does not learn to discern the leadership of the Holy Spirit in establishing God's will for himself. Wesley was asked, "In what manner should we preach sanctification" He answered, "Scarce at all to those who are not pressing forward; to those who are, always by way of promise; always by way of promise; always drawing rather than driving."

It seems clear that the early Methodists led their people by helping them focus on what they could be rather than on berating them for what they were not. Encouragement was used instead of discouragement. Their method was patience, not pressure. Could this not be part of the difference between the quality of their converts and our own Would not a rediscovery of the dynamics within our own heritage get us back on track and make us a positive force once more

FROM OUR MAILBAG

Dear Mr. Reasoner,

Gary Freymiller gave me a copy of your work The Hole in the Holiness Movement which I read last year. Please know that I appreciated your line of argument very much. It is fitting and noteworthy that two scholars who have worked independently of one another can arrive at such similar conclusions. This perhaps indicates that we are seeing something in Wesley that is actually there! For example, in my work on Wesley I have stressed that hose who are born of God are free from the guilt and power of sin. Second, I have notes that the Holy Spirit witnesses to their spirits that they are indeed children of God. Third, I have denied that the faith of a servant constitutes what Wesley calls the proper Christian faith. Indeed, the faith of a servant remains sub-Christian because it lacks one of the key marks of a child of God, namely, freedom from the power of sin. And fourth, I too have maintained that it is simply ludicrous to contend that Aldersgate was the time of Wesley's entire sanctification. Instead, it was the time when he was justified by faith, born of God, and when he received a measure of assurance. It was, therefore, the time when he became a real Christian by how own mature criteria. Now if the holiness movement has failed to understand what Wesley meant by the new birth, how will it ever understand what he meant by entire sanctification

In His grace,

Dr. Kenneth J. Collins, Womack Professor of Philosophy and Religion Methodist College, Fayetteville, NC and current President, Wesleyan Theological Society

THE INFLUENCE OF MARTIN LUTHER --Vic Reasoner

Not only was Luther's Preface to the Epistle of the Romans read at a meeting at Aldersgate Street the evening John Wesley was evangelically converted, but Luther also had a profound influence in the conversion of Charles Wesley. This connection is not as well known.

John recorded in his journal that Peter Bohler had challenged him. bohler claimed true faith had two inseparable fruits: "dominion over sin and constant peace from a sense of forgiveness." John turned to his Greek New Testament "resolving to abide by 'the law and the testimony,' and being confident that God would hereby show me 'whether this doctrine was of God.'"

Two days later he was ready to accept the definition that faith is "a sure trust and confidence which a man hath in God, that through the merits of Christ his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favor of God." But Bohler again challenged John. John could not comprehend Bohler's teaching of an instantaneous work. John said, "I could not understand how this faith should be given in a moment; how a man could at once be turned from darkness to light, from sin and misery to righteousness and joy in the Holy Ghost."

Again John turned to the Scriptures, and, to his surprise, "found scarce any instances there of other than instantaneous conversions." In his survey of the Scriptures he was especially influenced by the conversion accounts in the book of Acts. It is ironic that the later holiness movement reinterpreted these accounts as referring to a second work.

John now argued that instantaneous conversions ceased after apostolic times. He said, however, he "was beat out of this retreat too, by the concurring evidence of several living witnesses." They all concurred that "this faith was the gift, the free gift of God, and that he would surely bestow it upon every soul who earnestly and perseveringly sought it." John wrote, "I was not thoroughly convinced. And, by the grace of God, I resolved to seek it unto the end."

Two days later, on April 25, 1738, John preached this new truth. Charles was present and John wrote, "My brother was very angry, and told me I did not know what mischief I had done by talking thus. And indeed it did please God then to kindle a fire, which I trust shall never be extinguished."

Charles recorded in his journal, "We fell into a dispute whether conversion was gradual or instantaneous. My brother was very positive for the latter, and very shocking; mentioned some late instances of gross sinners believing in a moment. I was much offended at his worse than unedififying discourse. I insisted a man need not know when first he had faith."

It was three weeks later that Charles discovered Martin Luther's Commentary on Galatians. As he read from it he was "astonished I should ever think justification by faith alone is a new doctrine. From this time I endeavored to ground as many of our friends as came in this fundamental truth, salvation by faith alone."

Charles recorded that Luther had been a great blessing to him, especially his conclusion of the second chapter. The following Sunday, which was Whitsunday, became the day of Pentecost for Charles. He wrote, "I now found myself at peace with God, and rejoiced in hope of loving Christ. I saw that by faith I stood; by the continual support of faith, which kept me from falling, though of myself I am ever sinking into sin."

The next day Charles joined in prayer for his brother's conversion and declared, "In the midst of prayer, I almost believed the Holy Ghost was coming upon him." It was not until Thursday evening, however, that John heard Luther's introduction to Romans and felt his heart strangely warmed. John had convinced Charles, God had kindled a fire in his heart, and Charles entered the kingdom four days ahead of John!

It is also of interest that Martin Luther, who had been dead for almost two hundred years, was used to influence both brothers. Charles seems to have been almost completely persuaded intellectually by Luther's insights on Galatians. Here, then, are some of Luther's words which Charles read:

For Christ is Joy and Sweetness to a broken heart. Christ is a Lover of poor sinners, and such a Lover that He gave Himself for us. Now if this is true, and it is true, then are we never justified by our own righteousness.

Read the words "me" and "for me" ["who loved me and gave himself for me," Galatians 2:20] with great emphasis. Print this "me" with capital letters in your heart, and do not ever doubt that you belong to the number of those who are meant by this "me." Christ did not only love Peter and Paul. The same love He felt for them He feels for us. If we cannot deny that we are sinners, we cannot deny that Christ died for our sins.

We despise the grace of God when we observe the Law for the purpose of being justified. The Law is good, holy, and profitable, but it does not justify. To keep the Law in order to be justified means to reject grace, to deny Christ, to despise His sacrifice, and to be lost.

If my salvation was so difficult to accomplish that it necessitated the death of Christ, then all my works, all the righteousness of the Law, are good for nothing. How can I buy for a penny what cost a million dollars The Law is a penny's worth when you compare it with Christ. Should I be so stupid as to reject the righteousness of Christ which cost me nothing, and slave like a fool to achieve the righteousness of the Law which God disdains

Man's own righteousness is in the last analysis a despising and rejecting of the grace of God. No combination of words can do justice to such an outrage. It is an insult to say that any man died in vain, but to say that Christ died in vain is a deadly insult. To say that Christ died in vain is to make His resurrection, His victory, His glory, His kingdom, heaven, earth, God Himself, of no purpose and benefit whatever.

It seems that such a horrible wickedness could not enter a man's heart, that he should reject the grace of God, and despise the death of Christ. Any yet this atrocity is all too common. Let us be warned. Everyone who seeks righteousness without Christ, either by works, merits, satisfactions, afflictions, or by the Law, rejects the grace of God, and despises the death of Christ.

Luther commented at Galatians 4:6,

St. Augustine observed that 'every man is certain of his faith, if he has faith.' We ought to feel sure that we stand in the grace of God, not in view of our own worthiness, but through the good services of Christ. As certain as we are that Christ pleases God, so sure ought we to be that we also please God, because Christ is in us. So long as He sits at the right hand of God to intercede for us, we have nothing to fear from the anger of God.

If we could be fully persuaded that we are in the good grace of God, that our sins are forgiven, that we have the Spirit of Christ, that we are the beloved children of God, we would be ever so happy and grateful to God. But because we often feel fear and doubt we cannot come to that happy certainty.

Train your conscience to believe that God approves of you. Fight it out with doubt. Gain assurance through the Word of God. Say, "I am all right with God. I have the Holy Ghost. Christ, in whom I do believe, makes me worthy. I gladly hear, read, sing, and write of Him. I would like nothing better than that Christ's Gospel be known throughout the world and that many, many be brought to faith in Him."

Let the Law, sin, and the devil cry out against us until their outcry fills heaven and earth. The Spirit of God outcries them all. Our feeble groans, "Abba, Father," will be heard of God sooner than the combined racket of hell, sin and the Law.

Let us never doubt the mercy of God in Christ Jesus, but make up our minds that God is pleased with us, that He looks after us, and that we have the Holy Spirit who prays for us [translation by Theodore Graebner].

No wonder Charles recorded in his journal for June 6, 1738, "In the evening, I read Luther, as usual, to a large company of our friends."