The Holiness Movement

  • 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.
May 2, 2011
1,134
8
0
#41
i want to make a correction:

zine posted earlier in the first page info:

The Holiness Movement
Written by Gary Gilley
(December 2004 - Volume 10, Issue 12)

(not going to copy the entire thing)... anyways, it mentions Charles Finney "advancing" what John Wesley taught, labeling Arminians as Semi-Pelagian, or, at the worst, Pelagians....

THIS IS FLAT OUT WRONG AND FALSE.

Charles Finney was a Semi-Pelagian, and the inventor of the sinner's prayer... John Wesley was an Arminian, and NEVER held to any kind of Pelgian beliefs. Arminians do not hold to either Pelagianism, or Semi-Pelagianism. the Calvinist authors of the Book Why I Am Not an Arminian on page 39 ADMIT that classical Arminians and 18th century Arminians both held that it was God's grace that starts everything, were NOT semi-Pelagians, and that they were more "semi-Augustinian" than to Pelaginaism or Semi-Pelagianism
I didn't even get the attack on Finney in the first read. I looked into Gary Gilley a bit and
found out a lot. He's in a John MacArthur church growth movement group and as such
would be against the - 'tent meeting, religion isn't the idea, you must have a personal
understanding and make a personal commitment' - persona of the likes of Finney.
Such movements are why The Baptist Sect of Rick Warren and the CFR can open the door
to Chrislam and Sharia Law.

Realize the state of the society in upstate NY at that time -- not much different from today:
* Home to COSMO since before the white man came to the Americas
(COSMO = Cayuga, Onondaga, Seneca, Mohawk, Oneida Indian tribes -- The Iroquois Nation)
* Home to one of the earliest Jesuit Missons in America in 1638 - LeMoyne Jesuit Community
* Home to many Revolutionary War Battle Sites and families
* Home to many Masonic Lodges
* A Mormon Uprising in Joe Smith in Palmyra Masonic Lodge outside Rochester (Rock-Esther)
* A Campbellite uprising which became the Church of Christ, Nationally headquartered in Upstate NY
* An SDA Uprising from William Miller and Ellen Gould White
* Home to a growing immigrant Sicilian "family" Population
* Home to Charles Finney, Attorney, Presbyterian, Evangelist
Think of what life was like then and is now in such a locale. What will you do with a U.N.
troops in your back yard? What will you do with a foreign army in your back yard? What
will you do with wayward mormons and masons all about, and a Sicilian 'family' running
local businesses?

Today, not much has changed. The additions include the Anglican-Methodist founded
Syracuse University, which today is more about the Carrier Dome, BasketBaal and
Foot-a-Baal, and Economic and Political Advisors to Washington from a largely Zionist
Professor-Community. Several Triple-A professional baseball teams, Defense
Contractors, The Medical Industrial Complex of government sponsored medicci
practitioners, a waning industrial base(mostly run by those immigrant Sicilian 'families')
and suburbanization of take-over farming communities round out the changes.


You can do much better than Gary Gilley I am sure. I won't even address the article
based on it's current content or the particular author as an attack on Finney -- We have
already addressed Warfield and alluded to MacArthur. I would welcome the invite to
address Gilley.

Given the context of the society that Finney was in, I believe he did a rather good and
noble service to and for America, as it headed into a sad Civil War. This was the state of
the region and the nation at the time. His main difference from Wesley was the
necessary evangelical fervor, a systematic theology and an altar-call sort of press for
commitment.

I agree with StillWater in regard to the article being a sort of amalgam of history that
blends too many different doctrines to really, credibly, seriously address the author's
contentions - at least in regard to Finney and Wesley. Look into the author a bit and get
back to me. Give us another shot at Finney from a more serious approach -- again,
having addressed Warfield and alluded to MacArthur -- try another source.
 
Aug 18, 2011
971
7
0
#42
I didn't even get the attack on Finney in the first read. I looked into Gary Gilley a bit and
found out a lot. He's in a John MacArthur church growth movement group and as such
would be against the - 'tent meeting, religion isn't the idea, you must have a personal
understanding and make a personal commitment' - persona of the likes of Finney.
Such movements are why The Baptist Sect of Rick Warren and the CFR can open the door
to Chrislam and Sharia Law.

Realize the state of the society in upstate NY at that time -- not much different from today:
* Home to COSMO since before the white man came to the Americas
(COSMO = Cayuga, Onondaga, Seneca, Mohawk, Oneida Indian tribes -- The Iroquois Nation)
* Home to one of the earliest Jesuit Missons in America in 1638 - LeMoyne Jesuit Community
* Home to many Revolutionary War Battle Sites and families
* Home to many Masonic Lodges
* A Mormon Uprising in Joe Smith in Palmyra Masonic Lodge outside Rochester (Rock-Esther)
* A Campbellite uprising which became the Church of Christ, Nationally headquartered in Upstate NY
* An SDA Uprising from William Miller and Ellen Gould White
* Home to a growing immigrant Sicilian "family" Population
* Home to Charles Finney, Attorney, Presbyterian, Evangelist
Think of what life was like then and is now in such a locale. What will you do with a U.N.
troops in your back yard? What will you do with a foreign army in your back yard? What
will you do with wayward mormons and masons all about, and a Sicilian 'family' running
local businesses?

Today, not much has changed. The additions include the Anglican-Methodist founded
Syracuse University, which today is more about the Carrier Dome, BasketBaal and
Foot-a-Baal, and Economic and Political Advisors to Washington from a largely Zionist
Professor-Community. Several Triple-A professional baseball teams, Defense
Contractors, The Medical Industrial Complex of government sponsored medicci
practitioners, a waning industrial base(mostly run by those immigrant Sicilian 'families')
and suburbanization of take-over farming communities round out the changes.

You can do much better than Gary Gilley I am sure. I won't even address the article
based on it's current content or the particular author as an attack on Finney -- We have
already addressed Warfield and alluded to MacArthur. I would welcome the invite to
address Gilley.

Given the context of the society that Finney was in, I believe he did a rather good and
noble service to and for America, as it headed into a sad Civil War. This was the state of
the region and the nation at the time. His main difference from Wesley was the
necessary evangelical fervor, a systematic theology and an altar-call sort of press for
commitment.

I agree with StillWater in regard to the article being a sort of amalgam of history that
blends too many different doctrines to really, credibly, seriously address the author's
contentions - at least in regard to Finney and Wesley. Look into the author a bit and get
back to me. Give us another shot at Finney from a more serious approach -- again,
having addressed Warfield and alluded to MacArthur -- try another source.
Do you believe Finney was the author of the sinners prayer?
 
Jan 14, 2010
1,010
5
0
#43
my source is Roger E Olson concerning Charles Finney
 
May 2, 2011
1,134
8
0
#44
Do you believe Finney was the author of the sinners prayer?
[FONT=arial,helvetica]THE SINNER'S PRAYER -- AS USED BY C. H. SPURGEON
AT SERVICES AT METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE


Luke 18:13, 14: "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

NOTE:
Even the "pre-faith regeneration" advocate, Dr. W. G. T. Shedd, said, "There is the highest encouragement in the Word of God to pray for regenerating grace of the Holy Ghost. It is a duty enjoined upon all men without exception, like that of hearing the gospel," and Dr. Shedd cites the Westminster Confession where it says "Prayer . . . is required by God of all men" (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 2, page 524).

Directing sinners to faith in Christ obviously takes precedence over prayer, yet prayer can be a means of effecting the heart of a person and thereby prayer becomes an encouragement to his believing in Christ.

Below are excerpts from what C. H. Spurgeon had to say about the sinner's prayer. Before quoting Spurgeon, it should be clarified and understood that Charles G. Finney, D. L. Moody, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham or another other evangelist did not originate the sinner's prayer and its use, contrary to what some sources have said. Finney's methods are delineated in his Autobiography, and the sinner's prayer is not mentioned (pages 288, 289). Finney used what he called the "anxious seat."

Spurgeon predated both Moody and Sunday, and you can see he had a high regard for the practical application of the sinner's prayer of Luke 18:13.

It seems to me that of all people, Calvinists can most logically identify with the implications of the sinner's prayer for Calvinism is the most prominent theological system which teaches justification based solely on the provisions of the mercy of God, which is what the Publican was pleading in his prayer. Furthermore, a desire for mercy is prompted in the sinner by the Holy Spirit's blessing on the Word of God (Romans 8:26; 1 Cor. 4:7; Phil. 1:6; 2:13; Romans 10:13), which is the view of the Calvinist.

Note below how Spurgeon made use of the sinner's prayer.

>>
We much prefer C. H. Spurgeon's high regard for use of the sinner's prayer than we care for Buff's putdown of its use today. He says the prayer was devised by "the Calvinist mindset," and in that we wish to commend his keen observation. Spurgeon, a Calvinist, preached two great sermons on the text in Luke 18:13, sermons #216 and #1949. >http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols4-6/chs216.pdf<

In sermon #1949, Spurgeon said

>>
His supplication speeded well with God, and he speedily won his suit with heaven. Mercy granted to him full justification. The prayer so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, who heard it, that he condescended to become a portrait painter, and took a sketch of the petitioner. I say the prayer in itself was so pleasing to the gracious Savior, that he tells us how it was offered: “Standing afar off, he would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast.” . . . My heart’s desire this morning is that many here may seek mercy of the Lord as this publican did, and go down to their houses justified. . . .

Now, I want to cheer your hearts by noticing that this man, through this prayer, and through this confession of sin, experienced a remarkable degree of acceptance. He had come up to the temple condemned; “he went down to his house justified.” A complete change, a sudden change, a happy change was wrought upon him. Heavy heart and downcast eye were exchanged for glad heart and hopeful outlook. He came into that temple with trembling, he left it with rejoicing. . . . Oh, that you might find mercy this morning! Let us seek this blessing. Come with me to Jesus. I will lead the way; I pray you say with me this morning — “God be merciful to me the sinner.”
>>

In sermon #216, Spurgeon said the following:

>>
Come just as thou art, with nothing of thine own, except thy sinfulness, and plead that before the throne—"God be merciful to me a sinner." This is what this man confessed, that he was a sinner, and he pleaded it, making the burden of his confession to be the matter of his plea before God. . . .

May I be made sure of heaven, and all that in a moment?" Yes, my friend, If thou believest in the Lord Jesus Christ, if thou wilt stand where thou art, and just breathe this prayer out, "Lord, have mercy! God be merciful to me a sinner, through the blood of Christ."

I tell thee man, God never did deny that prayer yet; if it came out of honest lips he never shut the gates of mercy on it. It is a solemn litany that shall be used as long as time shall last, and it shall pierce the ears of God as long as there is a sinner to use it.

Come, be not afraid, I beseech you, use the prayer before you leave this Hall. Stand where you are; endeavor to realize that you are all alone, and if you feel that you are guilty. now let the prayer ascend. Oh, what a marvelous thing, it from the thousands of hearts here present, so many thousand prayers might go up to God! Surely the angels themselves never had such a day in Paradise, as they would have today, if every one of us could unfeignedly make that confession. Some are doing it; I know they are; God is helping them. And sinner, do you stay away? You, who have most need to come, do you refuse to join with us. Come, brother come. You say you are too vile. No, brother, you cannot be too vile to say, "God be merciful to me." Perhaps you are no viler than we are; at any rate, this we can say—we feel ourselves to be viler than you, and we want you to pray the same prayer that we have prayed. "Ah," says one, "I cannot; my heart won't yield to that; I cannot." But friend, if God is ready to have mercy upon thee, thine must be a hard heart, if it is not ready to receive his mercy. Spirit of God, breathe on the hard heart, and melt it now! . . . .
>>

Spurgeon closed the sermon with this plea:
>>
Let us use this prayer as our own now. Oh that it might come up before the Lord at this time as the earnest supplication of every heart in this assembly! I will repeat it,—not as a text, but as a prayer,—as my own prayer, as your prayer. Will each one of you take it personally for himself? Let everyone, I entreat you, who desires to offer the prayer, and can join in it, utter at its close an audible "Amen."
Let us pray,

[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]"GOD-BE-MERCIFUL-TO-ME-A-SINNER."
[And the people did with deep solemnity say] "AMEN."



[/FONT]​
[FONT=arial,helvetica]P.S.—The preacher hopes that he who reads will feel constrained most solemnly to do likewise.
>>

>>
The cry of a young raven is nothing but the natural cry of a creature, but your cry, if it is sincere, is the result of a work of Divine Grace in your heart. When the raven cries to Heaven it is nothing but the raven’s own self that cries—but when you cry, “God be merciful to me a sinner”it is God the Holy Spirit crying in you!

The Ravens' Cry, Volume 12, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, page 55.
[/FONT]
From: [email protected]
 
May 2, 2011
1,134
8
0
#45
my source is Roger E Olson concerning Charles Finney
Thanks for the reference - I agree with the concept of 'reforming the reformed'.

The following posts by Mr. Olson might be worthy of review and discussion - not sure this
is the right thread, but the distinctions in some doctrinal principles and the categorization
of semi-Pelagiansm, Calvinism and Arminianism are worth the few minutes to read the
following short articles. I note that these distinctions are up for discussion, and do not
convey the derogatory sorts of connotations that many ascribe to either Finney, or to
semi-Pelagianism, say relative to a Benjamin Warfield. --
Yes indeed -- Reforming the Reformed!


American Christianity and Semi-Pelagianism

Posted on February 20, 2011 by rogereolson

I have agreed with my Calvinist friends (such as Mike Horton) that American Christianity
is by-and-large Semi-Pelagian. Where I tend to disagree with them is that this is the
same as Arminianism. I have demonstrated conclusively in Arminian Theology: Myths
and Realities that Arminianism is not Semi-Pelagian.

What is Semi-Pelagianism? It s a technical term used in the discipline of historical
theology for the teaching of the “Massilians” John Cassian, Faustus of Riez and Vincent of
Lyons (and others such as possibly Prosper of Aquitaine) that the initiative in salvation is
on the human side even though full salvation can only be by God’s grace. Cassian termed
the initiative in salvation “exercising a good will toward God” and argued that God awaits
it before he offers grace.

Semi-Pelagianism, then, is denial of prevenient grace. Classical Arminianism is, of course,
all about prevenient grace. My friend Stan Grenz described it using four words:
conviction, calling, enabling and enlightening. (There is no order to these; they are
simultaneous in the work of prevenient grace.) These are all the work of the Holy Spirit
through the Word of God and without them no one seeks God. This is classical
Arminianism. It is very different from Semi-Pelagianism which, I argue, is the folk religion
of American Christianity.

My evidence for this is based on almost 30 years of teaching theology in three Christian
universities (on the graduate and undergraduate levels). Almost inevitably, when I
explain classical Arminianism some students exclaim “That sounds like Calvinism! How is
it different?” Of course, it’s easy to explain the difference, but to Semi-Pelagians
Calvinism and Arminianism sound alike because of the emphasis on total depravity and
prevenient grace. (On crucial difference, of course, is that Arminianism regards
prevenient grace as resistible while Calvinism believes it is irresistible.)

As an Arminian, I feel no need to apologize for this situation. Some trace it back to
CharlesFinney, the great evangelist of the Second Great Awakening. Calvinists especially
like to categorize him as an Arminian, but I don’t claim him as a true Arminian. He did not
believe in total depravity or the absolute necessity of supernatural prevenient grace. For
him, prevenient grace (and thus God’s initiative) is in the reasonable appeal of the gospel
to the intellect.


The situation is that most American Christian churches (including evangelical ones) are
EITHER Calvinist or Semi-Pelagian by default. I say “by default” because it isn’t
intentional; non-Calvinists simply haven’t been taught differently. The vast majority of
Christians in America think these are the only two alternatives. If we Arminians have
anything to apologize for, I guess it would be doing a poor job of getting our message
out. But, then, we get all too little help from major organs of opinion-making such as
Christian magazines.


I call Semi-Pelagianism the default theology of American Christianity. One of my main
purposes for writing Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities was to correct those who
think they are Arminian when they are really Semi-Pelagian. The other, of course, was to
correct Calvinists who accuse Arminianism of being Semi-Pelagian.

American Christianity and Semi-Pelagianism | Roger E. Olson

*********************************************************************************
Reforming the Reformed
Calvinists, says one Calvinist, misunderstand some of their history and theology. A review
of 'Ten Myths About Calvinism.' by Kenneth J. Stewart

Roger E. Olson | posted 5/18/2011 09:52AM

Stewart's fourth myth is that Calvinists dislike revivals and awakenings. He attributes this
misunderstanding to contemporary Presbyterian and Reformed dismay over the
manipulative methods used by some revivalists, pointing to the targeting of 18th-century
evangelist Charles Finney by anti-revival Calvinists. Stewart recalls the leadership of
Calvinist heroes like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield in the First Great
Awakening of the 1740s. "Today, by contrast," he laments, "so many have adopted the
view that revival is a dark secret, a part of our Reformed family history best kept in the
closet."


Olson writes ...

Neither I nor any informed critic of Calvinism has held or promoted any of Stewart's
myths. Admittedly, however, many untutored persons, not least among them committed
Calvinists, have fallen under their sway. Stewart wrote this book in large part simply to
correct his co-religionists.

RogerE. Olson is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary and
author of the forthcoming Against Calvinism (Zondervan).


 
P

Ponderer

Guest
#46
wow, interesting thread! Hmmm...makes one think.... very deeply. Is it God leading me to think about this? Or?
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,493
4,113
113
#47
Pentecostalism was born in the cradle of the Holiness Movement of the nineteenth-century.
no it was not Pentecost was the empowering of the church found in the Book of Acts 2000 years ago
Acts 2:14 holiness as said in this writing by Gary Gilley as many dates and times in correct. In every context with in Holiness it is the Holy Spirit who make you holy or set apart.
The Holiness Movement
Written by Gary Gilley
(December 2004 - Volume 10, Issue 12)

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
 
R

Rickee

Guest
#48
There are Two kinds of Speaking in tongues in the Bible.....(1) Tongues....I.E. Foreign languages, and (2) Unknown Tongues, wish is a Heavenly language given and Understood By God, and noone else........On The Day of Pentecost, The Converts spoke in Foreign Language Tongues..( Read Acts 2 verses8
) then read Acts 2 verse 4
 
C

Crossfire

Guest
#49
I remember this thread and those who create it quite well. It was about a little over a year ago. They basically believed that if you did not believe exactly as they did that you were of the Antichrist. They came to Christian Chat with one motive in mind, not to build up the body of Christ, but to use fear tactics to scare weak and immature Christians to embrace their heavily flawed licentious theology. They heavily criticized anyone who would oppose them, to the point that they would actually stalk their opponents across the forums, making sure to announce to the entire world how these people held to what they considered to be "heretical doctrines". No one was safe. Fortunately, almost all have been banned or have left.
 
A

Ariel82

Guest
#50
wow, interesting thread! Hmmm...makes one think.... very deeply. Is it God leading me to think about this? Or?
depends on what you are thinking.....

James 4:11
Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.


Or

1 Timothy 5:20
Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
 
C

Crossfire

Guest
#51
My grandparents were Holiness and I did attend a Holiness church as a child. While I may not remember every sermon in detail, I do remember bits and pieces. I left the church as a teen after the little old lady who owned the church had died and the church was taken over by Pentecostals. The reason I left the church had nothing to do with the church becoming Pentecostal but rather because the pastor was a fairly young Christian himself who had a lot of growing up to do at the time.

Anyways, when I returned to the faith in my 30's, I had many questions concerning what I was taught as a child so I decided to delve deeply into Holiness theology to see what it was they truly believed seeing as they are ridiculed by so many today. Here is the jist:

Holiness believed that it was the divine love of and for God which empowered Christians to abandon former sinful habits and gave them strength to walk away from temptation. They believed that a state of sanctification could be achieved in this life through intimacy with God so that the closer to God you walked, the more you would become like Him in thought and deed.

While I may not agree with everything the Holiness believed, from my own personal experience, I've found the core fundamental belief that the love of and for God (above all) will set you free from sin & temptation to be very accurate.
 
Last edited:
M

marianna

Guest
#52
My grandparents were Holiness and I did attend a Holiness church as a child. While I may not remember every sermon in detail, I do remember bits and pieces. I left the church as a teen after the little old lady who owned the church had died and the church was taken over by Pentecostals. The reason I left the church had nothing to do with the church becoming Pentecostal but rather because the pastor was a fairly young Christian himself who had a lot of growing up to do at the time.

Anyways, when I returned to the faith in my 30's, I had many questions concerning what I was taught as a child so I decided to delve deeply into Holiness theology to see what it was they truly believed seeing as they are ridiculed by so many today. Here is the jist:

Holiness believed that it was the divine love of and for God which empowered Christians to abandon former sinful habits and gave them strength to walk away from temptation. They believed that a state of sanctification could be achieved in this life through intimacy with God so that the closer to God you walked, the more you would become like Him in thought and deed.

While I may not agree with everything the Holiness believed, from my own personal experience, I've found the core fundamental belief that the love of and for God (above all) will set you free from sin & temptation to be very accurate.
I read this whole htread which took a long time. I want to attend church andf i am trying to find a church to attend but I am considering the Anglican Church as I was baptised in that church. ts been difficult and some what confusing to decide which church to attend because each one seems to not only hold their services in such different ways but they also seem to believe and teach different things from the Bible. which is quite upsetting.on another forum i found a 2 page thread about this topic its called The Myth of "Sinless Perfection" by DeaconDan at Christiannforums.com.

Soneone asked on that thread about finding a church also and they were worried that would they eventually be taught the things the poster was talking about and some of the things i found on this thread about the Holyness teachings was also of a aconcern for me. What do you think about that thread at the Christianforums.com? what parts of the teaching do you disagree with because I dont want to go to a Church that teaches the wrong things. I was thinking about the catholic church but i decidedd not to be a memeber of that church either/
thank you very much
marianna.
My grandparents I believe were either |Pentecostalist or Holyness.
 
Last edited:
M

marianna

Guest
#53
I neglectedto include one thing that Deacon Dean said that made sense and seems to line up with what the Bible teaches. It was - Thus we find in Wesleyan theology not only contradictions to the Bible, but also logical inconsistencies.

James writes, "For we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body" (James 3:2). So, is James not saying here that a man can indeed be perfect? No, because only a few verses later, he comments, "But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison" (James 3:8).
does that make sense? I'm not sure.
Thank you again.
My grandparents were godly people though i do not remeber much about them since they have passed on to Heaven many years ago. \
 
C

Crossfire

Guest
#54
I neglectedto include one thing that Deacon Dean said that made sense and seems to line up with what the Bible teaches. It was - Thus we find in Wesleyan theology not only contradictions to the Bible, but also logical inconsistencies.

James writes, "For we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body" (James 3:2). So, is James not saying here that a man can indeed be perfect? No, because only a few verses later, he comments, "But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison" (James 3:8).
does that make sense? I'm not sure.
Thank you again.
My grandparents were godly people though i do not remeber much about them since they have passed on to Heaven many years ago. \
Neither Wesley or Finney taught that one could not stumble. In fact, both taught it was highly probable one would stumble. Neither claimed that they had reached such a state of "perfection" either.

If interested, I would suggest to you the works of Andrew Murray. From what I can gather, he was both a Calvinist and Holiness who seemed to be able balance the two beliefs through scripture despite their apparent differences. Murray is an excellent Christian author and highly respected across all denominational lines.

Here's a link to find out more:

Works by Andrew Murray - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
 
W

wordhasit

Guest
#55
(QUOTE) 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.” (QUOTE)


Thanks for the interesting article! The subject of holiness is immensely important, meaning, as already mentioned, "to set apart". It is an integral part of salvation and sets the stage for God being able to will and to do in our lives of his good pleasure. Made possible because through Christ we are saved from being apart from God in order to be set apart by God. You could say, from being separated from to be separated unto God. That's why quote often in the New Testament the epistles are addressed to those sanctified in Christ Jesus. Those 'set apart' in Christ. God's reasoning in this is quite logical, you can't do much in lives that are out of reach. It's the first lesson in the progression of creation. It was not until God's Spirit hovered over the surface of the deep that things began to take shape, like light replacing the darkness and the dry land appearing, etc. As Christians we are a new creation and we too have been brought within reach, (God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself). Being brought closer, set aside by him to form us into something. In Genesis God said/spoke/called out, "let there be light!" In the last days God spoke through the Son, he said something, spoke to us. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice". Thus, we too are called.....to be formed (transformed) into the image of the Son.....what a tremendous purpose to be set apart for!


But, how does all this work out in practice in our lives? Is everything said and done in just one momentary experience, is it a lifetime process, or both? All scripture is inspired by God and given for our education. What we learn from Genesis is that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"......an event.....then he started adding things to it......not just in a moment, not even in a day, but in six days.....and only then the memorable words, "the heavens and the earth were completed in all their fast array". A point of interest, when it came to the creation of man we see that they were made in one momentary experience and yet to make everything complete God needed their cooperation. We know what happened and a lesson to be learned, is that in being set apart by God you can either work with God or against him. It's God who makes us holy, but he can't do it without us.....not without our obedience! It was not until the last Adam that god was finally able to fulfill his eternal purpose for mankind. In Jesus.....who was obedient to death. So, not understanding the mechanics of holiness could be detrimental to our growing up into Christ. The article on the holiness movement has touched on many things, but it is worth exploring more I think. Any thoughts?