Tag: Christian Perfection

Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity

pastorwardclintonLeave a comment

Is there no balm in Gilead? – Yes, the most excellent in the world. “Is there no physician there?” Yes, persons well skilled to apply it. “Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?” Because ye have not applied to the physician, nor used the balm. Ye die because ye will not use the remedy. But to apply this metaphor: – The Israelites are represented as a man dying through disease; and a disease for the cure of which the balm of Gilead was well known to be a specific, when judiciously applied by a physician. But though there be balm and a physician, the people are not cured; neither their spiritual nor political evils are removed. But what may all this spiritually mean? The people are morally diseased; they have sinned against God, and provoked him to destroy them. They are warned by the prophet to repent and turn to God: they refuse, and sin on. Destruction is come upon them. Might they not have avoided it? Yes. Was it the fault of God? No. Did he not send his prophets with the richest offers of mercy? Did he not give them time, the best instructions, and the most effectual means of returning to him? Has not mercy, the heavenly balm, been ever at hand? And has not God, the great Physician, been ever ready to apply it?

Yes. Why then are they not converted and healed? Because they would not apply to the Divine Physician, nor receive the only remedy by which they could be spiritually healed. They, then, that sin against the only remedy must perish, because they might have had it, but would not. It is not because there is a deficiency of grace, nor of the means of grace, that men are not saved; but because they either make no use, or a bad use, of them. Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, has tasted death for every man; but few are saved, because they Will Not come unto him that they may have life.

    How shall they escape who neglect so great a salvation? Reader, lay this to heart; and, while there is time, apply heartily to the great Physician for thy cure. – Adam Clarke Commentary

 

    The following is John Wesley’s sermon preached in Dublin, July 2, 1789. [My comments are in brackets.]

Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity

            “Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?” Jer. 8:22.

            1. This question, as here proposed by the Prophet [Jeremiah], relates only to a particular people, — the children of Israel. But I would here consider it in a general sense, with relation to all mankind. I would seriously inquire, why has Christianity done so little good in the world [relatively speaking]? Is it not the balm, the outward means, which the Great Physician has given to men, to restore their spiritual health? Why then is it not restored? You say, Because of the deep and universal corruption of human nature. Most true; but here is the very difficulty. Was it not intended, by our all-wise and almighty Creator, to be the remedy for that corruption? A universal remedy, for a universal evil? But it has not answered this intention, it never did; it does not answer it at this day. The disease still remains in its full strength: Wickedness of every kind; vice, inward and outward, in all its forms, still overspreads the face of the earth. [The Wesley-Whitefield revivals had taken place but men were slipping back into their old habits instead of maintaining personal holiness.  The old preacher was disturbed by that fact.]

            2. O Lord God, “righteous art thou! Yet let us plead with thee.” How is this? Hast thou forgotten the world thou hast made; which thou hast created for thy own glory? Canst thou despise the work of thy own hands, the purchase of thy Son’s blood? Thou hast given medicine to heal our sickness; yet our sickness is not healed. Yet darkness covers the earth, and thick darkness the people; yea,

Darkness such as devils feel,

Issuing from the pit of hell.

            3. What a mystery is this, that Christianity should have done so little good in the world! Can any account of this be given? Can any reasons be assigned for it? Does it not seem that one reason it has done so little good is this, — because it is so little known? Certainly it can do no good where it is not known. But it is not known at this day to the far greater part the inhabitants of the earth. In the last century, our ingenious and laborious countryman, Mr. Brerewood, travelled over great part of the known world on purpose to inquire, so far as was possible, what proportion the Christians bear to the Heathens and Mahometans. And, according to his computation, (probably the most accurate which has yet been made,) [Let us] suppose mankind to be divided into thirty parts, nineteen parts of these are still open Heathens, having no more knowledge of Christianity than the beasts that perish. And we may add to these the numerous nations which have been discovered in the present century. Add to these such as profess the Mahometan religion, and utterly scorn Christianity; and twenty-five parts out of thirty of mankind are not so much as nominally Christians. So then five parts of mankind out of six are totally ignorant of Christianity. It is, therefore, no wonder that five in six of mankind, perhaps nine in ten, have no advantage from it.

     [Two centuries later, even with all the advancements, we have seen on every hand, things really haven’t changed very much at all.  There are so many among us who do not know Jesus the Christ as Lord and Savior.]

            4. But why is it that so little advantage is derived from it to the Christian world? Are Christians any better than other men? Are they better than Mahometans or Heathens? To say the truth, it is well if they are not worse; worse than either Mahometans or Heathens. In many respects they are abundantly worse; but then they are not properly Christians. The generality of these, though they hear the Christian name, do not know what Christianity is. They no more understand it than they do Greek or Hebrew; therefore they can be no better for it. What do the Christians, so called, of the Eastern Church, dispersed throughout the Turkish dominions, know of genuine Christianity? those of the Morea, of Circassia, Mongrelia, Georgia? Are they not the very dregs of mankind? And have we reason to think that those of the Southern Church, those inhabiting Abyssinia, have any more conception than they, of “worshipping God in spirit and in truth?” Look we nearer home. See the Northern Churches; those that are under the Patriarch of Moscow. How exceedingly little do they know either of outward or inward Christianity! How many thousands, yea, myriads, of those poor savages know nothing of Christianity but the name! How little more do they know than the heathen Tartars on the one hand, or the heathen Chinese on the other! “

            5. But is not Christianity well known, at least, to all the inhabitants of the western world? a great part of which is eminently termed Christendom, or the land of Christians. Part of these are still members of the Church of Rome; part are termed Protestants. As to the former, Portuguese, Spaniards Italians, French, Germans, what do the bulk of them know of scriptural Christianity? Having had frequent opportunity of conversing with many of these, both at home and abroad, I am bold to affirm, that they are in general totally ignorant, both as to the theory and practice of Christianity; so that they are “perishing” by thousands “for lack of knowledge,” — for [lack] of knowing the very first principles of Christianity. [And in this first quarter of the 21st century, we can add the Unites States of America.  How long, Oh Lord, will you bear with us?]

            6. “But surely this cannot be the case of the Protestants in France, Switzerland, Germany, and Holland; much less in Denmark and Sweden.” Indeed I hope it is not altogether. I am persuaded, there are among them many knowing Christians; but I fear we must not think that one in ten, if one in fifty, is of this number; certainly not, if we may form a judgment of them by those we find in Great Britain and Ireland. Let us see how matters stand at our own door. Do the people of England, in general, (not the highest or the lowest; for these usually know nothing of the matter; but people of the middle rank,) understand Christianity? Do they conceive what it is? Can they give an intelligible account, either of the speculative or practical part of it? What know they of the very first principles of it? — of the natural and moral attributes of God; of his particular providence; of the redemption of man; of the offices of Christ; of the operations of the Holy Ghost; of justification; of the new birth; of inward and outward sanctification? speak of any of these things to the first ten persons you are in company with; and will you not find nine out of the ten ignorant of the whole affair? And are not most of the inhabitants of the Scotch Highlands full as ignorant as these; yea, and the common people in Ireland? (I mean the Protestants, of whom alone we are now speaking.) Make a fair inquiry, not only in the country cabins, but in the cities of Cork, Waterford, Limerick; yea, in Dublin itself. How few know what Christianity means! How small a number will you find that have any conception of the analogy of faith! of the connected chain of scripture truths, and their relation to each other, — namely, the natural corruption of man; justification by faith; the new birth; inward and outward holiness. It must be acknowledged by all competent judges, who converse freely with their neighbors in these kingdoms, that a vast majority of them know no more of these things than they do of Hebrew or Arabic. And what good can Christianity do to these, who are so totally ignorant of it?

    [Consider that portion of the Holy Bible which we commonly refer to as the Old Testament portion with the ebb and flow of the knowledge of God and the obedience and disobedience of His ordinances.  Then couple Wesley’s day and then our own.  The heroes of faith did not merely go along with the status quo; they pushed back against the encroaching darkness. As must we.]

            7. However, in some parts, both of England and Ireland, scriptural Christianity is well known; especially in London, Bristol, Dublin, and almost all the large and populous cities and towns of both kingdoms. In these, every branch of Christianity is openly and largely declared; and thousands upon thousands continually hear and receive “the truth as it is in Jesus.” Why is it then, that even in these parts Christianity has had so little effect? Why are the generality of the people, in all these places, Heathens still? no better than the Heathens of Africa or America, either in their tempers or in their lives? Now, how is this to be accounted for? I conceive, thus: It was a common saying among the Christians in the primitive Church, “The soul and the body make a man; the spirit and discipline make a Christian;” implying, that none could be real Christians, without the help of Christian discipline. But if this be so, is it any wonder that we find so few Christians; for where is Christian discipline? In what part of England (to go no farther) is Christian discipline added to Christian doctrine? Now, whatever doctrine is preached, where there is not discipline, it cannot have its full effect upon the hearers.

 

            8. To bring the matter closer still. Is not scriptural Christianity preached and generally known among the people commonly called Methodists?  [Remember, this is two centuries ago … before the United Methodists strayed from sound doctrine.] Impartial persons allow it is. And have they not Christian discipline too, in all the essential branches of it, regularly and constantly exercised? Let those who think any essential part of it is wanting, point it out, and it shall not be wanting long. Why then are not these altogether Christians, who have both Christian doctrine and Christian discipline? Why is not the spiritual health of the people called Methodists recovered? Why is not all that “mind in us which was also in Christ Jesus?” Why have we not learned of him our very first lesson, to be meek and lowly of heart? to say with him, in all circumstances of life, “Not as I will, but as thou wilt? I come not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Why are not we “crucified to the world, and the world crucified to us;” — dead to the “desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, and the pride of l ife?” Why do not all of us live “the life that is hid with Christ in God?” O why do not we, that have all possible helps, “walk as Christ also walked?” Hath he not left us an example that we might tread in his steps? But do we regard either his example or precept? To instance only in one point: Who regards those solemn words, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth?” Of the three rules which are laid down on this head, in the sermon on “The Mammon of Unrighteousness,” you may find many that observe the First rule, namely, “Gain all you can.” You may find a few that observe the Second, “Save all you can:”‘ But how many have you found that observe the Third rule, “Give all you can?” Have you reason to believe, that five hundred of these are to be found among fifty thousand Methodists? And yet nothing can be more plain, than that all who observe the two first rules without the third, will be twofold more the children of hell than ever they were before.

            9. O that God would enable me once more, before I go hence and am no more seen, to lift up my voice like a trumpet to those who gain and save all they can, but do not give all they can! Ye are the men, some of the chief men, who continually grieve the Holy Spirit of God, and in a great measure stop his gracious influence from descending on our assemblies. Many of your brethren, beloved of God, have not food to eat; they have not raiment to put on; they have not a place where to lay their head. And why are they thus distressed? Because you impiously, unjustly, and cruelly detain from them what your Master and theirs lodges in your hands on purpose to supply their wants! See that poor member of Christ, pinched with hunger, shivering with cold, half naked! Meantime you have plenty of this world’s goods, — of meat, drink, and apparel. In the name of God, what are you doing? Do you neither fear God, nor regard man? Why do you not deal your bread to the hungry, and cover the naked with a garment? Have you laid out in your own costly apparel what would have answered both these intentions? Did God command you so to do? Does he commend you for so doing. Did he entrust you with his (not your) goods for this end? And does he now say, “Servant of God, well done?” You well know he does not. This idle expense has no approbation, either from God, or your own conscience. But you say you can afford it! O be ashamed to take such miserable nonsense into your mouths! Never more litter such stupid cant; such palpable absurdity! Can any steward afford to be an errant knave? to waste his Lord’s goods? Can any servant afford to lay out his Master’s money, any otherwise than his Master appoints him? So far from it, that whoever does this ought to be excluded from a Christian society.

            10. “But is it possible to supply all the poor in our society with the necessaries of life?” It was possible once to do this, in a larger society than this. In the first Church at Jerusalem there was not any among them that lacked; but distribution was made to every one according as he had need.” And we have full proof that it may be so still. It is so among the people called Quakers. Yea, and among the Moravians, so called. And why should it not be so with us? ” Because they are ten times richer than we.” Perhaps fifty times: And yet we are able enough, if we were equally willing, to do this.

            A gentleman (a Methodist) told me some years since, “I shall leave forty thousand pounds among my children.” Now, suppose he had left them but twenty thousand, and given the other twenty thousand to God and the poor, would God have said to him, “Thou fool?” And this would have set all the society far above want.  [Unlike the average televangelist of our day, John Wesley, practiced what he preached.]

            11. But I will not talk of giving to God, or leaving, half your fortune. You might think this to be too high a price for heaven. I will come to lower terms. Are there not a few among you that could give a hundred pounds, perhaps some that could give a thousand, and yet leave your children as much as would help them to work out their own salvation? With two thousand pounds, and not much less, we could supply the present wants of all our poor, and put them in a way of supplying their own wants for the time to come. Now, suppose this could be done, are we clear before God while it is not done? Is not the neglect of it one cause why so many are still sick and weak among you; and that both in soul and in body? that they still grieve the Holy Spirit, by preferring the fashions of the world to the commands of God? And I many times doubt whether we Preachers are not, in some measure, partakers of their sin. I am in doubt whether it is not a kind of partiality. I doubt whether it is not a great sin to keep them in our society. May it not hurt their souls, by encouraging them to persevere in walking contrary to the Bible? And may it not, in some measure, intercept the salutary influences of the blessed Spirit upon the whole community?

            12. I am distressed. I know not what to do. I see what I might have done once. I might have said peremptorily and expressly, ” Here I am: I and my Bible. I will not, I dare not, vary from this book, either in great things or small. I have no power to dispense with one jot or tittle what is contained therein. I am determined to be a Bible Christian, not almost, but altogether. Who will meet me on this ground? Join me on this, or not at all.” With regard to dress, in particular, I might have been as firm (and I now see it would have been far better) as either the people called Quakers, or the Moravian Brethren:– I might have said, “This is our manner of dress, which we know is both scriptural and rational. If you join with us, you are to dress as we do; but you need not join us, unless you please.” But, alas! the time is now past; and what I can do now, I cannot tell.

            13. But to return to the main question. Why has Christianity done so little good, even among us? among the Methodists, — among them that hear and receive the whole Christian doctrine, and that have Christian discipline added thereto, in the most essential parts of it? Plainly, because we have forgot, or at least not duly attended to, those solemn words of our Lord, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.” It was the remark of a holy man, several years ago, “Never was there before a people in the Christian Church, who had so much of the power of God among them, with so little self-denial.” Indeed, the work of God does go on, and in a surprising manner, notwithstanding this capital defect; but it cannot go on in the same degree as it otherwise would; neither can the word of God have its full effect, unless the hearers of it “deny themselves, and take up their cross daily.”

            14. It would be easy to show, in how many respects the Methodists, in general, are deplorably lacking in the practice of Christian self-denial; from which, indeed, they have been continually frighted by the silly outcries of the Antinomians. To instance only in one: While we were at Oxford, the rule of every Methodist was, (unless in case of sickness,) to fast every Wednesday and Friday in the year, in imitation of the Primitive Church; for which they had the highest reverence. Now this practice of the Primitive Church is universally allowed. “Who does not know,” says Epiphanius, an ancient writer, “that the fasts of the fourth and sixth days of the week” (Wednesday and Friday) “are observed by the Christians throughout the whole world.” So, they were by the Methodists for several years; by them all, without any exception; but afterwards, some in London carried this to excess, and fasted so as to impair their health. It was not long before others made this a pretense for not fasting at all. And I fear there are now thousands of Methodists, so called, both in England and Ireland, who, following the same bad example, have entirely left off fasting; who are so far from fasting twice in the week, (as all the stricter Pharisees did,) that they do not fast twice in the month. Yea, are there not some of you who do not fast one day from the beginning of the year to the end? But what excuse can there be for this? I do not say for those that call themselves members of the Church of England; but for any who profess to believe the Scripture to be the word of God. Since, according to this, the man that never fasts is no more in the way to heaven, than the man that never prays.

            15. But can anyone deny that the members of the Church of Scotland fast constantly; particularly on their sacramental occasions? In some parishes they return only once a year; but in others, suppose in large cities, they occur twice, or even thrice, a year. Now, it is well known there is always a fast-day in the week preceding the administration of the Lord’s Supper. But, occasionally looking into a book of accounts in one of their vestries, I observed so much set down for the dinners of the Ministers on the fast-day; and I am informed there is the same article in them all. And is there any doubt but the people fast just as their Ministers do? But what a farce is this! What a miserable burlesque upon a plain Christian duty! O that the General Assembly would have regard to the honor of their nation! Let them roll away from it this shameful reproach, by either enforcing the duty, or removing that article from their books. Let it never appear there any more! Let it vanish away for ever

            16. But why is self-denial in general so little practiced at present [1789] among the Methodists? Why is so exceedingly little of it to be found even in the oldest and largest societies? The more I observe and consider things, the more clearly it appears what is the cause of this in London, in Bristol, in Birmingham, in Manchester, in Leeds, in Dublin, in Cork. The Methodists grow more and more self-indulgent, because they grow rich. Although many of them are still deplorably poor; (“tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon!”) yet many others, in the space of twenty, thirty, or forty years, are twenty, thirty, yea, a hundred times richer than they were when they first entered the society. And it is an observation which admits of few exceptions, that nine in ten of these decreased in grace, in the same proportion as they increased in wealth. Indeed, according to the natural tendency of riches, we cannot expect it to be otherwise.  [The Methodists got back on track with the pursuit of Christian perfection for quite some time, but around a hundred years after this sermon they were straying into worldliness again, resulting in many congregations disfellowshipping and then the Church of The Nazarene being established.  That seemingly spurred a reformation and revival of heart holiness for a few decades within the Methodist Church and now we have Global Methodists taking the place of the UMC in pursuit of Christian purity.  Will the UMC repent?  Time will tell.]

            17. But how astonishing a thing is this! How can we understand it? Does it not seem (and yet this cannot be) that Christianity, true scriptural Christianity, has a tendency, in process of time, to undermine and destroy itself? For wherever true Christianity spreads, it must cause diligence and frugality, which), in the natural course of things, must beget riches! and riches naturally beget pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity. Now, if there be no way to prevent this, Christianity is inconsistent with itself, and, of consequence, cannot stand, cannot continue long among any people; since, wherever it generally prevails, it saps its own foundation.

            18. But is there no way to prevent this? — to continue Christianity [steadily] among a people? Allowing that diligence and frugality tend to produce riches, is there no means to hinder riches from destroying the religion of those that possess them? I can see only one possible way; find out another who can. Do you gain all you can, and save all you can? Then you must, in the nature of things, grow rich. Then if you have any desire to escape the damnation of hell, give all you can; otherwise, I can have no more hope of your salvation, than of that of Judas Iscariot.

            19. I advise no more than I practice. I do, blessed be God, gain, and save, and give all I can. And so, I trust in God, I shall continue to do, while the breath of God is in my nostrils. But what then? I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus my Lord! Still,

I give up every plea beside,–

Lord, I am damn’d! but thou hast died!

Dublin, July 2, 1789.

 

Revelation 2:1-7

pastorwardclintonLeave a comment

Rev 2:1  Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; 

Rev 2:2  I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: 

Rev 2:3  And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. 

Rev 2:4  Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. 

Rev 2:5  Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. 

Rev 2:6  But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 

Rev 2:7  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. 

pastorwardclinton.com

Ephesus is the type of a strenuous Church. There is something singularly masculine in the first part of the description. “I know thy works”—that is, thine achievements; not thy desires and purposes and aspirations, not even thy doings, but thy deeds. This Church in its severe self-discipline affords a welcome contrast to the easily-excited populace amid whom they lived, rushing confusedly into the theatre and shouting for two hours, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” The patience of the Church is twice mentioned; the second time it is patience not as a feature of the workman, but the patience of him who can suffer, and suffer in silence. And this virtue has a threefold delineation—patience, endurance, fortitude. “Thou hast patience, and thou didst bear for My name’s sake, and thou hast not grown weary.” There is another mark of the masculine character in Ephesus, a noble intolerance of evil—“thou canst not bear bad men.” And with this intolerance is the power to discriminate character, the clear judgment which cannot be deceived—“thou didst try them which call themselves apostles, and they are not, and didst find them false.” There is no surer mark of a masculine nature than this keen insight into pretentiousness, and fidelity of rebuke. There is so much good in this church that we are surprised to discover that they had left (not lost) their first love.  The honeymoon was over (Jer 2:2).  No amount of separation, sacrifice, or service can make up for your lack of love for the Lord.

It is love in its largest sense which the Church once had and now has lost; the love of God animating piety undoubtedly, but no less certainly the love of men making service sweet. Nor is it the feeling alone which has changed, it is not that love as a sentiment is lost; but love in its far reach has gone, kindliness and tender consideration and disregard of self, the grace that suffers long and is kind, that beareth all things, hopeth all things, believeth all things. The toilsomeness, the endurance, the stern self-judgment, the keen discrimination of character, are obvious; but the spirit that rises above toil or sweetens toil, the grace to woo and wed, has fled. We can understand the history only too well. Life has many sore trials, none sorer than this—that virtues which are unexercised die out, and that the circumstances which call for some virtues and give occasion for their development seem to doom others to extinction. The Christian character cannot live by severity alone. There were two demands which the Church at Ephesus had forgotten—the demand for completeness of Christian character, never more urgent than when the times are making us one-sided; the demand of God Himself for the heart. There must be impulse in His people if they are to continue His people; there must be love in all who, not contented with doing “their works,” desire to do the work of God.

The warning of the fifth verse must have been very surprising to the angel of the Ephesian Church. The Church seemed to be so efficient. Its works had been so hard, and yet they had been done. Its achieve-merits were patent. Especially its service in the cause of truth was conspicuous; the Church had not lost its zeal, its candour, its piercing vision. Ephesus warns us against the perils of the Puritan temper; it warns us also against the stoical temper, with its tendency to a not ignoble cynicism, of which some of our gravest leaders in literature have been the exponents. Puritanism plus love ham accomplished great things, and will do yet more; for a masculine tenderness is God’s noblest gift to men. But Puritanism, when the first love is lost, drags on a sorrowful existence, uninfluential and unhappy; its only hope being the capacity for repentance, which, God be praised, has never failed it. Perhaps the most solemn part of the message is that in which the Lord Himself declares—“I am coming; I will shake thy candlestick out of its place.” The Lord can do without our achievements, but not without love. He can supply gifts unendingly, can make the feeble as David; but if love be wanting He will shake the noblest into destruction, and remove them out of the way. There is one striking word immediately following this warning, a word of commendation; it is the only one of the messages in which a word of commendation does come in after the warning has been uttered, and it is a commendation of feeling. “But this thou hast, that thou hatest,” etc. Hatred is hardly the feeling we should have expected to be commended: but it is feeling, and any feeling is better than apathy or stolidity. Where men can feel hatred, other feeling may come; love may come where men have not reduced themselves to machines like an “Ebenezer Scrooge”.

The word “Nicolaitans” means “conquer the people.”  Apparently, a group in the church lorded it over the people and promoted a separation of “clergy” and “laity” (see Matt 21:20-27; 22:1-12) The priest hood was set up by God, but its purpose is not to “lord it over” the people but to serve and produce high quality disciples of the Christ.  Some of the priests and pastors started out good but lost their way somewhere along the pathway.  Ephesus had too little of what so many have too much of—sensibility, passiveness, willingness to receive, to be made something of, to be quiet and let the Blessed One save them who had long been striving, and of late so ineffectually, to serve Him. Good as strenuousness is—and of human virtues it is among the chief—even better is the responsive spirit. Why was the one we call St Paul given a vision when none of the other priests, as far as we know, in his day given one?  Much of the reason likely had to do with his sincerity and earnestness to do the will of God coupled with a responsive spirit that none but God was able to see during the time when he was a persecutor of those called Christians.

— A preview from my forthcoming book on the Revelation of Jesus the Christ. – pastorwardclinton.com

Progressive Sanctification

pastorwardclintonLeave a comment

God’s purpose is that each Christian should press onward in the life of holiness aiming at final perfection, like a runner in a race. God has made provision for each Christian to be a “perfect” runner.  In running a race, it is half the battle to make a good start.  And in the Christian race, it gives a tremendous impetus to the believer if he starts and continues with a clear, steady faith in Christ for full deliverance from sin.  What is the greatest hindrance to a Christian starting and continuing in this glorious race?  Surely it is indwelling sin.  But praise God, as we shall show, we may be set gloriously free from this indwelling, entangling hindrance, we may be made perfectly whole and clean within and filled with the blessed Holy Spirit. This is “Perfection the True.”  Thus we can, through grace, fulfill the command, “Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:1, 2) – Brockett

The unchristian world that walks by sight and not by faith and knows not the dignity of the Christian nor what the Christians are entitled to.  The Christian is favored by heaven and will be an inhabitant of that place where the unchristian as well as the antichristian person cannot go.  The unchristian and the antichristian alike will see Jesus with His frowns, the terror of His majesty and vengeance but the true Christian will see His smiles, the glory of His majesty, His beauty.  The impure will be terrified by His purity.  Those who hope to live with Him must strive to be more pure.  “It is the hope of hypocrites, and not the sons of God that makes an allowance for the gratification of impure desires and lusts.” – Matthew Henry

The work of the Holy Spirit in the progressive sanctification of the newborn soul is indirect: in opening the heart to receive the truth, the instrument of purification; in giving vigor to the spiritual life; in strengthening the will to resist temptation, and in diminishing the power of evil habits. It is repressive of depravity rather than totally destructive. 

The entire eradication of the propensity to sin is by the direct and instantaneous act of the Holy Spirit responsive to a special act of faith in Christ claiming the full heritage of the believer. It is in reference to this distinctive act of the Sanctifier that it is noted by an eminent expositor “that in the New Testament we never read expressly and unmistakably of sanctification as a gradual process.” This is said in view of the almost universal use of the aorist tense of the verbs to sanctify and to cleanse. – Dr. Daniel Steele

An excerpt from my soon to be released book “Jesus the Christ made a statement,” Pastor Ward

Those who are hostile to God will not be allowed into His Heaven

pastorwardclinton1 Comment

Although God invites everyone to be part of His forever family, those who are hostile to God and His ways will not be allowed to enter in to His heaven. Ladies and gentlemen that includes militant homosexuals and antagonistic atheists, as well as many who call themselves Christian.
It is actually somewhat understandable why many people mistrust certain Christians; however, there are other Christians whom it is quite dangerous to despise. Those Christians and their way of living may make you feel a bit uncomfortable regarding your own life-choices you may have made or may currently be making but if they are actually embarking upon the spirit-walk which we are all called to travel in then it is wise to take note and, perhaps, move in the same direction and along the pathway and in the same manner they are.
There is a Christian doctrine that holds that the soul of the fully committed Christian may attain a high degree of virtue and holiness and become Entirely Sanctified with the help of the divine grace of Jesus.
That term is not to be confused with Dr. Charles Stanley’s erroneous accusations that those who believe Entire Sanctification is a present possibility in this life are actually claiming to have attained “Ultimate Sanctification.” The Reverend Doctor may have merely misunderstood and not been guilty of maliciously maligning that grace of Jesus which he couldn’t quite comprehend.
In some of his sermons I heard him come so close to teaching and embracing Entire Sanctification, often while using slightly different terminology that means the same thing, and then, just as it seemed like he was about to have his “eureka” moment, suddenly he was running back away from it. Why is he afraid of it?
I can remember at least a couple of times sitting in front of the television saying, “C’mon Doc, you’re only a hair’s breadth away from your breakthrough.” Unfortunately, every time I heard Charles Stanley speak of Entire Sanctification correctly and get really close to actually comprehending the command from God for us to be holy in this life I would hear him turn around and run back toward hyper-Calvinism much like Gollum seeking out his “Precious.” Please understand, I do not lump together all those who hold John Calvin in high regard. I tend to see it as something along the line of: Hyper-Calvinist … Calvinist … Wesleyan-Calvinist. An example of the latter might be Charles H. Spurgeon who said, “There is a point of grace as much above the ordinary Christian as the ordinary Christian is above the world.” He also said of them, who are enjoying that grace, “They are rejoicing Christians, holy and devout men doing service for their Master all over the world, and everywhere conquerors through Him that loved them.”
Now the concept of Entire Sanctification may initially come from the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of theosis. The critic may pounce at this point and loudly proclaim, “Aha! It’s not a biblical thing!” My response is, “Sorry, charlie; go back and reread the paragraph above, which starts with ‘There is a Christian doctrine…Jesus.’ because the foundation of that doctrine is God’s command to be holy.”
Thomas Aquinas defined a perfect thing as one that “possesses that of which, by its nature, it is capable.”
“Perfection is that which it is better to have than not to have.” – Duns Scotus
Christian Perfection is another term used to speak of Entire Sanctification. It is a doctrine that is chiefly associated with the followers and adherents of John Wesley’s theological understanding. Sometimes, the concept is referred to as “sinless perfection,” although a better and more accurate phrase would be “blamelessness before God.”
John Wesley, in his book, “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection,” wrote “…sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself.” He also explained that he viewed it as “purity of intention, dedicating all the life to God” with “the mind which was in Christ, enabling us to walk as Christ walked.” This assists in “loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves.”
Wesley did not use the term “Christian perfection” to claim sinlessness nor did he advocate it as a state of being unable to sin but rather it is the being more readily capable of consistently choosing not to sin through finding empowerment from the Spirit of God to abide in holiness of heart and life in accordance with our high calling.
Thereby, we may experience a freedom from willful rebellion against God, as well as impure intentions and pride. As we followers of Jesus function at that level of Christian living, the world then sees the type of Christian that assures them that God still works in His followers in our day.
Entirely Sanctified Christians remain subject to temptations, and have a continued need to maintain a prayer life that keeps them connected to the One who empowers them to fulfill His command to “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” Charles Stanley correctly understood we cannot attain Entire Sanctification in our own power, and as long as we try to do it that way we’ll never get it; when we understand that the Spirit of God empowers us to live that way then and only then we may be empowered to receive that point of grace.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. — Jesus

The Witness of the Spirit

pastorwardclintonLeave a comment

The Witness of the Spirit

The Doctrine as Elucidated in Romans 8:16

            The Protestant tradition concerning the Witness of the Spirit has been affirmed on a consistent basis.  However, John Wesley developed and emphasized the doctrine within his own theological system, and gave it prominence as perhaps no one else.  M. James Sawyer, in tracing the history of this doctrine within Protestantism, records:

In the context of the First Great Awakening in America and the Evangelical Revival in England, John Wesley picked up on vital Reformed themes seen particularly in Calvin, developed them, and then formally integrated them into his theological method. Particularly, Wesley advocated and further developed Calvin’s doctrine of the witness of the Spirit in the heart of the believer. He insisted with Calvin, and against the Puritan perspective, that the witness of the Spirit is a personal experience prior to rational reflection” (Sawyer).

Wesley was influenced by the Moravians in this doctrine, but soon found he could no longer follow their lead.  He searched the Scriptures, studying them as tirelessly as he was accustomed to do.  “He had proved beyond question that the earlier fathers taught this doctrine, and sustained his position by quotations from Origen, Chrysostom, Athanasius and Augustine; but it was only in the Scriptures that he found the true principles of its defense” (Wiley, Volume 2).  In his sermon “The Witness of the Spirit:  Discourse Two” Wesley said:

It more nearly concerns the Methodists, so called, clearly to understand, explain, and defend this doctrine; because it is one grand part of the testimony which God has given them to bear to all mankind. It is by this peculiar blessing upon them in searching the Scriptures, confirmed by the experience of his children, that this great evangelical truth has been recovered, which had been or many years well nigh lost and forgotten (Wesley, “The Witness of the Spirit, II,” Sermon # 11, I.4).

Lest we think too highly that this is Mr. Wesley’s doctrine, Adam Clarke brings our feet back solidly to the true foundation:  “The Methodists, in proof of the doctrine of the witness of the Spirit, refer to no man, not to Mr. John Wesley himself: they appeal to none — they appeal to the Bible, where this doctrine stands as inexpugnable as the pillars of heaven” (Clarke).

The primary passage that teaches the doctrine is Romans 8:16:  “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.”  It conveniently concludes Paul’s section on life in the Spirit, which began in 8:1.  In verses 1-4 Paul contrasts the life lived in the flesh under the law and the life lived under the influence of the Spirit.  Paul reveals what life lived according to the flesh is like in verses 5-8, then describes how Christians are to live according to the Spirit in verses 9-11.

Then in verses 12- 17 Paul employs several expressions concerning the work of the Spirit in the life of Christians, and appears to utilize them to show, in reverse order, how believers may live in the Spirit.  In verse 13, Paul states that believers must live according to the Spirit and not the flesh.  How do believers live according to the Spirit?  They must be led by the Spirit (vs. 14).  The only people who can be led by the Spirit are those who are sons of God (14).  Believers obtain the position of sons through the work of the Spirit of God in adoption (15).  By what means do the people of God know they are adopted into the family of God?  This is the subject of verse 16, and it deserves closer inspection and examination.

The classic, and never-improved, definition of the Witness of the Spirit comes from the pen of John Wesley himself.  In his own inimitable way he succinctly and concisely nails down the essential elements of the doctrine.  “By the testimony of the Spirit, I mean, an inward impression on the soul whereby the Spirit of God immediately and directly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God” (Wesley, “The Witness of the Spirit, II,” Sermon # 11, II.2).  There are several key elements to help us understand this doctrine.

First, the witness of Spirit is a direct testimony.  Wesley states that the witness of the Spirit is performed “immediately and directly” to the spirit of a man.  When God justifies a person, the act is done in the mind of God.  It is God who knows that a man is justified and pardoned from his sins, and God alone.  Were it not for a direct intervention of God upon a person’s spirit, that person would have no knowledge that such a transaction had occurred.  That intervention is accomplished through the Holy Spirit, because “. . . no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:11, NIV) and “The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:10, NIV).  God the Holy Spirit witnesses or testifies of the very fact of our acceptance by God directly to our inner spirit.

Of what exactly does the Spirit testify concerning?  From the preceding verse Paul informs us that our adoption as sons is witnessed to by the Spirit.  Thomas Horton described it in this manner:  “Now for this it is nothing else but a gracious hint or intimation given to the soul by God, assuring our hearts and consciences of His favour and love towards us, and of our atonement and reconciliation with Him through the blood of His Son” (Excell).  It would stand to reason also that in assuring of their new relationship with God that believers also would be assured of the veracity of the great doctrines which came to bear on their salvation, such as the existence and nature of God, the deity and atonement of Christ, and of the authority and truth of God’s Word.

Some have suggested that the witness of the Spirit is only indirect as He produces His fruit in our lives.  To this line of reasoning Samuel Wakefield objects:

But . . . it has been urged that the fruits of the Spirit, when found in our experience, must be sufficient evidence of the fact, without supposing a more direct testimony of the Holy Spirit. . . . Two things will here be granted, and they greatly strengthen the argument for a direct testimony of the Holy Spirit: first, that these fruits are found only in those who have been received, by the remission of their sins, into the Divine favor. . . . Secondly, that these graces are fruits of the Spirit of adoption (Wakefield).

In order to have fruit produced in Christians’ lives and to be recognized as indeed the fruit of the Spirit, they first must have direct testimony from the Spirit Himself that He has the authority and right to produce that fruit, namely that they have been regenerated by His power and are indeed sons of God.

In an interesting and unique thought, William Lane Craig portrays the witness of God’s Spirit as self-authenticating.

By that I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such experience does not function in this case as a premise in any argument from religious experience to God, but rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself; that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as “God exists,” “I am condemned by God,” “I am reconciled to God,” “Christ lives in me,” and so forth; that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity’s truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to it (31).

Atheists have responded enthusiastically to this line of reasoning, dismissing it as disprovable and unsupported.  Not surprisingly, they have missed the point, for that is the point of Lane’s argument.  The problem that the atheists must counter is not Lane’s argument, but his underlying premise, namely that the Holy Spirit exists.

The second element is that of the Spirit’s testimony to my spirit.  The Greek word συμμαρτυρέω (summartureo) is formed from the root word μαρτυρέω (martureo), which means “to testify.”  Affixed to the front of this word is the prefix σύν (sun) meaning primarily “with,” but which may also serve to intensify a word.  The debate concerns whether the phrase τω πνευματι (to pneumati), “our spirit,” is to be interpreted as a dative of association, “with our spirit,” or as a dative indirect object, “to our spirit.”  Daniel B. Wallace authored a lengthy piece debating this subject, arguing on behalf of the latter, stating,

Positively, we can argue from two vantage points: context and correlation. The context of Rom 8 involves especially two themes—assurance of salvation and the role of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s sanctification. These two are not unrelated. The assurance offered seems to come from two sources: inner testimony and external fruit. The one, in fact, seems to be the prerequisite for the other (Wallace, The Witness of the Spirit in Romans 8:16).

Wallace’s argument is convincing, concluding that the direct witness of the Spirit is aimed toward the spirit of man, but that the assurance comes from two sources.

A third element Wesley and others have always pointed out is that this is a two-fold witness:  the direct witness of the Holy Spirit to the spirit, and the witness of the spirit as to the work of the Holy Spirit.  Many theologians refer to the witness of one’s spirit as a reflex action to the work of the Holy Spirit.  This reflex action of the spirit may be what Paul is referring to in the preceding verse when the believer cries “Abba, Father” in response to the work of the Spirit in adoption.  In Galatians 4:4-6 Paul says, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’”  Here the Spirit is said to be the one who “calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’”  Bernard Ramm explains these two cries as being only one:  “They are like two forks of the same pitch which vibrate sympathetically and harmoniously together” (Reasoner, 328).  The heart of a believer responds in kind to the call of the Spirit, and these two witness to the relationship that has been established.

The fourth key element concerns how the witness of the Spirit is achieved.  Wesley’s definition enunciates that the witness of the Spirit is “an inward impression on the soul.”  Many, like John Wesley, confess their ignorance upon the subject:  “The manner how the divine testimony is manifested to the heart, I do not take upon me to explain. Such knowledge is too wonderful and excellent for me: I cannot attain unto it” (Wesley, “The Witness of the Spirit, I,” Sermon # 10, I.12).  All agree, however, that it cannot, and must, not be simply a subjective, mystical event.  The relationship is one of subject-object, the touching of the individual by God the Holy Spirit.  Adam Clarke argued that the “spirit” means

In our understanding, the place or recipient of light and information; and the place or faculty to which such information can properly be brought. This is done that we may have the highest possible evidence of the work which God has wrought. As the window is the proper medium to let the light of the sun into our apartments, so the understanding is the proper medium of conveying the Spirit’s influence to the soul (Clarke).

The indirect witness of our spirit is the work of the spirit in our mind and conscience, giving us the knowledge that we are God’s children.  “This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God” (1 John 3:19-21).  Ralston stated it in this way:

This testimony of our own spirit, we do not possess by intuition, but it is derived through a process of reasoning.  Thus the Bible describes certain moral qualities of the soul, and moral habits of life, as belonging peculiarly to the children of God.  By the exercise of our own consciousness, and a contemplation of our own lives, we may form an opinion of our character; then, by the exercise of our reasoning faculty, we may compare our character with the character described in Scripture as pertaining to the child of God, and rationally draw the conclusion that we sustain that relation.  This is the only plan by which our own spirit can witness to the fact (438).

There are several implications of this great doctrine.  The first and obvious implication is the assurance that is provided to the believer.  This is borne out in the tense of the verb translated “bears witness.”  The present tense here is a customary present, meaning an action that regularly occurs or an ongoing state.  The witness of the Spirit is not a onetime witness at the point of salvation, but is a continual, ongoing witness.  Since the Holy Spirit takes up residence inside the believer, his presence there is a witness to the fact of a continual relationship.  The Spirit is our seal:  “Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come” (2 Cor. 1:21-22).  As a believer perseveres in his faith, the Spirit maintains His witness to him.  God will not leave His child without the witness of the Spirit.  A believer’s own spirit may at times succumb to the wiles of satanic forces seeking to persuade him that he is no child of God, that his works are not good enough, or that his life is not acceptable.  A believer has only to listen to the direct witness of the Spirit to realize that his relationship with God remains unbroken.  “We know that we are saved because of the testimony of scripture and because of the inner witness of the Spirit. I know I am a child of God not just because the Bible tells me so, but because the Spirit convinces me so” (Wallace).

The second implication of this doctrine concerns the perseverance of the saints.  The witness of the Spirit applies only to the present, not the future.  Those of the Reformed tradition would argue that the doctrine of perseverance makes assurance a product of works, and assurance thereby unknowable at the moment of salvation.  This means denying the inner witness of the Spirit and founding assurance only objectively on the Word.  But it is the Spirit who not only offer assurance of salvation, but also sustains and energizes that faith.  The greatest security is found in the life lived in holiness and purity as it is led by the Spirit, and such a continuance is testified to as proof that the life belongs to the family of God.

The importance of this doctrine cannot be overstated.  Today the church is deficient in good biblical preaching and teaching on the important and vital doctrines of the Word of God.  It is imperative, therefore, that the Gospel is preached not just as fire insurance, but as a relationship with Almighty God.  The reality of that relationship is emphasized in the ongoing witness of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.  Thomas Coke warns about the absence of the direct witness of the Spirit:

The absence of the direct witness of the Spirit

  • leads to legalism
  • in time stifles any conviction
  • invalidates the testimony of conscience since God’s Spirit bears witness with our spirit
  • leads to a false peace while he walks in darkness
  • leads to preposterous ideas of faith without evidence
  • conceals the motives from which our actions flow
  • raises the question of why a person could not also be a penitent without knowing it
  • makes reformation and regeneration the same
  • leaves perfect love with no witness
  • brands the inward witness as fanaticism (Coke)

Unfortunately, his warning has gone unheeded, as evidenced by the state of Christianity in America today.  In a 2009 survey, Barna discovered some startling facts concerning American Christianity and belief concerning the Holy Spirit.

. . . most Christians do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a living force . . . . 38% strongly agreed and 20% agreed somewhat that the Holy Spirit is ‘a symbol of God’s power or presence but is not a living entity.’ Just one-third of Christians disagreed that the Holy Spirit is not a living force (9% disagreed somewhat, 25% disagreed strongly) while 9% were not sure” (Barna).

If so-called Christians do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a real person of the Trinity, then there can be no real assurance of salvation in their lives.  A revival of this doctrine would certainly purify the church, edifying true believers and convicting false professors of their need for verification of what they profess.

J. Oliver Jones, Light of Life Ministry is a 501c3 Religious Non-profit Organization based in Nashville, TN that produces Biblical educational material.
LOLM’s materials are based on conservative, Wesleyan-Arminian doctrine. The organization is affiliated with the Southern Methodist Church.

 

WORKS CITED

Barna Group, The.  Most American Christians Do Not Believe that Satan or the Holy Spirit Exist.  barna.org, 2009.  Web.  3 Mar. 2012.

Clarke, Adam.  Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the New Testament.  WORDsearch, 2004.

—.  Christian Theology.  New York: Lane & Scott, 1851.

Coke, Thomas.  Thomas Coke’s Arguments for the Necessity of the Direct Witness of the Spirit.  fwponline.cc, n.d.  Web.  30 Jan. 2012.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 1994.

Excell, Joseph S.  Biblical Illustrator.  E-sword.

Reasoner, Vic.  A Fundamental Wesleyan Commentary on Romans.  Evansville, IN:  Fundamental Wesleyan Publishers, 2002.

Sawyer, N. James.  “The Witness of the Spirit in the Protestant Tradition.”  bible.org, n.d.  Web.  20 Feb. 2012.

Wakefield, Samuel.  Complete System of Christian Theology.  WORDsearch, 2007.

Wallace, Daniel B.  The Witness of the Spirit in Romans 8:16.  bible.org, n.d.  Web.  20 Feb. 2012.

Wesley, John.  “The Witness of the Spirit: I,” Sermon # 10. wesley.nnu.edu. Wesley Center for Applied Theology, 1999.  Web.  22 Feb. 2012.

—. “The Witness of the Spirit: II,” Sermon # 11. wesley.nnu.edu. Wesley Center for Applied Theology, 1999.  Web.  22 Feb. 2012.

Wiley, H. Orton (2011-01-01). Christian Theology, Volume 2 (Kindle Locations 7737-7738). Beacon Hill Press. Kindle Edition.

Those who are hostile to God will not be allowed into His Heaven

pastorwardclinton1 Comment

Although God invites everyone to be part of His forever family, those who are hostile to God and His ways will not be allowed to enter in to His heaven.  Ladies and gentlemen that includes militant homosexuals and antagonistic atheists as well as many who call themselves Christian.

It is actually somewhat understandable why many people mistrust certain Christians; however, there are other Christians whom it is quite dangerous to despise.  Those Christians and their way of living may make you feel a bit uncomfortable regarding life-choices you may have made or may currently be making but if they are actually embarking upon the spirit-walk we are all called to travel in then it is wise to take note and, perhaps, move in the same direction and along the pathway and in the same manner they are.

There is a Christian doctrine which holds that the soul of the fully committed Christian may attain a high degree of virtue and holiness and become Entirely Sanctified with the help of the divine grace of Jesus.  That term is not to be confused with the late Dr. Charles Stanley’s erroneous accusations that those who believe Entire Sanctification is a present possibility in this life are actually claiming to have attained “Ultimate Sanctification.”  The Reverend Doctor may have merely misunderstood and not been guilty of maliciously maligning that grace of Jesus which he couldn’t quite comprehend.  In some of his sermons I heard him come so close to teaching and embracing Entire Sanctification, often while using slightly different terminology that meant the same thing, and then, just as it seemed like he was about to have his “eureka” moment, suddenly he was running back away from it.

I can remember at least a couple of times, sitting in front of the television saying, “C’mon Doc, you’re only a hair’s breadth away from your breakthrough.”  Unfortunately, every time I heard Charles Stanley speak of Entire Sanctification correctly and get really close to actually comprehending the command from God for us to be holy in this life I would hear him turn around and run back toward hyper-Calvinism much like Gollum seeking out his “Precious.”  Please understand, I do not lump together all those who hold John Calvin in high regard.  I tend to see it as something along the line of:  Hyper-Calvinist … Calvinist … Wesleyan-Calvinist.  An example of the latter might be Charles H. Spurgeon who said, “There is a point of grace as much above the ordinary Christian as the ordinary Christian is above the world.”  He also said of them, who are enjoying that grace, “They are rejoicing Christians, holy and devout men doing service for their Master all over the world, and everywhere conquerors through Him that loved them.”

Now the concept of Entire Sanctification may initially come from the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of theosis.  The critic may pounce at this point and loudly proclaim, “Aha!  It’s not a biblical thing!”  My response is, “Sorry, charlie; go back and reread the paragraph above which starts with ‘There is a Christian doctrine…Jesus.’ because the foundation of that doctrine is God’s command to be holy.”

Thomas Aquinas defined a perfect thing as one that “possesses that of which, by its nature, it is capable.”

“Perfection is that which it is better to have than not to have.” – Duns Scotus

Christian Perfection is another term used to speak of Entire Sanctification.  It is a doctrine that is chiefly associated with the followers and adherents of John Wesley’s theological understanding.  Sometimes the concept is referred to as “sinless perfection,” although a better and more accurate phrase would be “blamelessness before God.”

John Wesley, in his book, “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection,” wrote “…sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself.”  He also explained that he viewed it as “purity of intention, dedicating all the life to God” with “the mind which was in Christ, enabling us to walk as Christ walked.”  This assists in “loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves.”

Wesley did not use the term “Christian perfection” to claim sinlessness nor did he advocate it as a state of being unable to sin but rather the being more readily capable of choosing not to sin through finding empowerment from the Spirit of God to abide in holiness of heart and life in accordance with our high calling.

Thereby we may experience a freedom from willful rebellion against God, as well as impure intentions and pride.  As we followers of Jesus function at that level of Christian living the world then sees the type of Christian that assures them that God still works in His followers in our day.

Entirely Sanctified Christians remain subject to temptations, and have a continued need to maintain a prayer life that keeps them connected to the One who empowers them to fulfill His command to “Be ye holy, for I am holy.”  Charles Stanley correctly understood we cannot attain Entire Sanctification in our own power, and as long as we try to do it that way we’ll never get it; when we understand that the Spirit of God empowers us to live that way then and only then we may be empowered to receive that point of grace.

Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. — Jesus