The Holiness Movement
The Holiness Movement - SermonAudio.com
church history series.
audio sermon MP3 56 min.
The Holiness Movement - SermonAudio.com
church history series.
audio sermon MP3 56 min.
The Holiness Movement
- Thread starter zone
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The Holiness Movement
Written by Gary Gilley
(December 2004 - Volume 10, Issue 12)
Pentecostalism was born in the cradle of the Holiness Movement of the nineteenth-century. The Holiness Movement actually traces its roots to John Wesley in the eighteenth-century, who taught sort of a two-tiered salvation. The first tier was conversion or justification, in which one is forgiven and freed from past sins. The second tier was “entire sanctification” which liberated one from their fallen nature, or at least the tendency toward sin. Revivalists, in the early 1800s, such as Asa Mahan (president of Oberlin College) and evangelist Charles Finney advanced Wesley’s theology. They taught “that sinners had the natural ability to believe, and that evangelistic methods could overcome their ‘moral’ inability through the persuasive power of the Gospel.” [1] “Finney and Mahan applied this same understanding to the Christian’s growth toward spiritual maturity…. To be sanctified, they insisted, required only the same kind of simple, instantaneous faith one exercised to be converted.” [2]
In 1836 both men experienced what they called “baptisms of the Holy Ghost” which they believed not only freed them from committing sin but also removed their tendency toward sin. Contributing to the spread of this “Holiness” doctrine were the popular camp meeting revivals of the first half of the 1800s, the ministry of Phoebe Palmer (1807-1874) (who taught that sanctification could be reached instantaneously by an act of faith) and the “Prayer Revival” of 1857-1858 (sometimes called the Third Great Awakening). There was also much unrest in Methodist circles as many felt the denomination had lost its fervor. The Wesleyan Methodist (in 1843) and the Free Methodist (in 1860) left the denomination to form the first Holiness denominations. Until the 1890s the Holiness Movement was largely a Methodist phenomenon, but as the Methodists settled more into mainstream Christianity tensions escalated into a schism which resulted in new, non-Methodist, Holiness denominations. These included the Church of God, Anderson, Indiana (1880), Church of the Nazarene (1908) and Pilgrim Holiness Church (1897).
The Holiness adherents saw themselves as the true descendents of the Wesleys and practiced strict moral ethics, abstinence from worldly pleasures and amusements and a strong belief in entire sanctification (also known as the “second blessing” and the baptism of the Holy Spirit). More importantly “Holiness teaching offered 19th-century evangelicals a means of overcoming their sectarian conflicts. Doctrine might divide, but the experience of a pure heart would unite all true believers against the threats posed by religious formalism, atheism, and Roman Catholicism.” [3] This Holiness emphasis would continue to be spread throughout the 19th century by individuals and groups as diverse as the Salvation Army, Quakers, D. L. Moody, Hannah Whitall Smith, the Y.M.C.A., the Keswick Movement and Oswald Chambers. A brief explanation concerning some of those might prove helpful.
Hannah Whitall Smith was a Quaker revivalist who gave inspiration to the Keswick Movement and wrote The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life which is still in publication today. Hannah’s ministry was truncated by her husband’s questionable moral activities, but her legacy lives on. Speaking of the Keswick Movement, originally these were non-Methodist conferences in England which began in the 1870s. The Keswick Movement offered a modified Holiness doctrine called “Higher Life.” According to Higher Life theology the sin nature and tendency were not eradicated, just counteracted by the baptism of the Holy Spirit which ushered in joyful and victorious Christian living. D. L. Moody would be influenced and participate in the Keswick Movement, receiving his “baptism” in 1871. But Moody interpreted his Spirit baptism, not in terms of freedom from sin, but in endowment with power. This altered understanding of Spirit baptism distinguished the American Keswick Movement and had a great impact on the Bible institute movement at the turn of the twentieth-century.
Today the Holiness Movement lives on through the various Holiness denominations, the continued efforts of both the English and American Keswick Conferences and through the writings of Hannah Whitall Smith, Lettie Cowman (Streams in the Desert), Oswald Chambers (My Utmost for His Highest) and others.
PENTECOSTALISM
It must be understood that much, if not most, of what Holiness teachers advocate, is biblically sound and spiritually helpful. These individuals have a true desire for godliness and their passion is contagious. The fly in the ointment is the view of Spirit baptism as a second work of God’s grace which ushers the believer immediately into another level of Christian experience, i.e. a “higher life.”
Charles Parham (Father of the Pentecostal Movement) would take the Holiness teachings to another level. He liked the idea of a super-level spirituality brought about by a crisis experience (i.e. Spirit baptism) but he also believed that Spirit baptism should be accompanied by manifestations of the Holy Spirit, especially tongues. In 1901 Parham and a handful of followers claimed to experience tongues as an evidence of their baptism. This would mark the birth of the Pentecostal Movement which would combine Holiness theology with supernatural signs of the Spirit. Only a few years later a student of Parham, William J. Seymour, led what would be called the Azusa Street Revival (1906-1909) which elevated supposed manifestations of the Holy Spirit to such a level that even Parham believed they were demonic. Nevertheless, Pentecostal practice and Holiness theology would spread throughout the world in the decades that followed. During the 1940s and 50s a new emphasis on healing and miracles infiltrated the Pentecostal Movement.
Just as this Deliverance Revival was dying out the Charismatic Movement came to life (1960). By definition charismatics transcend all denominations, and as such is not a movement based on theology but on experience. However, there are two doctrinal distinctives that trace their roots back to the early Holiness and Pentecostal teachings: The first is that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace that brings power in the life of the believer (Holiness). The second is that the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues (Pentecostal). It should be mentioned that many in the Americanized form of the Holiness Movement equated the power associated with the baptism of the Holy Spirit with power for ministry rather than holy living.
In the last few decades new movements have arisen—each claiming improvement over the movements of the past. The Vineyard Movement was founded in 1982 with an emphasis on the miraculous and a downplaying, to some degree, of tongues. The Toronto Blessing (1994) and Brownsville Revival (1995) pushed the supposed activities of the Holy Spirit to new limits. Miracles, bizarre manifestations, healings, uncontrollable laughter, and demonic confrontation became the norm. Running parallel has been the Word of Faith Movement, with its belief that even God is subject to words spoken in faith by “anointed” ministers of God.
All of these 20th century movements can trace their ancestors to the Holiness Movement of the 1800s and to John Wesley before that. They all have in common the desire for some form of instantaneous perfection, or power, that comes through a subsequent work of the Spirit in the lives of believers. Each movement also has in common a faulty view of sanctification—that personal holiness, maturity and power is the result of a momentary experience rather than a lifetime process.
THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF SANCTIFICATION
John Wesley propounded a doctrine of “entire sanctification” or “perfection in love” which was “a personal, definitive work of God’s sanctifying grace by which the war within oneself might cease and the heart be fully released from rebellion into wholehearted love for God and others.” [4] As we have seen this doctrine was developed by later Holiness leaders to mean that the sinful nature would be eradicated.
By contrast, the Scriptures never allude to a time in this life when the saints cease to do battle with the flesh. While Christians are no longer characterized as being “in the flesh” (Romans 8:9), they are promised a constant battle with the flesh until the day of their glorification (Galatians 5:16-25). There are simply no scriptures that teach a second crisis experience, second baptism of the Spirit or entire sanctification. In John Wesley’s Plain Account of Christian Perfection he makes no biblical defense for his view, simply citing, “We are all agreed, we may be saved from all sin before death; that is, from all sinful tempers and desires. The substance, then, is settled” (p. 1). But, of course, it is not settled, for instantaneous and complete freedom from sin, its desires and draws, is never taught in Scripture.
So, from whence comes the confusion? Most likely it comes from the New Testament presentation of sanctification and holiness as both a settled position (1 Corinthians 6:11) and a process for which one is to strive by God’s power (Philippians 2:12, 13). “In sum, sanctification in the New Testament is seen as a one-time event and as a process, the believers being and becoming holy and acting correspondingly.” [5] The word “sanctify” itself means “to set apart.” When applied to Christians it takes on the connotation of being set apart to God for holy living. The word “sanctification” is probably used most often in the New Testament to describe our position before Christ as saints set apart for His glory (John 17:15-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:12-15; Romans 15:16; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 6:11; Ephesians 5:26). But the doctrine often labeled progressive sanctification is a term used to describe Christian growth in holy living. This doctrine does not hinge on the use of the word “sanctification.” The apostle Paul, deep into his spiritual life, made it clear that he had not become perfect yet, but was “pressing on” (Philippians 3:12-14). He calls for us to work out our salvation through the power of God (Philippians 2:12, 13). He calls for Christians to walk in “a manner worthy of the calling with which we have been called” (Ephesians 4:1), and to take up the full armor of God that we might be able to stand firm (Ephesians 6:13). The author of Hebrews describes a process in maturation (Hebrews 5:11-6:2); Paul does the same in 1 Timothy 4:7-10, 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4:1, 9-10).
Never are we told to ask for a second baptism of the Holy Spirit that would usher us into a state of complete holiness. As a matter of fact Paul is clear that there is only one baptism (Ephesians 4:5), and that Spirit baptism is for the purpose of making us one with Christ (Romans 6:3-4) and one with the body of Christ, the church (1 Corinthians 12:13).
While millions of Christians throughout the ages, especially since the birth of the Holiness Movement, have longed for some experience that frees them from the grip of the flesh, the New Testament gives no such hope. As David Peterson writes, “The Christian does not any longer
live a life fundamentally determined and controlled by the flesh. Nevertheless, ‘flesh’ continues to be a powerful force in our experience. The conflict with sin does not diminish with conversion but actually intensifies, because we begin to experience the possibilities of a Spirit-directed life” (cf. Galatians 5:16-26). [6]
Maturity in Christ is expected of every believer; freedom from spiritual battle with the world, the flesh and the devil is attained only in the next life.
At the same time, we must be careful that we do not over react to Holiness philosophy and believe that godliness is attained through our own self-determined efforts of obedience. We are certainly called to obedience, but it is not a self-energized, self-motivated or self-obtaining obedience. It is an obedience made possible only because of the power of God in our lives. This is the consistent teaching of the New Testament, but we will direct our attention to Romans 8:12-13. So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Peterson, once again, summarizes things well, “Holiness of life is not simply attained by moral effort nor even by striving to keep the law of God. It is not even a matter of ‘letting go and letting God.’ Practical holiness involves ‘putting to death’ in our lives what God has already sentenced to death on the cross (‘mortification’) and living out the new life given to us by the indwelling Christ…. Human effort is required, but not apart from, nor distinct from the activity of God’s Spirit, who subdues the flesh as we mortify it in His power, and as we set our minds upon the things of the Spirit.” [7]
Holiness of life should be the heart-felt desire of every Christian. But that holiness is not found in either short-cuts or self effort. It is found as we pursue righteousness (2 Timothy 2:22) laying aside the deeds of the flesh (Colossians 3:5-10) through the power of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:16) and as we behold the glory of the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18).
The Holiness Movement was in many ways a reaction to the dead orthodoxy and lifeless spirituality that infiltrated so much of Christianity during the nineteenth-century. However, its remedy, a second blessing resulting in the eradication of sinful tendencies and a higher life not available to the unbaptized, went beyond the teaching of Scripture. As is often the case in reactionary movements, the cure may be as bad as the disease.
The Holiness Movement
Written by Gary Gilley
(December 2004 - Volume 10, Issue 12)
Pentecostalism was born in the cradle of the Holiness Movement of the nineteenth-century. The Holiness Movement actually traces its roots to John Wesley in the eighteenth-century, who taught sort of a two-tiered salvation. The first tier was conversion or justification, in which one is forgiven and freed from past sins. The second tier was “entire sanctification” which liberated one from their fallen nature, or at least the tendency toward sin. Revivalists, in the early 1800s, such as Asa Mahan (president of Oberlin College) and evangelist Charles Finney advanced Wesley’s theology. They taught “that sinners had the natural ability to believe, and that evangelistic methods could overcome their ‘moral’ inability through the persuasive power of the Gospel.” [1] “Finney and Mahan applied this same understanding to the Christian’s growth toward spiritual maturity…. To be sanctified, they insisted, required only the same kind of simple, instantaneous faith one exercised to be converted.” [2]
In 1836 both men experienced what they called “baptisms of the Holy Ghost” which they believed not only freed them from committing sin but also removed their tendency toward sin. Contributing to the spread of this “Holiness” doctrine were the popular camp meeting revivals of the first half of the 1800s, the ministry of Phoebe Palmer (1807-1874) (who taught that sanctification could be reached instantaneously by an act of faith) and the “Prayer Revival” of 1857-1858 (sometimes called the Third Great Awakening). There was also much unrest in Methodist circles as many felt the denomination had lost its fervor. The Wesleyan Methodist (in 1843) and the Free Methodist (in 1860) left the denomination to form the first Holiness denominations. Until the 1890s the Holiness Movement was largely a Methodist phenomenon, but as the Methodists settled more into mainstream Christianity tensions escalated into a schism which resulted in new, non-Methodist, Holiness denominations. These included the Church of God, Anderson, Indiana (1880), Church of the Nazarene (1908) and Pilgrim Holiness Church (1897).
The Holiness adherents saw themselves as the true descendents of the Wesleys and practiced strict moral ethics, abstinence from worldly pleasures and amusements and a strong belief in entire sanctification (also known as the “second blessing” and the baptism of the Holy Spirit). More importantly “Holiness teaching offered 19th-century evangelicals a means of overcoming their sectarian conflicts. Doctrine might divide, but the experience of a pure heart would unite all true believers against the threats posed by religious formalism, atheism, and Roman Catholicism.” [3] This Holiness emphasis would continue to be spread throughout the 19th century by individuals and groups as diverse as the Salvation Army, Quakers, D. L. Moody, Hannah Whitall Smith, the Y.M.C.A., the Keswick Movement and Oswald Chambers. A brief explanation concerning some of those might prove helpful.
Hannah Whitall Smith was a Quaker revivalist who gave inspiration to the Keswick Movement and wrote The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life which is still in publication today. Hannah’s ministry was truncated by her husband’s questionable moral activities, but her legacy lives on. Speaking of the Keswick Movement, originally these were non-Methodist conferences in England which began in the 1870s. The Keswick Movement offered a modified Holiness doctrine called “Higher Life.” According to Higher Life theology the sin nature and tendency were not eradicated, just counteracted by the baptism of the Holy Spirit which ushered in joyful and victorious Christian living. D. L. Moody would be influenced and participate in the Keswick Movement, receiving his “baptism” in 1871. But Moody interpreted his Spirit baptism, not in terms of freedom from sin, but in endowment with power. This altered understanding of Spirit baptism distinguished the American Keswick Movement and had a great impact on the Bible institute movement at the turn of the twentieth-century.
Today the Holiness Movement lives on through the various Holiness denominations, the continued efforts of both the English and American Keswick Conferences and through the writings of Hannah Whitall Smith, Lettie Cowman (Streams in the Desert), Oswald Chambers (My Utmost for His Highest) and others.
PENTECOSTALISM
It must be understood that much, if not most, of what Holiness teachers advocate, is biblically sound and spiritually helpful. These individuals have a true desire for godliness and their passion is contagious. The fly in the ointment is the view of Spirit baptism as a second work of God’s grace which ushers the believer immediately into another level of Christian experience, i.e. a “higher life.”
Charles Parham (Father of the Pentecostal Movement) would take the Holiness teachings to another level. He liked the idea of a super-level spirituality brought about by a crisis experience (i.e. Spirit baptism) but he also believed that Spirit baptism should be accompanied by manifestations of the Holy Spirit, especially tongues. In 1901 Parham and a handful of followers claimed to experience tongues as an evidence of their baptism. This would mark the birth of the Pentecostal Movement which would combine Holiness theology with supernatural signs of the Spirit. Only a few years later a student of Parham, William J. Seymour, led what would be called the Azusa Street Revival (1906-1909) which elevated supposed manifestations of the Holy Spirit to such a level that even Parham believed they were demonic. Nevertheless, Pentecostal practice and Holiness theology would spread throughout the world in the decades that followed. During the 1940s and 50s a new emphasis on healing and miracles infiltrated the Pentecostal Movement.
Just as this Deliverance Revival was dying out the Charismatic Movement came to life (1960). By definition charismatics transcend all denominations, and as such is not a movement based on theology but on experience. However, there are two doctrinal distinctives that trace their roots back to the early Holiness and Pentecostal teachings: The first is that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace that brings power in the life of the believer (Holiness). The second is that the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues (Pentecostal). It should be mentioned that many in the Americanized form of the Holiness Movement equated the power associated with the baptism of the Holy Spirit with power for ministry rather than holy living.
In the last few decades new movements have arisen—each claiming improvement over the movements of the past. The Vineyard Movement was founded in 1982 with an emphasis on the miraculous and a downplaying, to some degree, of tongues. The Toronto Blessing (1994) and Brownsville Revival (1995) pushed the supposed activities of the Holy Spirit to new limits. Miracles, bizarre manifestations, healings, uncontrollable laughter, and demonic confrontation became the norm. Running parallel has been the Word of Faith Movement, with its belief that even God is subject to words spoken in faith by “anointed” ministers of God.
All of these 20th century movements can trace their ancestors to the Holiness Movement of the 1800s and to John Wesley before that. They all have in common the desire for some form of instantaneous perfection, or power, that comes through a subsequent work of the Spirit in the lives of believers. Each movement also has in common a faulty view of sanctification—that personal holiness, maturity and power is the result of a momentary experience rather than a lifetime process.
THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF SANCTIFICATION
John Wesley propounded a doctrine of “entire sanctification” or “perfection in love” which was “a personal, definitive work of God’s sanctifying grace by which the war within oneself might cease and the heart be fully released from rebellion into wholehearted love for God and others.” [4] As we have seen this doctrine was developed by later Holiness leaders to mean that the sinful nature would be eradicated.
By contrast, the Scriptures never allude to a time in this life when the saints cease to do battle with the flesh. While Christians are no longer characterized as being “in the flesh” (Romans 8:9), they are promised a constant battle with the flesh until the day of their glorification (Galatians 5:16-25). There are simply no scriptures that teach a second crisis experience, second baptism of the Spirit or entire sanctification. In John Wesley’s Plain Account of Christian Perfection he makes no biblical defense for his view, simply citing, “We are all agreed, we may be saved from all sin before death; that is, from all sinful tempers and desires. The substance, then, is settled” (p. 1). But, of course, it is not settled, for instantaneous and complete freedom from sin, its desires and draws, is never taught in Scripture.
So, from whence comes the confusion? Most likely it comes from the New Testament presentation of sanctification and holiness as both a settled position (1 Corinthians 6:11) and a process for which one is to strive by God’s power (Philippians 2:12, 13). “In sum, sanctification in the New Testament is seen as a one-time event and as a process, the believers being and becoming holy and acting correspondingly.” [5] The word “sanctify” itself means “to set apart.” When applied to Christians it takes on the connotation of being set apart to God for holy living. The word “sanctification” is probably used most often in the New Testament to describe our position before Christ as saints set apart for His glory (John 17:15-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:12-15; Romans 15:16; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 6:11; Ephesians 5:26). But the doctrine often labeled progressive sanctification is a term used to describe Christian growth in holy living. This doctrine does not hinge on the use of the word “sanctification.” The apostle Paul, deep into his spiritual life, made it clear that he had not become perfect yet, but was “pressing on” (Philippians 3:12-14). He calls for us to work out our salvation through the power of God (Philippians 2:12, 13). He calls for Christians to walk in “a manner worthy of the calling with which we have been called” (Ephesians 4:1), and to take up the full armor of God that we might be able to stand firm (Ephesians 6:13). The author of Hebrews describes a process in maturation (Hebrews 5:11-6:2); Paul does the same in 1 Timothy 4:7-10, 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4:1, 9-10).
Never are we told to ask for a second baptism of the Holy Spirit that would usher us into a state of complete holiness. As a matter of fact Paul is clear that there is only one baptism (Ephesians 4:5), and that Spirit baptism is for the purpose of making us one with Christ (Romans 6:3-4) and one with the body of Christ, the church (1 Corinthians 12:13).
While millions of Christians throughout the ages, especially since the birth of the Holiness Movement, have longed for some experience that frees them from the grip of the flesh, the New Testament gives no such hope. As David Peterson writes, “The Christian does not any longer
live a life fundamentally determined and controlled by the flesh. Nevertheless, ‘flesh’ continues to be a powerful force in our experience. The conflict with sin does not diminish with conversion but actually intensifies, because we begin to experience the possibilities of a Spirit-directed life” (cf. Galatians 5:16-26). [6]
Maturity in Christ is expected of every believer; freedom from spiritual battle with the world, the flesh and the devil is attained only in the next life.
At the same time, we must be careful that we do not over react to Holiness philosophy and believe that godliness is attained through our own self-determined efforts of obedience. We are certainly called to obedience, but it is not a self-energized, self-motivated or self-obtaining obedience. It is an obedience made possible only because of the power of God in our lives. This is the consistent teaching of the New Testament, but we will direct our attention to Romans 8:12-13. So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Peterson, once again, summarizes things well, “Holiness of life is not simply attained by moral effort nor even by striving to keep the law of God. It is not even a matter of ‘letting go and letting God.’ Practical holiness involves ‘putting to death’ in our lives what God has already sentenced to death on the cross (‘mortification’) and living out the new life given to us by the indwelling Christ…. Human effort is required, but not apart from, nor distinct from the activity of God’s Spirit, who subdues the flesh as we mortify it in His power, and as we set our minds upon the things of the Spirit.” [7]
Holiness of life should be the heart-felt desire of every Christian. But that holiness is not found in either short-cuts or self effort. It is found as we pursue righteousness (2 Timothy 2:22) laying aside the deeds of the flesh (Colossians 3:5-10) through the power of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:16) and as we behold the glory of the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18).
The Holiness Movement was in many ways a reaction to the dead orthodoxy and lifeless spirituality that infiltrated so much of Christianity during the nineteenth-century. However, its remedy, a second blessing resulting in the eradication of sinful tendencies and a higher life not available to the unbaptized, went beyond the teaching of Scripture. As is often the case in reactionary movements, the cure may be as bad as the disease.
The Holiness Movement
Sproul on Perfectionism:
An ancient heresy of the distinction between two types of Christians, carnal and Spirit-filled, is the heresy of perfectionism
The peril of perfectionism is that it seriously distorts the human mind. Imagine the contortions through which we must put ourselves to delude us into thinking that we have in fact achieved a state of sinlessness.
Inevitably the error of perfectionism breeds one, or usually two, deadly delusions. To convince ourselves that we have achieved sinlessness, we must either suffer from a radical overestimation of our moral performance or we must seriously underestimate the requirements of God’s law. The irony of perfectionism is this: Though it seeks to distance itself from antinomianism, it relentlessly and inevitably comes full circle to the same error.
The Heresy of Perfectionism by R.C. Sproul | Ligonier Ministries Blog
An ancient heresy of the distinction between two types of Christians, carnal and Spirit-filled, is the heresy of perfectionism
The peril of perfectionism is that it seriously distorts the human mind. Imagine the contortions through which we must put ourselves to delude us into thinking that we have in fact achieved a state of sinlessness.
Inevitably the error of perfectionism breeds one, or usually two, deadly delusions. To convince ourselves that we have achieved sinlessness, we must either suffer from a radical overestimation of our moral performance or we must seriously underestimate the requirements of God’s law. The irony of perfectionism is this: Though it seeks to distance itself from antinomianism, it relentlessly and inevitably comes full circle to the same error.
The Heresy of Perfectionism by R.C. Sproul | Ligonier Ministries Blog
- Acts 2:3
And there appeared to them tongues resembling fire, which were separated and distributed and which settled on each one of them.
Acts 2:2-4 (in Context) Acts 2 (Whole Chapter) - Acts 2:4
And they were all filled (diffused throughout their souls) with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other (different, foreign) languages (tongues), as the Spirit kept giving them clear and loud expression [in each tongue in appropriate words].
Acts 2:3-5 (in Context) Acts 2 (Whole Chapter) - Acts 2:11
Cretans and Arabians too--we all hear them speaking in our own native tongues [and telling of] the mighty works of God!
Acts 2:10-12 (in Context) Acts 2 (Whole Chapter) - Acts 10:46
For they heard them talking in [unknown] tongues (languages) and extolling and magnifying God. Then Peter asked,
Acts 10:45-47 (in Context) Acts 10 (Whole Chapter)
Acts 2
5Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”
12And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”
what do we have?
we have:
1) in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.
2) the miracle of Pentecost
3) the devout men from every nation under heaven saying:
how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?...we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God
i wonder what the miracle of languages was?
5Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”
12And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”
what do we have?
we have:
1) in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.
2) the miracle of Pentecost
3) the devout men from every nation under heaven saying:
how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?...we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God
i wonder what the miracle of languages was?
A
alright I'll ck it out. I like this part of the article:
"Maturity in Christ is expected of every believer; freedom from spiritual battle with the world, the flesh and the devil is attained only in the next life.
At the same time, we must be careful that we do not over react to Holiness philosophy and believe that godliness is attained through our own self-determined efforts of obedience. We are certainly called to obedience, but it is not a self-energized, self-motivated or self-obtaining obedience. It is an obedience made possible only because of the power of God in our lives. This is the consistent teaching of the New Testament, but we will direct our attention to Romans 8:12-13. So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Peterson, once again, summarizes things well, “Holiness of life is not simply attained by moral effort nor even by striving to keep the law of God. It is not even a matter of ‘letting go and letting God.’ Practical holiness involves ‘putting to death’ in our lives what God has already sentenced to death on the cross (‘mortification’
and living out the new life given to us by the indwelling Christ…. Human effort is required, but not apart from, nor distinct from the activity of God’s Spirit, who subdues the flesh as we mortify it in His power, and as we set our minds upon the things of the Spirit.” [7]
Holiness of life should be the heart-felt desire of every Christian. But that holiness is not found in either short-cuts or self effort. It is found as we pursue righteousness (2 Timothy 2:22) laying aside the deeds of the flesh (Colossians 3:5-10) through the power of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:16) and as we behold the glory of the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18)."
Reminds me of these scriptures:
Romans 8
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
"Maturity in Christ is expected of every believer; freedom from spiritual battle with the world, the flesh and the devil is attained only in the next life.
At the same time, we must be careful that we do not over react to Holiness philosophy and believe that godliness is attained through our own self-determined efforts of obedience. We are certainly called to obedience, but it is not a self-energized, self-motivated or self-obtaining obedience. It is an obedience made possible only because of the power of God in our lives. This is the consistent teaching of the New Testament, but we will direct our attention to Romans 8:12-13. So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Peterson, once again, summarizes things well, “Holiness of life is not simply attained by moral effort nor even by striving to keep the law of God. It is not even a matter of ‘letting go and letting God.’ Practical holiness involves ‘putting to death’ in our lives what God has already sentenced to death on the cross (‘mortification’
and living out the new life given to us by the indwelling Christ…. Human effort is required, but not apart from, nor distinct from the activity of God’s Spirit, who subdues the flesh as we mortify it in His power, and as we set our minds upon the things of the Spirit.” [7] Holiness of life should be the heart-felt desire of every Christian. But that holiness is not found in either short-cuts or self effort. It is found as we pursue righteousness (2 Timothy 2:22) laying aside the deeds of the flesh (Colossians 3:5-10) through the power of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:16) and as we behold the glory of the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18)."
Reminds me of these scriptures:
Romans 8
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
1
Zone I didn't scale that entire wall of text you posted. But I think I have the main idea.
I recently started attending a nazarene church, which does hold to the doctrine of 'entire sanctification'. I've looked in to it, and the nazarene church isn't saying that entire sanctification means we will never sin again.
From what I can tell, they're simply saying there comes a point in our salvation where God is going to 'grow us up' in him. I don't think it's teaching two types of Christianity when you teach entire sanctification this way.
I think we'd all admit that when we're saved that we have a lot of growing to do. I also think we'd all admit that at some point in our salvation we're going to be more mature than when we first started. If we're not more consecrated and mature, then something is wrong.
To me, entire sanctification seems to say that a Christian has reached a certain maturity in their growth in grace. To me it doesn't seem like some arrogant division of classes between Christians. It's simply an acknowledgement that our spiritual maturity is much different between when we first are Christian and when we grow in it.
Now I know you can copy and paste one part of history then copy and paste another part of church history, then try and link them together in to this huge synopsis where what is happening today is invalidated by all the stuff you copied and pasted before it. But really, is saying that a Christian reaches a point of maturity and grows in grace, is that really a bad thing?
2 Peter 1
3 His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.
10 Therefore, my brothers and sisters,[a] make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I recently started attending a nazarene church, which does hold to the doctrine of 'entire sanctification'. I've looked in to it, and the nazarene church isn't saying that entire sanctification means we will never sin again.
From what I can tell, they're simply saying there comes a point in our salvation where God is going to 'grow us up' in him. I don't think it's teaching two types of Christianity when you teach entire sanctification this way.
I think we'd all admit that when we're saved that we have a lot of growing to do. I also think we'd all admit that at some point in our salvation we're going to be more mature than when we first started. If we're not more consecrated and mature, then something is wrong.
To me, entire sanctification seems to say that a Christian has reached a certain maturity in their growth in grace. To me it doesn't seem like some arrogant division of classes between Christians. It's simply an acknowledgement that our spiritual maturity is much different between when we first are Christian and when we grow in it.
Now I know you can copy and paste one part of history then copy and paste another part of church history, then try and link them together in to this huge synopsis where what is happening today is invalidated by all the stuff you copied and pasted before it. But really, is saying that a Christian reaches a point of maturity and grows in grace, is that really a bad thing?
2 Peter 1
3 His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.
10 Therefore, my brothers and sisters,[a] make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
A
I don't think the wall of text objects to that type of sanctification. its the doctrine of instaneous second baptism with accompanying power/signs and wonders that like to elevate one group of believers above another in claiming they have "more" of the Holy Spirit then others and thus use this as a platform to control the lives and actions of others.
haven't listen to the sermon yet but from the big wall that is what I get.
personally I enjoy the sermons by Wesley and some holiness preachers but then I haven't heard any that preach the second baptism thingie either.
Maturity is valued and I have found the more mature the Christian the more humble and servant like they are and the more willing to work behind the scenes and do the stuff people never even notice gets done except when it isn't
haven't listen to the sermon yet but from the big wall that is what I get.
personally I enjoy the sermons by Wesley and some holiness preachers but then I haven't heard any that preach the second baptism thingie either.
Maturity is valued and I have found the more mature the Christian the more humble and servant like they are and the more willing to work behind the scenes and do the stuff people never even notice gets done except when it isn't
of course not still.
and that's actually the beauty of the gospel...it can overcome through every individual being honest, a congregation like yours, to realize that perfectionism is false doctrine.
nevertheless, that is what the Nazarene started off as.
Still...come on man...i don't cobble stuff together. why would i do that?
i like History. i'm not afraid of it.
history can't be changed. its in the past.
studying history helps understand how things got to be the way they are.
the studies were posted as historical reviews. and they are what they are.
if thats the position your church is taking then its totally Biblical, isn't it.
and i agree with it completely.
it just happens to be included in every survey of development within certain movements.
its not saying there's nothing good in it.
6 Doctrine and beliefs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness_Christian_Church
and that's actually the beauty of the gospel...it can overcome through every individual being honest, a congregation like yours, to realize that perfectionism is false doctrine.
nevertheless, that is what the Nazarene started off as.
Still...come on man...i don't cobble stuff together. why would i do that?
i like History. i'm not afraid of it.
history can't be changed. its in the past.
studying history helps understand how things got to be the way they are.
the studies were posted as historical reviews. and they are what they are.
if thats the position your church is taking then its totally Biblical, isn't it.
and i agree with it completely.
it just happens to be included in every survey of development within certain movements.
its not saying there's nothing good in it.
6 Doctrine and beliefs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness_Christian_Church
1
I don't think the wall of text objects to that type of sanctification. its the doctrine of instaneous second baptism with accompanying power/signs and wonders that like to elevate one group of believers above another in claiming they have "more" of the Holy Spirit then others and thus use this as a platform to control the lives and actions of others.
haven't listen to the sermon yet but from the big wall that is what I get.
personally I enjoy the sermons by Wesley and some holiness preachers but then I haven't heard any that preach the second baptism thingie either.
Maturity is valued and I have found the more mature the Christian the more humble and servant like they are and the more willing to work behind the scenes and do the stuff people never even notice gets done except when it isn't
haven't listen to the sermon yet but from the big wall that is what I get.
personally I enjoy the sermons by Wesley and some holiness preachers but then I haven't heard any that preach the second baptism thingie either.
Maturity is valued and I have found the more mature the Christian the more humble and servant like they are and the more willing to work behind the scenes and do the stuff people never even notice gets done except when it isn't
But there is also another substantial argument for a post conversion spiritual event. I won't argue for or against any signs that mark or don't mark that post conversion event. But there is a substantial argument for a post conversion spiritual event.
Acts 2.
Acts 8
Acts 11
There is an even bigger argument for post conversion EVENTS where people keep getting filled with the spirit. That's ultimately what matters. After you're saved, are you still seeking to be filled?
these don't count per se still:
Acts 2.
Acts 8
Acts 11
they are not normative today.
i guess rome and eo and most protestant denoms believe its one baptism.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit (or Baptism in the Holy Spirit) in Christian theology is a term describing baptism (i.e. washing, immersion, or plunge) in or with the Spirit of God.[1][2] While the phrase "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is found in the New Testament and all Christian traditions accept it as a theological concept, each has interpreted it in a way consistent with their own beliefs on ecclesiology and Christian initiation.[3] One view holds that the term refers only to the "once-for-all" event for the whole Church described in the second chapter of the Book of Acts[4] while another view holds that the term also refers to an experience of the individual believer distinct from salvation and initiation into the Church.[5]
Before the emergence of the holiness movement in the mid 19th century and Pentecostalism in the early 20th century, most denominations believed that Christians received the baptism with the Holy Spirit either upon conversion and regeneration[4] or through rites of Christian initiation.
Since the growth and spread of Pentecostal and charismatic churches, however, the belief that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is an experience distinct from regeneration has come into increasing prominence.
here are the Acts examples you gave :
Historically, Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants agreed that the Church as a whole experienced baptism with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Thus any Christian being made a member of the Church also received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and various Protestant denominations have had different ways of defining who is and who is not a "full" member of the Church and thus of who has and has not received the Holy Spirit. However, despite differences in defining who is and who is not a Christian,
these all agreed that all Christians have received baptism in the Holy Spirit. They agreed that the marvelous or demonstrable outpourings of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, Acts 8, and Acts 10 are not paradigms to be repeated, but special events to signify that the Gospel was crossing the special boundaries that Jesus described in Acts 1:8 (Jerusalem and Judea, Samaria, the ends of the earth).
Historically these three traditions agreed that extending the borders of the Church to Samaritans (half-Jews; Acts 8) and then to Gentiles (Acts 10) were watershed moments of redemptive history which warranted the irrefutable outpouring of the Holy Spirit, citing, for example, Acts 10:45-48:[5]
and......
According to Pentecostal historian H. Vinson Synan, "the basic premise of Pentecostalism, that one may receive later effusions of the Spirit after initiation/conversion, can be clearly traced in Christian history to the beginnings of the rite of confirmation in the Western churches".[9] Synan further traces the influence of Catholic and Anglican mystical traditions on John Wesley's doctrine of Christian perfection, from which Pentecostal beliefs on Spirit baptism developed. John Fletcher, Wesley's designated successor, argued that Christian perfection or the second blessing, as it was also called, was a "baptism in the Holy Spirit" as well as a cleansing experience
etc.
so there is a difference in doctrines.
its that SECOND BAPTISM.
Acts 2.
Acts 8
Acts 11
they are not normative today.
i guess rome and eo and most protestant denoms believe its one baptism.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit (or Baptism in the Holy Spirit) in Christian theology is a term describing baptism (i.e. washing, immersion, or plunge) in or with the Spirit of God.[1][2] While the phrase "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is found in the New Testament and all Christian traditions accept it as a theological concept, each has interpreted it in a way consistent with their own beliefs on ecclesiology and Christian initiation.[3] One view holds that the term refers only to the "once-for-all" event for the whole Church described in the second chapter of the Book of Acts[4] while another view holds that the term also refers to an experience of the individual believer distinct from salvation and initiation into the Church.[5]
Before the emergence of the holiness movement in the mid 19th century and Pentecostalism in the early 20th century, most denominations believed that Christians received the baptism with the Holy Spirit either upon conversion and regeneration[4] or through rites of Christian initiation.
Since the growth and spread of Pentecostal and charismatic churches, however, the belief that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is an experience distinct from regeneration has come into increasing prominence.
here are the Acts examples you gave :
Historically, Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants agreed that the Church as a whole experienced baptism with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Thus any Christian being made a member of the Church also received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and various Protestant denominations have had different ways of defining who is and who is not a "full" member of the Church and thus of who has and has not received the Holy Spirit. However, despite differences in defining who is and who is not a Christian,
these all agreed that all Christians have received baptism in the Holy Spirit. They agreed that the marvelous or demonstrable outpourings of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, Acts 8, and Acts 10 are not paradigms to be repeated, but special events to signify that the Gospel was crossing the special boundaries that Jesus described in Acts 1:8 (Jerusalem and Judea, Samaria, the ends of the earth).
Historically these three traditions agreed that extending the borders of the Church to Samaritans (half-Jews; Acts 8) and then to Gentiles (Acts 10) were watershed moments of redemptive history which warranted the irrefutable outpouring of the Holy Spirit, citing, for example, Acts 10:45-48:[5]
and......
According to Pentecostal historian H. Vinson Synan, "the basic premise of Pentecostalism, that one may receive later effusions of the Spirit after initiation/conversion, can be clearly traced in Christian history to the beginnings of the rite of confirmation in the Western churches".[9] Synan further traces the influence of Catholic and Anglican mystical traditions on John Wesley's doctrine of Christian perfection, from which Pentecostal beliefs on Spirit baptism developed. John Fletcher, Wesley's designated successor, argued that Christian perfection or the second blessing, as it was also called, was a "baptism in the Holy Spirit" as well as a cleansing experience
etc.
so there is a difference in doctrines.
its that SECOND BAPTISM.
1
Yeah I get all the copy and pastes and attempted links to shady people...
But in the end we have the Bible...
We see a pattern from Luke who was inspired by the Holy Spirit in order to help us follow what God wanted. All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching. That includes Acts.
If Luke mentioned it once, then it be hard to build something off it. If he mentioned it twice it still be hard to build something off it.
Luke mentions a post conversion event quite often. An event marked by varying things. But none the less, a clear post conversion event.
One has to ask, "what is Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, trying to tell us?"
But in the end we have the Bible...
We see a pattern from Luke who was inspired by the Holy Spirit in order to help us follow what God wanted. All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching. That includes Acts.
If Luke mentioned it once, then it be hard to build something off it. If he mentioned it twice it still be hard to build something off it.
Luke mentions a post conversion event quite often. An event marked by varying things. But none the less, a clear post conversion event.
One has to ask, "what is Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, trying to tell us?"
oh Still that's lame.
as if.
if you dont subscribe to perfectionism, then what's the problem?
doesn't do anybody any good to deny what church history says.
its good to know.
i dont make wesley or finney or any of those guys' personal sin my issue - never have.
its WHAT ARE THEY SAYING?
Acts is Historical narrative. what happened at the foundation, is not normative today.
the apostles were still alive, and the Spirit was passed by laying on hands!
but then it wasn't. sometimes it was accompanied by the language gift, other times it was not.
Cornelious got it because the SIGN was for THE UNBELIEVERS - THE JEWS and gentiles around him that the gentiles HAD RECEIVED THE SAME Holy Spirit as the jews.
those signs are not needed stillman.
now come on.....i aint undoing any good any denoms have done: but do you agree or disagree with Second Baptism, either for entire sanctification or for signs gifts?
as if.
if you dont subscribe to perfectionism, then what's the problem?
doesn't do anybody any good to deny what church history says.
its good to know.
i dont make wesley or finney or any of those guys' personal sin my issue - never have.
its WHAT ARE THEY SAYING?
Acts is Historical narrative. what happened at the foundation, is not normative today.
the apostles were still alive, and the Spirit was passed by laying on hands!
but then it wasn't. sometimes it was accompanied by the language gift, other times it was not.
Cornelious got it because the SIGN was for THE UNBELIEVERS - THE JEWS and gentiles around him that the gentiles HAD RECEIVED THE SAME Holy Spirit as the jews.
those signs are not needed stillman.
now come on.....i aint undoing any good any denoms have done: but do you agree or disagree with Second Baptism, either for entire sanctification or for signs gifts?