Redemption--Farther Benefits

HAVING endeavoured to establish the doctrine of the universal redemption of the human race, the enumeration of the leading blessings which flow from it may now be resumed. We have already spoken of justification, adoption, regeneration, and the witness of the Holy Spirit, and we proceed to another as distinctly marked, and as graciously promised in the Holy Scriptures: this is the ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION, or the perfected HOLINESS of believers; and as this doctrine, in some of its respects, has been the subject of controversy, the Scriptural evidence of it must be appealed to and examined. Happily for us, a subject of so great importance is not involved in obscurity.

That a distinction exists between a regenerate state and a state of entire and perfect holiness will be generally allowed. Regeneration, we have seen, is concomitant with justification; but the apostles, in addressing the body of believers in the Churches to whom they wrote their epistles, set before them, both in the prayers they offer in their behalf, and in the exhortations they administer, a still higher degree of deliverance from sin, as well as a higher growth in Christian virtues. Two passages only need be quoted to prove this:—1 Thess. v, 23, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly, and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Cor. vii, 1, "Having these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." In both these passages deliverance from sin is the subject spoken of; and the prayer in one instance, and the exhortation in the other, goes to the extent of the entire sanctification of "the soul" and "spirit," as well as of the "flesh" or "body," from all sin; by which can only be meant our complete deliverance from all spiritual pollution, all inward depravation of the heart, as well as that which, expressing itself outwardly by the indulgence of the senses, is called "filthiness of the flesh."

The attainableness of such a state is not so much a matter of debate among Christians as the time when we are authorized to expect it. For as it is an axiom of Christian doctrine, that "without holiness no man can see the Lord;" and is equally clear that if we would "be found of him in peace," we must be found "without spot and blameless;" and that the Church will be presented by Christ to the Father without "fault;" so it must be concluded, unless, on the one hand, we greatly pervert the sense of these passages, or, on the other, admit the doctrine of purgatory or some intermediate purifying institution, that the entire sanctification of the soul, and its complete renewal in holiness, must take place in this world. While this is generally acknowledged, however, among spiritual Christians, it has been warmly contended by many, that the final stroke which destroys our natural corruption, is only given at death; and that the soul, when separated from the body, and not before, is capable of that immaculate purity which these passages, doubtless, exhibit to our hope.

If this view can be refuted, then it must follow, unless a purgatory of some description be allowed after death, that the entire sanctification of believers, at any time previous to their dissolution, and in the full sense of these evangelic promises, is attainable. To the opinion in question, then, there appear to be the following fatal objections:—

1. That we nowhere find the promises of entire sanctification restricted to the article of death, either expressly, or in fair inference from any passage of Holy Scripture. 2. That we nowhere find the circumstance of the soul's union with the body represented as a necessary obstacle to its entire sanctification.

The principal passage which has been urged in proof of this from the New Testament, is that part of the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, in which St. Paul, speaking in the first person of the bondage of the flesh, has been supposed to describe his state, as a believer in Christ. But whether he speaks of himself, or describes the state of others in a supposed case, given for the sake of more vivid representation in the first person, which is much more probable, he is clearly speaking of a person who had once sought justification by the works of the law, but who was then convinced, by the force of a spiritual apprehension of the extent of the requirements of that law, and by constant failures in his attempts to keep it perfectly, that he was in bondage to his corrupt nature, and could only be delivered from this thraldom by the interposition of another. For, not to urge that his strong expressions of being "carnal," "sold under sin," and doing always "the things which he would not," are utterly inconsistent with that moral state of believers in Christ which he describes in the next chapter; and, especially, that he there declares that such as are in Christ Jesus "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit;" the seventh chapter itself contains decisive evidence against the inference which the advocates of the necessary continuance of sin till death have drawn from it. The apostle declares the person whose case he describes, to be under the law, and not in a state of deliverance by Christ; and then he represents him not only as despairing of self deliverance, and as praying for the interposition of a sufficiently powerful deliverer, but as thanking God that the very deliverance for which he groans is appointed to be administered to him by Jesus Christ. "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank GOD through Jesus Christ our Lord."

This is, also, so fully confirmed by what the apostle had said in the preceding chapter, where he unquestionably describes the moral state of true believers, that nothing is more surprising than that so perverted a comment upon the seventh chapter, as that to which we have adverted, should have been adopted or persevered in. "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we, who are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that OUR OLD MAN is crucified with him, THAT THE BODY OF SIN MIGHT BE DESTROYED, that henceforth we should not serve sin; for he that is dead IS FREED FROM SIN." So clearly does the apostle show that he who is BOUND to the "body of death," as mentioned in the seventh chapter, is not in the state of a believer; and that he who has a true faith in Christ, "is FREED from sin."

It is somewhat singular, that the divines of the Calvinistic school should be almost uniformly the zealous advocates of the doctrine of the continuance of indwelling sin till death; but it is but justice to say, that several of them have as zealously denied that the apostle, in the seventh chapter of the Romans, describes the state of one who is justified by faith in Christ, and very properly consider the case there spoken of as that of one struggling in LEGAL bondage, and brought to that point of self despair and of conviction of sin and helplessness which must always precede an entire trust in the merits of Christ's death, and the power of his salvation.

3. The doctrine before us is disproved by those passages of Scripture which connect our entire sanctification with subsequent habits and acts, to be exhibited in the conduct of believers before death. So in the quotation from Rom. vi, just given,—"knowing this, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." So the exhortation in 2 Cor. vii, 1, also given above, refers to the present life: and not to the future hour of our dissolution; and in 1 Thess. v, 23, the apostle first prays for the entire sanctification of the Thessalonians, and then for their preservation in that hallowed state, "unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

4. It is disproved, also, by all those passages which require us to bring forth those graces and virtues which are usually called the fruits of the Spirit. That these are to be produced during our life, and to be displayed in our spirit and conduct, cannot be doubted; and we may then ask whether they are required of us in perfection and maturity? If so, in this degree of maturity and perfection, they necessarily suppose the entire sanctification of the soul from the opposite and antagonist evils. Meekness in its perfection supposes the extinction of all sinful anger; perfect love to God, supposes that no affection remains contrary to it; and so of every other perfect internal virtue. The inquiry, then, is reduced to this, whether these graces, in such perfection as to exclude the opposite corruptions of the heart, are of possible attainment.

If they are not, then we cannot love God with our whole hearts; then we must be sometimes sinfully angry; and how, in that case, are we to interpret that perfectness in these graces which GOD hath required of us, and promised to us in the Gospel? For if the perfection meant (and let it be observed that this is a Scriptural term, and must mean something) be so comparative as that we may be sometimes sinfully angry, and may sometimes divide our hearts between God and the creature, we may apply the same comparative sense of the term to good words and to good works, as well as to good affections. Thus when the apostle prays for the Hebrews, "Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work, to do his will," we must understand this perfection of evangelical good works so that it shall sometimes give place to opposite evil works, just as good affections must necessarily sometimes give place to the opposite bad affections. This view can scarcely be soberly entertained by any enlightened Christian; and it must, therefore, be concluded, that the standard of our attainable Christian perfection, as to the affections, is a love of God so perfect as to "rule the heart," and exclude all rivalry, and a meekness so perfect as to cast out all sinful anger, and prevent its return; and that as to good works, the rule is, that we shall be so "perfect in every good work," as to "do the will of God" habitually, fully, and constantly. If we fix the standard lower, we let in a license totally inconsistent with that Christian purity which is allowed by all to be attainable, and we make every man himself his own interpreter of that comparative perfection which is often contended for as that only which is attainable.

Some, it is true, admit the extent of the promises and the requirements of the Gospel as we have stated them; but they contend, that this is the mark at which we are to aim, the standard toward which we are to aspire, though neither is attainable fully till death. But this view cannot be true as applied to sanctification, or deliverance from all inward and outward sin. That the degree of every virtue implanted by grace is not limited, but advances and grows in the living Christian throughout life, may be granted; and through eternity also: but to say that these virtues are not attainable, through the work of the Spirit, in that degree which shall destroy all opposite vice, is to say, that God, under the Gospel, requires us to be what we cannot be, either through want of efficacy in his grace, or from some defect in its administration; neither of which has any countenance from Scripture, nor is at all consistent with the terms in which the promises and exhortations of the Gospel are expressed. It is also contradicted by our own consciousness, which charges our criminal neglects and failures upon ourselves, and not upon the grace of God, as though it were insufficient. Either the consciences of good men have in all ages been delusive and over scrupulous; or this doctrine of the necessary, though occasional, dominion of sin over us is false.

5. The doctrine of the necessary indwelling of sin in the soul till death involves other antiscriptural consequences. It supposes that the seat of sin is in the flesh, and thus harmonizes with the pagan philosophy, which attributed all evil to matter. The doctrine of the Bible, on the contrary, is, that the seat of sin is in the soul; and it makes it one of the proofs of the fall and corruption of our spiritual nature, that we are in bondage to the appetites and motions of the flesh. Nor does the theory which places the necessity of sinning in the connection of the soul with the body account for the whole moral case of man. There are sins, as pride, covetousness, malice, and others, which are wholly spiritual; and yet no exception is made in this doctrine of the necessary continuance of sin till death as to them. There is, surely, no need to wait for the separation of the soul from the body in order to be saved from evils which are the sole offspring of the spirit; and yet these are made as inevitable as the sins which more immediately connect themselves with the excitements of the animal nature. This doctrine supposes, too, that the flesh must necessarily not only lust against the Spirit, but in no small degree, and on many occasions, be the conqueror: whereas, we are commanded, to "mortify the deeds of the body;" to "crucify," that is, to put to death, "the flesh;" "to put off the old man," which, in its full meaning, must import separation from sin in fact, as well as the renunciation of it in will; and "to put on the new man." Finally, the apostle expressly states, that though the flesh stands victoriously opposed to legal sanctification, it is not insuperable by evangelical holiness.—" For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit," Rom. viii, 3,

4. So inconsistent with the declarations and promises of the Gospel is the notion that, so long as we are in the body, "the flesh" must of necessity have at least the occasional dominion. We conclude, therefore, as to the time of our complete sanctification, or, to use the phrase of the Apostle Paul, "the destruction of the body of sin;" that it can neither be referred to the hour of death, nor placed subsequently to this present life. The attainment of perfect freedom from sin is one to which believers are called during the present life; and is necessary to that completeness of "holiness," and of those active and passive graces of Christianity by which they are called to glorify God in this world, and to edify mankind.

Not only the time, but the manner also, of our sanctification has been matter of controversy: some contending that all attainable degrees of it are acquired by the process of gradual mortification and the acquisition of holy habits; others alleging it to be instantaneous, and the fruit of an act of faith in the Divine promises. That the regeneration which accompanies justification is a large approach to this state of perfected holiness; and that all dying to sin, and all growth in grace, advances us nearer to this point of entire sanctity, is so obvious, that on these points there can be no reasonable dispute. But they are not at all inconsistent with a more instantaneous work, when, the depth of our natural depravity being more painfully felt, we plead in faith the accomplishment of the promises of GOD. The great question to be settled is, whether the deliverance sighed after be held out to us in these promises as a present blessing? And, from what has been already said, there appears no ground to doubt this, since no small violence would be offered to the passages of Scripture already quoted, as well as to many others, by the opposite opinion.

All the promises of GOD which are not expressly, or from their order, referred to future time, are objects of present trust; and their fulfilment now is made conditional only upon our faith. They cannot, therefore, be pleaded in our prayers, with an entire reliance upon the truth of God, in vain. The general promise that we shall receive "all things whatsoever we ask in prayer, believing," comprehends, of course, "all things" suited to our case which God has engaged to bestow; and if the entire renewal of our nature be included in the number, without any limitation of time, except that in which we ask it in faith, then to this faith shall the promises of entire sanctification be given; which, in the nature of the case, supposes an instantaneous work immediately following upon our entire and unwavering faith. The only plausible objections made to this doctrine may be answered in few words.

It has been urged, that this state of entire sanctification supposes future impeccability. Certainly not; for if angels and our first parents fell when in a state of immaculate sanctity, the renovated man cannot be placed, by his entire deliverance from inward sin, out of the reach of danger. This, remark, also, answers the allegation, that we should thus be removed out of the reach of temptation, for the example of angels, and of the first man, who fell by temptation when in a state of native purity, proves that the absence of inward evil is not inconsistent with a state of probation; and that this, in itself, is no guard against the attempts and solicitations of evil. It has been objected, too, that this supposed state renders the atonement and intercession of Christ superfluous in future. But the very contrary of this is manifest when the case of an evangelical renewal of the soul in righteousness is understood. This proceeds from the grace of God in Christ, through the Holy Spirit, as the efficient cause; it is received by faith as the instrumental cause; and the state itself into which we are raised is maintained, not by inherent native power, but by the continual presence and sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit himself, received and retained in answer to ceaseless prayer; which prayer has respect solely to the merits of the death and intercession of Christ.

It has been farther alleged, that a person delivered from all inward and outward sin has no longer need to use the petition of the Lord's prayer,—"and forgive us our trespasses;" because he has no longer need of pardon. To this we reply,

1. That it would be absurd to suppose that any person is placed under the necessity of "trespassing," in order that a general prayer designed for men in a mixed condition might retain its aptness to every particular case.

2. That trespassing of every kind and degree is not supposed by this prayer to be continued, in order that it might be used always in the same import, or otherwise it might be pleaded against the renunciation of any trespass or transgression whatever.

3. That this petition is still relevant to the case of the entirely sanctified and the evangelically perfect, since neither the perfection of the first man nor that of angels is in question; that is, a perfection measured by the perfect law, which, in its obligations, contemplates all creatures as having sustained no injury by moral lapse, and admits, therefore, of no excuse from infirmities and mistakes of judgment; nor of any degree of obedience below that which beings created naturally perfect, were capable of rendering. There may, however, be an entire sanctification of a being rendered naturally weak and imperfect, and so liable to mistake and infirmity, as well as to defect in the degree of that absolute obedience and service which the law of God, never bent or lowered to human weakness, demands from all. These defects, and mistakes, and infirmities, may be quite consistent with the entire sanctification of the soul and the moral maturity of a being still naturally infirm and imperfect. Still, farther, if this were not a sufficient answer it may be remarked, that we are not the ultimate judges of our own case as to our "trespasses," or our exemption from them; and we are not, therefore, to put ourselves into the place of God, "who is greater than our hearts." So, although St. Paul says, "I know nothing by myself," that is, I am conscious of no offence, he adds, "yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me is the Lord:" to whom, therefore, the appeal is every moment to be made through Christ the Mediator, and who, by the renewed testimony of his Spirit, assures every true believer of his acceptance in his sight.

Another benefit which accrues to all true believers, is the RIGHT TO PRAY, with the special assurance that they shall be heard in all things which are according to the will of God. "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us." It is under this gracious institution that all good men are constituted intercessors for others, even for the whole world; and that God is pleased to order many of his dispensations, both as to individuals and to nations, in reference to "his elect who cry day and night unto him." With respect to every real member of the body or Church of Christ, the PROVIDENCE of God is special; in other words, they are individually considered in the administration of the affairs of this life by the Sovereign Ruler, and their measure of good and of evil is appointed with constant reference to their advantage, either in this life or in eternity. "The hairs of their head," are, therefore, said to be "numbered," and "all things" are declared "to work together for their good."

To them also VICTORY OVER DEATH is awarded. They are freed from its fear in respect of consequences in another state; for the apprehension of future punishment is removed by the remission of their sins, and the attestation of this to their minds by the Holy Spirit, while a patient resignation to the will of God, as to the measure of their bodily sufferings, and the strong hopes and joyful anticipations of a better life cancel and subdue that horror of pain and dissolution which is natural to man. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their life time subject to bondage," Heb. ii, 14, 15.

Two years before his death what do we hear from Paul? "Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I laid hold of by Christ Jesus."

I was just waiting for this. The NRSV renders this verse as "Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal..." But if you really want to use a translation that renders it as "already become perfect," let's see what the KJV says three verses down: "Let us, therefore, as many as be perfect be thus minded..." (In all fairness, the NRSV renders it as "Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you." At the same time, rendering the word as 'mature' instead of 'perfect' doesn't substantially change the meaning of things, since we understand 'perfect' in this verse to mean a 'complete' or 'full-grown' person--these are actual definitions for the word 'perfect' in English and for the term used in the Greek.) According to several commentators, the way that the Greek word rendered 'already become perfect' in v. 12 is used is as an idiom taken from sporting events, used to indicate 'completing a course,' hence the NRSV translation.

Funny, if there was any human who I would think could be "perfect" it would be the Apostle Paul.

Oh, but he does claim to be perfect: read Phil. 3:15. ;)

Throughout his epistles he continually emphasizes the Christian life as a race or battle. He makes it sound as if it were a race in which the finish line is in the near distance and yet he knows that he will not complete his perfection until he falls dead on that finish line. Here's my concern. When we decide we are perfectly sanctified do we quit the race? Is there anything left to battle? Have we accomplished all there is in this life?

Of course not. There is still temptation to fight, there is still a war going on outside--the battle's just won on the inside (assuming one keeps that state). We are able to focus more on the things of God, and God Himself, since we don't have anything within us getting in the way.

The biggest problem is, of course, now that we have declared ourselves perfect, all those less than perfect Christians. It seems the only task left for us then is to continually judge those "carnal" Christians and rebuke them for failing to acheive that perfect state.

I fail to see how that would be loving, which is exactly what a 'perfect' Christian is. Hence, I think it unreasonable to assume that a person who claimed Christian perfection and yet behaved this way was telling the truth any more than I assume that a person who calls himself a Christian is telling the truth when he doesn't live it.

Ah yes. That Wesleyian love I've heard so much about.

You sinner! You added an i to the word Wesleyan! You'll burn in hell if you don't shape up! ;P (I'm teasing.)

This is so overblown as to be utterly rediculous. Sorry.
Jesus said at the end of Mark's Gospel that we are to be born again and baptized in the Spirit. Born again, everyone understands - but to be baptized in the Spirit..
So many are appalled by this that they reject the Spirit as an entity of and for the Apostles - foolishly casting aside part of what is required of them. This is the equivelant of a Runner purposedly hamstringing himself to spite his feet because he doesn't understand the significance of his
feet to the cause of running.

We are supposed to be Following Christ through the Spirit.
John 10 and Romans 8 speak to this. The Holy Spirit being our guide, keeps us from sin so long as we follow.

There is no great mystery in this. But for people who both don't understand and will not heed it, other constructs must be created and thus the philosophy mill of errors starts churning. Catholicism does'nt understand salvation.
And the above is a hint at that. They created purgatory - an utter blasphemy, to make up for their spiritual ignorance.

If you accepted Christ, he is your advocate. That doesn't mean you get a free pass to sin - Paul spoke effectively to that; but, he just as effectively stated that being born again is not the end of it. If you aren't actively walking in the Spirit and Following It's lead, then you are walking in the flesh. The meaning is not unclear - either you are allowing the Holy Spirit to excercise judgement on your path, or you are thinking your own way through it. The upshot of this is that, per Romans 8, if you're thinking your own way through, you are under condemnation. This should be a no brainer - instead it is an offense to many if not most.

Solomon stated why - because man's reason seems perfectly logical but only leads him to calamity. Thus the way you think best will run you right into sin.. 'Well, it won't hurt to tell this one white lie' as it were.. that one lie, as an example is the first of many stains that will
begin the process of total rebellion. Sin after all is rebellion. The Apostles understood this and understood the nature of it. The more one sins, the less one wants to do with the object of that sin and with God. The sin itself becomes preferred to the one being sinned against.

Case in point. Let's say I have a friend who wants to go do something and I really don't feel like going. I could say so and be honest or lie so they don't feel bad. How quaint that people are so willing to sin to protect the feelings of others - and so brave it is to rebell against God and harm another with your sin.. But all too often that is the choice made. If you actually have a pure heart it will nag at you. But Sin also has a hardening effect that with progression makes you unfeeling and insensitive to that. In time, you'll view it as no big deal. And each
successive sin drives a wedge between me and my friend until I'll start talking and thinking bad about them to justify my continual lies - heaping sin upon sin as an act of self justification. Something else the Apostles understood.. smart huh, but spiritually so. Man's idea of justification is an Excuse "I did this because x". Excuses are a dime a dozen they don't excuse you of anything. God's idea of Justification is to cleans us and urge us to follow His lead. Ours is to make excuses as to why we can't do that. Thus the difference in both approach and end result.

Philosophy wonks want to beg the athority of their leaders - not understanding that any athority their leaders have derive from either God or Satan. They derive from God only to the extent that they do what God leads them to do. The minute they start relying on other than God all bets are off. This is how Popes throw orgies in the Vatican and how Jimmy Swaggert presumably does something similar in a limo - not knowing the full facts on that one, I'll prefer to infer it for example and leave it rather than state it as a fact. But by the time someone has reached the level of doing something like that, there has been something wrong for a long while. The fruits just betray it.

Lets look at cause and effect derived from Swaggert's example shall we. Swaggert ministered to a huge flock. What happened to that flock? Those that had their eyes on God were unmoved - merely dissappointed in Jimmy. Those who were following Jimmy, instead of God, were dissillusioned. Some swore by Jimmy and followed him into the ditch. Some swore off Jimmy and more damaging - swore off God and His people. Who had it right? The first crowd who had their eyes on God. Jimmy didn't matter to their salvation. He helped them get to that point; but, whether Jimmy stays on track or not has nothing to do with wether they stayed Christians or not. They wouldn't neglect him; but knew that ultimately, God is in charge and kept their eyes on God - not allowing themselves to steer their own course and wind up in the ditch. This is the example the Apostles gave us and it was followed by some. When Swaggert failed miserably, he was out of the ministry.

This also aptly illustrates the parable of the sower. Good seed grows roots and produces when it lands on good ground.
That is the true christian - the one that follows Christ instead of thinking their way through on their own every day. They look to God and to scripture for their answers.
The seed that falls on weedy soil will grow some roots; but, ultimately, they can't get it through their heads to follow. They keep making their own reasoned decisions that x or y won't hurt to do now and then. They ultimately go back to the life they pursued before they were born again and the weeds of sin around them choke out their growth and they are lost in it. The rocky ground is simply the hearts that are already hardened by sin against God. They will not heed God's word and in this instant would be classified by all those people on the sidelines that were just waiting to get a crack at Jimmy to tear him down when he blew it.. that would be the rest of the world. Or Democrats as some would have it.. lol

That's my two cents worth. Mark 16:15-18, Romans 8, and John 10 tell us what is bottom line required. The rest is largely example and scenery to show us in practical ways how it works when applied, what to expect and how to handle
various situations. They are in no way any less important; but if you don't get the beginnings right, none of the rest will matter. That is the example we see on the other side.

Consider what would have been the case had Jimmy been Catholic. Jimmy in his position would have been equivelant to the Pope. So let's treat him like the Pope for sake of argument. Had Jimmy been Pope, the first thing we would see different is that Jimmy would not have lost his ministry. To the contrary, Philosophy in place would trump scripture and hold that Jimmy is the 'Vicar of Christ' and cannot either be removed or resign his role. History alone is ample enough a tutor on this matter. It would be held that he is not God; but a man and that men can sin and still be ok in God's eyes. Then we would essentially come to the understanding that the office is more important than the man. We would hear how his office as Vicar and some philosophical promise to the Church will see them through.

There are countless and endless errors just in that. Not in substance - as I said, anyone can look to history and see how these things have been handled in the past and see that this is essentially it. I'm stopping here because those of us that understand Christianity and the import of following the Spirit also see the unavoidable consequence of a man in active sin being said to infallibly lead. The philosophy is that the Spirit protects the Church from any error that would be incurred and insures thereby that no ill doctrine comes of it. This isn't so in practice nor is it the way the Holy Spirit works.

The swaggert situation is what we should see. Not that a man ministering to great masses should come to folly; but, that in the instant he does, he is removed from the pulpit unless or until he gets right with God. This insures that the flock is not misled, abused or outright lost. On one side, the soul of the people and God's word are more important. On the other side tradition and the institution are more important. This isn't even debateable. If one thinks it is, one need only look to the long history of the pedophelia cases in the Us where scripture and concern for the souls of the congregation utterly and completely took a back seat to protecting the philosophy and the church from any appearance of harm. Appearance is the active word. The harm had long since been done - it might be more precise to say that they were protecting against the hens coming home to roost. Afterall, the last thing any criminal wants to do is go to jail and or be corrected and stopped from their activity - It's a nuisance.

Were scripture and God heeded in this, it is noteable that homosexuality should never have found acceptance in the church - ever. Sin is sin, once sin is redefined as righteous, all bets are off. This isn't something that happened overnight. It has been going on for a great long time. I isn't an institutional failure - it is a spiritual one. I've seen it blamed on lack of candidates for the priesthood. This is an utter copout and shows the spiritual vacuum within which such a statement could be made and even considered an appropriate response. Honest or no, it is akin to saying, Well, the Apostles required x, y, and z in a person so they could be understood the most spiritually led and upright person we can have to ensure that souls are properly nourished.. we can't find one of them, so let's us get us a hooker in there, how'd that be.
Now, some will blanche at that - but sin is sin. These guys have had no comprehension of that. To them it's an outrage that I could make such a comparison. Because they are thinking in the natural. The natural mind draws moral equivilancies about such things - 'well i'm not as bad as so and so'. If you're a sinner, then yes you are. If you're a human, then yes you are. But if you're saved and have the spirit of God in you, your judgement and leading is far different than the world's. And that is what we're supposed to be all about to begin with. The world makes decisions based on moral character. Christians are supposed to make judgements based on Spiritual leading.
And spiritual leading would never say, 'we're out of the good upstanding types, lets grab a sinner and use one of them instead.' That isn't an institutional flaw. It is a spiritual error the size of an iceburg and the Titanic of Catholicism has not only hit it; but, swerved around to glance it from every possible angle. Not on purpose; but, because it is the natural progression of spiritual blindness at the Helm. With that, I'll leave you to comment or question.

ll: Throughout his epistles he continually emphasizes the Christian life as a race or battle. He makes it sound as if it were a race in which the finish line is in the near distance and yet he knows that he will not complete his perfection until he falls dead on that finish line. Here's my concern. When we decide we are perfectly sanctified do we quit the race? Is there anything left to battle? Have we accomplished all there is in this life?

TG: Of course not. There is still temptation to fight, there is still a war going on outside--the battle's just won on the inside (assuming one keeps that state). We are able to focus more on the things of God, and God Himself, since we don't have anything within us getting in the way.

Read your thoughts again. I see an explicit contradiction in it. Why would I have to fight external temptation if my internal condition is whole? If I were "entirely sanctified" then any external temptation would never affect my internal condition. The mere fact that one can move in and out of entire sanctification is in itself contradictory. If I reach a state of perfection I can ward off any external temptations perfectly. It would be impossible for me to fall for any external temptation because of the "nirvana" of internal perfection, a state of being that has reached a state of perfection and once that state is reached the possibility of falling out of the state is impossible because how can perfection be tainted since it necessitates the ability to perfectly subscribe to all moral good at all times regardless of temptation and thus a state that once reached is incapable of anything less than perfection.

The real life problem with such piety is that we are so concentrated on the inner man we forget to live within the world and create the Kingdom of God which is our task. This Kingdom is not merely a spiritual Kingdom but one that extends to all areas of our life. We live in the temporal world and God calls us to take dominion over it. If our concentration is focused soley on the inner man we disobey God's command to take dominion over his creation.

Finally, the doctrine of entire sanctification diminishes faith and leads to spiritual pride. The fact that our flesh is weak and full of sin should lead to a humility and deeper faith that relies upon God's power and not our own. If we falsely believe that we have reached a state of sinless perfection then we no longer need to rely on God but can seem satisfied in our own accomplishment. This sort of attitude strikes against the entire gospel that calls us to rely soley on Christ and not our own deeds and to exalt in our weakness because it exalts Christ.

"And he has said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.' Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me."

ps If perfect spelling and grammar are required for entire sanctification I shall never reach that state. ;)

Read your thoughts again. I see an explicit contradiction in it. Why would I have to fight external temptation if my internal condition is whole? If I were "entirely sanctified" then any external temptation would never affect my internal condition.

Why wouldn't you? Adam was more 'perfect' than the entirely sanctified, yet he succumbed to temptation.

The mere fact that one can move in and out of entire sanctification is in itself contradictory. If I reach a state of perfection I can ward off any external temptations perfectly. It would be impossible for me to fall for any external temptation because of the "nirvana" of internal perfection, a state of being that has reached a state of perfection and once that state is reached the possibility of falling out of the state is impossible because how can perfection be tainted since it necessitates the ability to perfectly subscribe to all moral good at all times regardless of temptation and thus a state that once reached is incapable of anything less than perfection.

This is why we modify the term 'perfection' with the word 'Christian,' and often use the term entire sanctification instead. Perfection does not necessarily mean faultlessness or impeccability. It can also mean complete or full-grown or mature. It is this definition that fits most closely the Greek words that we translate as 'perfect' (telos). In the Christian sense, it is simply loving God and man with one's whole heart. This doesn't rule out temptation, nor does it rule out sin should one let other concerns creep in. Nor does it rule out spiritual growth. In fact, it allows for unimpeded growth, since one is no longer fighting oneself to do God's will.

The real life problem with such piety is that we are so concentrated on the inner man we forget to live within the world and create the Kingdom of God which is our task. This Kingdom is not merely a spiritual Kingdom but one that extends to all areas of our life. We live in the temporal world and God calls us to take dominion over it. If our concentration is focused soley on the inner man we disobey God's command to take dominion over his creation.

This does not follow from the doctrine of entire sanctification: in fact, entire sanctification is seen as a focus entirely upon God. The focus on God means that we do not concern outselves with the 'inner man' but live in the temporal world, seeking to create the Kingdom of God on earth. A contemporary of Wesley, an Anglican vicar who was Wesley's heir-apparent as leader of the Methodist movement until he died, John Fletcher of Madeley, claimed to be entirely sanctified, and his life showed it--he took over the parish for the town of Madeley, a town full of sinful characters that would not be bothered to go to church. He turned the place around. The infamous atheist Voltaire once was asked by a fellow skeptic whether he had once met anyone who was like Jesus Christ; his reply? "I once met Fletcher of Madeley."

Finally, the doctrine of entire sanctification diminishes faith and leads to spiritual pride. The fact that our flesh is weak and full of sin should lead to a humility and deeper faith that relies upon God's power and not our own. If we falsely believe that we have reached a state of sinless perfection then we no longer need to rely on God but can seem satisfied in our own accomplishment. This sort of attitude strikes against the entire gospel that calls us to rely soley on Christ and not our own deeds and to exalt in our weakness because it exalts Christ.

This is precisely wrong. The doctrine of entire sanctification requires that our faith in God be great, because God is the one who grants and maintains that state in us--without him, we cease to be perfectly loving, as he commanded (Mt. 5:43-8). This is similar to saying that the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone strikes at the heart of the gospel because many people in the past have come to see their justification before God as an excuse to sin. "What shall we say then? Shall we sin more, that grace may abound? God forbid!"

ps If perfect spelling and grammar are required for entire sanctification I shall never reach that state. ;)

Don't worry, it's not. I just had to say something, since I'm "The Grammarian."

Why wouldn't you? Adam was more 'perfect' than the entirely sanctified, yet he succumbed to temptation.

God created Adam (and all creation) good. I think it invalid to say that Adam was 'perfect' for if he was 'perfect' he would have never sinned. Adam was created under the covenant of works and he too was subject to temptation and expected to obey. The only advantage the Adam had over his children was that he was not cursed with a sinful nature. This is a far cry from perfect.

This is why we modify the term 'perfection' with the word 'Christian,' and often use the term entire sanctification instead. Perfection does not necessarily mean faultlessness or impeccability. It can also mean complete or full-grown or mature. It is this definition that fits most closely the Greek words that we translate as 'perfect' (telos). In the Christian sense, it is simply loving God and man with one's whole heart. This doesn't rule out temptation, nor does it rule out sin should one let other concerns creep in. Nor does it rule out spiritual growth. In fact, it allows for unimpeded growth, since one is no longer fighting oneself to do God's will.

I thought the original term was Sinless perfection? If that is the case then both modifyers, Sinless and Entire, denote a completeness. If spiritual growth is both possible and expected then I would say that the modifyers connote a state that contradicts the idea of spiritual growth. Why not simply Christian maturity? It appears to me that Wesleyans wish to portray a condition that goes beyond simple Christian maturity. Christian maturity connotes a state of tested obedience and experience. It follows Paul's idea of a race or battle. We understand the idea through the history of our own lives. The qualifications you add to the Wesleyan doctrine seem to fit better with Christian maturity then any idea of completeness that the modifyers imply.

I'm interested in your thoughts on 2 Cor 12:9. The idea of weakness being our strength and how this applies to entire sinless perfect sanctification? ;)

God created Adam (and all creation) good. I think it invalid to say that Adam was 'perfect' for if he was 'perfect' he would have never sinned. Adam was created under the covenant of works and he too was subject to temptation and expected to obey. The only advantage the Adam had over his children was that he was not cursed with a sinful nature. This is a far cry from perfect.

Again, we seem to have a problem with the term 'perfect.' I am using the term 'perfect' to denote a completeness and fitness for the purpose set for someone or something, you are using it to denote a faultlessness. At the same time, I should point out that it is a theological subject on both sides of the Calvinist/Arminian line to discuss "Adamic perfection," or the original nature of Mankind.

I thought the original term was Sinless perfection?

The original term, Scripturally, is entire sanctification (1 Thess. 5:23) or perfect love (1 Jn 4:17). Another term that Wesley used for it was Christian perfection. Truthfully, the only people who used the term sinless perfection from the get-go were those opposed to the notion that it is possible to be filled to the fullest with God's love in this lifetime. We, with Wesley, do not reject the term, since there is a sense in which it is true. But we do not argue for the term, since many think it to mean its own form of pride and self-reliance.

If that is the case then both modifyers, Sinless and Entire, denote a completeness.

Not really. "Sinless," for one thing, brings all sorts of baggage with it, including thoughts of presumptuousness and pride. It also denotes an impeccability, an inability to sin, that does not follow from the term 'entire'.

If spiritual growth is both possible and expected then I would say that the modifyers connote a state that contradicts the idea of spiritual growth.

Neither modifier really connotes a state that has anything to do with spiritual growth; they have more to do with the ethical and moral character of a person.

Why not simply Christian maturity? It appears to me that Wesleyans wish to portray a condition that goes beyond simple Christian maturity. Christian maturity connotes a state of tested obedience and experience.

It works, although there is a just as much a problem with the terms here as with Christian perfection, namely that to many, 'maturity' does not have ethical connotations. If one were to ask someone to describe a mature Christian, it is doubtful, in my mind, that they would describe a person who exhibited the fruits of the Spirit in abundance. If one were to ask someone to describe a perfect Christian, one would be more likely to get the desired result: loving, kind, trusting, joyful, etc. It also does not follow that a "perfect" Christian, ethically, is a spiritually mature Christian. In other words, it is quite possible to have a Christian who loves God with his whole being and his neighbor as himself, but is still fairly inexperienced in both the physical and spiritual life.

It follows Paul's idea of a race or battle. We understand the idea through the history of our own lives.

I'm interested in your thoughts on 2 Cor 12:9. The idea of weakness being our strength and how this applies to entire sinless perfect sanctification? ;)

Well, the context of the passage has something to do with a "thorn in the flesh" that God would not take away from Paul despite his thrice requesting it. There is debate about what exactly that "thorn in the flesh" was. Some say it was some besetting sin (although 'flesh' does not always mean 'sinful nature' in the Greek, nor is it very Scriptural that God would keep a man beset by a sin, when Jesus' purpose was "to destroy the works of the devil," viz., sin); others say that it was a physical ailment: poor eyesight, an ear ache (Tertullian), or a head ache (Chrysostom), something of this sort. This seems to fit with Scripture more readily than God keeping a person under the thumb, so to speak, of a God-displeasing impulse or desire.

Another view says that the 'thorn in the flesh' and the 'messenger of Satan' were both references to the false apostle who Paul had to deal with in Corinth. Either way, through bodily infirmity or external pressure, Paul asked for this 'thorn' to be removed, and the Lord declined, replying, "My grace is sufficient for thee. For my strength is made perfect in weakness." To quote Clarke's Commentary on this passage, "The more, and the more violently, thou art afflicted and tried, being upheld by my power, and prospered in all thy labours, the more eminently will my power be seen and acknowledged. For the weaker the instrument I use, the more the power of my grace shall be manifested."

Another interesting note from Clarke's Commentary, this one in denial of the view that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was a besetting sin, is the note on verse 9, "therefore I will glory in my infirmities":

Therefore, his infirmities do not mean his corruptions, or sins, or sinfulness of any kind; for it would be blasphemous for any man to say, I will rather glory that God leaves my corruptions in me, than that he should take them away.

Hence, the passage has little to do with entire sanctification, but is more aimed at comforting the Christian that the Lord upholds us through all trials, and that his power shows through "completely" (perfectly) in those areas where it is obvious that it was not us--our weaknesses.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.