Email
this Page The following article by Dr. Victor Reasoner offers a look at the Historical Development of Holiness Teaching. Dr. Reasoner's analysis in section 7 of the American Holiness Movement reflects his view of the American Holiness Movement. I do not paint the Modern Holiness Movement with as broad a brush as Dr. Reasoner. It is not possible to force the entire Modern Holiness Movement into each of the subheads he details. I believe his criticisms and comments are valuable however as they highlight areas of concern and need for balance.
Tom Kiser, The Go Forth Alliance.
by Dr. Victor Reasoner
Hebrews 12:14 commands us to pursue holiness. Holiness and perfection are related terms -- we are unholy but the perfecting grace of God makes us holy. How does that happen? What is our responsibility? I want to trace through the history of the Church ten responses that have been given to this question.
1. Suffering and Martyrdom. By the end of the 1st century there was an emphasis on perfection through suffering and martyrdom. Passages like 1 Peter 5:10, as well as the entire book of 1 Peter, teach the significance of suffering and affliction. However the emphasis is not upon suffering, but upon grace. What role does suffering play? It demonstrates our need for growth in grace. Although Peter's emphasis in this first letter is that Christians will suffer (see 1:6) and that trials should not take us by surprise (4:12), persecution and stress, trials and afflictions do not sanctify -- they reveal to what degree we are sanctified.
Of course, the ultimate form of suffering is martyrdom. But dying for the cause of Christ does not guarantee sainthood. It may be easier to die for Christ than to live for Christ in some circumstances. 1 Cor 13:3, "If I surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." Therefore, we do not seek persecution or suffering; we seek grace. Trials will come without having to seek them!
2. Monasticism arose by the 3rd century. R. Newton Flew said, "Monasticism is the boldest organized attempt to attain Christian perfection in all the long history of the Church." Monasticism emphasized holiness through withdrawal from the world.
Monasticism compares with the Pharisees in Judaism. There were only about 6,000 Pharisees at the time of Jesus and they lived in Jerusalem. The people of the land, who comprised 90% of the population respected the Pharisees as holy, yet felt they were too busy to be holy. They were barely making a living and were detested by the Pharisees. According to 1 Cor 13:3, "If I give all I posses to the poor, but have not love, I gain nothing." "Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence" (Col 2:23).
Vows and religious orders came to be viewed as a shortcut to holiness. Holiness was defined as poverty, chastity, and submission to authority. Monks withdrew from the world in order to discipline the flesh. Those who continued to live in this world system concluded they could not be holy and would have to be purified in purgatory. This created two classes of Christians --the holy and the unholy. The unholy developed a lax attitude believing holiness could not be attained in this life.
Holiness is possible only after death. Purgatory means to purify. The Roman church teaches that some are too good for hell, but not ready for heaven. However, there is no biblical evidence for such a place as purgatory.
3. Sacramentarianism emphasized the rituals of the church as the means of receiving saving and sanctifying grace. While the sacraments are blessed, our faith must be in what they symbolize and not in the ritual itself. Participation in the sacraments does not automatically result in added grace. Circumcision in the Old Testament and confirmation in the Roman church may symbolize holiness, but they do not necessarily produce it.
4. Imputed righteousness was a reaction against sacramentalism. The Protestant Reformers asserted that mankind was so sinful that we can never be delivered from sin in this life. Often Calvinism has taught holiness is possible at the hour of death. Death is our enemy (1 Cor 15:26), not our friend. We can serve God in holiness and righteousness "all our days" (Luke 1:75).
Augustine taught Romans 7 was the highest state of Christian experience. Luther taught that man was at the same time just and yet sinful. Calvin believed "as long as we inhabit the prison of our body we shall have to maintain an incessant conflict with the vices of our corrupt nature." This is based on a dualistic view that anything physical is sinful, therefore the body is sinful and we will be sinful until we leave the body.
Any holiness, then, is positional or imputed. The obedience of Christ is imputed or reckoned to our account so that a person who is morally impure is accounted as holy. Our standing in Christ may be very different from our actual state.
But what about the commands to holiness? As we trust in Christ, his righteous is imputed to our account. We have no righteousness of our own, but through imputation God sees the righteousness of Christ.
Do we believe in imputed righteousness? "For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Rom 5:19). I come to God as a sinner with no righteousness of my own. Yet by trusting in Christ I am justified and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to my account. Romans 4 teaches that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. However, we not only have peace with God through justification by faith (Rom 5:1), he also pours out the Holy Spirit into the heart of the justified (Rom 5:5). The love of God was poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit given to us [aeorist passive participle] when we were justified [aeorist passive participle]. Justification and the gift of the Holy Spirit both occur at the same time -- having been justified and having been given both occurred at the moment of saving faith. Therefore, God does not impute grace without imparting grace (see John Wesley, "The Lord our Righteousness," Sermon #20)
5. We are as holy as we will ever be when we are regenerated, taught Nicholas Ludwig, count of Zinsendorf. Those who are born again are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). They have put off the old way of life and have but on the new self, "created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph 4:24).
Wesley preached that "a Christian is so far perfect as not to commit sin. This is the glorious privilege of every Christian; yea, though he be but a babe in Christ" ["Christian Perfection, Sermon #40, 2.20-21]. However, the epistles of the New Testament contain promises, prayers, and commands that believers go on unto perfection.
1. There is such a thing as perfection; for it is again and again mentioned in Scripture.
2. It is not so early as justification; for justified persons are to "go on to perfection."
3. It is not so late as death; for St. Paul spake of living men that were perfect (Wesley, 11:441-2).
6. Mysticism teaches that we arrive at perfection by losing self-consciousness. W. B. Pope described this emphasis as "such oneness with God as excludes or suppresses the consciousness of individuality and of a phenomenal universe on the way to Him; and, when that goal is reached, destroys all distinction between Him and His creature for ever" [Christian Theology, 3:77]. The finite is absorbed by the infinite. How would you know if you had arrived at this state of perfection since you would have lost all self consciousness?
There is a difference between dying to self-centeredness and dying to self. Expressions such as "let me lose myself and find it Lord in Thee" tend to promote a mysticism which tends to escape reality. This view would also be found under the label of contemplative.
Wesley wrote to his brother that the writings of the mystics has almost at one point in his life caused him to make "shipwreck of the faith." He objected that mysticism depreciates the means of grace, including church attendance; that it was too subjective, and that it usurped the priority of the Word [Letter, 23 Nov 1736]. Wesley rejected this individualistic and pietistic brand of holiness by declaring there is "no holiness but social holiness" [Works, 14:321].
7. The American holiness movement. Wesley preached that all who denied original sin are but heathens still. He claimed this as "the first grand distinguishing point between heathenism and Christianity" ("Original Sin," Sermon #44, III.1).
Charles Finney denied that the human race is born with a sinful nature and taught that we could be holy by choosing to be [1846-7]. In 1856 Luther Lee wrote "as Mr. Finney contends for the freedom of the will, that man has natural power to will right, all can sanctify themselves by an act of will in a moment" [Elements of Divinity, p. 212]. Again the problem is that human will and not divine grace is the emphasis. This humanistic view is that we perfect ourselves by choosing what is right. This ignores man's depravity.
Therefore, although Finney was heretical, his contribution to the holiness movement was that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was subsequent to regeneration. The holiness movement took Wesley's rationale for Christian perfection, fused it with Finney's teaching that the baptism of the Spirit was an experience subsequent to regeneration, concluding that the baptism of the Spirit was Christian perfection. Obviously, such as emphasis will lead to an emphasis on Pentecostal power and the gifts of the Spirit instead of upon Christlikeness and the fruit of the Spirit. By the turn of the century, a majority of the holiness movement had become Pentecostal. The emphasis had shifted from purity to power.
Just as Finney redefined what Christian perfection was, Palmer redefined how it is attained. What was Palmer's shortcut to holiness?
1. Put all on the altar.
2. Christ is the altar
3. The altar sanctifies the
gift.
This was based on an out-of-context reference from Matt 23:19 and a deduction she made from Rom 12:1. In Faith and its Effects (1848) Palmer gave this instruction:
Imagine a Jew in ancient time, fully aware of the requirements of the law demanding the choice of his flock; for a moment he hesitates while covetousness, murmurs in his heart, as he gazes with increasing interest on the valuable sacrifice, until aroused by the consideration of what indulgence in the unhallowed propensity will head to, he, with decisive step, hastens at once with his offering to the hallowed altar. The sacrifice is presented; and the very moment it touches that "altar most holy" it is sanctified. The sanctification of the gift did not depend on any inherent good in the offerer, but upon the sanctify of the altar upon which it was laid. The altar sanctifieth the gift.
But this is ceremonial sanctification which does not produce moral holiness. Palmer's instruction is based upon the logical deduction that, if the seeker has put all on the altar, he or she is sanctified. The seeker has a duty to believe this even if there is not further evidence of sanctification.
Palmer argued that the entire voice of the Scriptures was the voice of the Holy Spirit. Palmer quoted Wesley's description of the witness of the Spirit and then substituted the Word for the Spirit, arguing that if we receive the Word of God we have received the communication of the Spirit (pp. 150-1). Everett Stackpole describes this syllogism:
The major premise is: God has promised
salvation on certain conditions.
The minor premise is: I have
complied with those conditions.
The conclusion logically follows:
Therefore I am saved (or sanctified).
Stackpole wrote, "The general principles of salvation may be found in the written Word, but my salvation or yours is nowhere revealed in the Bible. The Word gives no testimony whatever with reference to that event. If I ever learn that for a certainly, it must be by special revelation to me" (p. 27).
The positive confession teaching counsels people to "just say it." However, we are not made holy merely because we profess it, claim it, or confess it to be so. Early Methodism was quick to seek and slow to profess Christian perfection. Later holiness people were quick to profess, but often short on living it.
a) A Restricted Definition of "Sanctification" in which Holiness is Restricted to the Second Blessing.
Wesley said the term sanctification refers to those who are justified unless it is qualified by another word such as "wholly" or "entirely." Yet with the holiness movement initial, progressive, and final sanctification were ignored. 84% of the IHC ministers said sanctification used meant the second work of grace.
b) Sanctification was Contrasted to Regeneration, instead of Viewed as a Continuation.
The first and second blessing were contrasted and the first work depreciated in order to demonstrate the necessity of the second. The first work was reduced to justification - something done for us, while sanctification was something done in us. However, Wesley explained that entire sanctification does not imply any new kind of holiness: let no man imagine this. . . . Love is the sum of Christian sanctification: it is the one kind of holiness which is found, only in various degrees, in the believers who are distinguished by St. John into "little children, young men, and fathers" ["On Patience," Sermon # 83, 10].
c) A Misinterpretation of the Transition in Acts.
Those who receive the Spirit in Acts are Jews entering into the new covenant, not Christians receiving a second blessing. In the Sangster list of Wesley's primary texts, the book of Acts is conspicuous by its absence. Acts is primarily a historical narrative, not doctrinal.
d) The use of Romans 7 to Demonstrate the Need for Entire Sanctification
James Arminius demonstrated that the Church fathers, until Augustine in the 5th century generally interpreted Romans 7 as pre-Christian experience. This is also the conclusion of Thomas Oden in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Methodism uniformly held that Romans 7 was not the description of one who was born again. According to Romans 6 sin is no longer our master; we have been set free from sin. Yet the holiness movement adopted a Calvinistic interpretation in order to make their case for the need for entire sanctification. Their characterization of the new birth as a defeated life does not do justice to the enabling, liberating, transforming, as well as, perfecting grace of God.
e) Holiness or Hell
This error is based upon a misinterpretation of Heb 12:14 and the belief that justification is partial and the believer remains in an unholy state. In contrast Wesley wrote,
I am convinced every believer may attain this; yet I do not say he is in a state of damnation or under the curse of God till he does attain. No, he is in a state of grace and in favour with God as long as he believes. Neither would I say, "If you die without it, you will perish; but rather, Till you are saved from unholy tempers, you are not ripe for glory" (Letter to Elizabeth Hardy, 5 April 1758).
Yet the holiness movement taught that only they would go up in the rapture. It is not unusual for cults and religious fringe groups who feel disenfranchised to teach a partial rapture. There is some sense of superiority in teaching that only the special, the elect, or the superspiritual (namely the group doing the teaching) will be so favored by God. Actually, this doctrine of election has only substituted sanctification for predestination.
G. D. Watson taught that "the Bride of Christ does not comprise all of those who are saved, but a select company out from that body who have been conformed to Christ in His life and sufferings and ministry in a special degree." Just as Eve was taken from Adam's body, so the Bride is taken from the Church. "Those who make up the Bride must not only be saved but sanctified in the most thorough degree" [The Bridehood Saints, pp. 4-7].
W. B. Godbey also made this distinction between the church and the bride. Just as the church was called out of the world, so the bride was the elect from within the church which had received the second work of grace. Godbey wrote an entire chapter entitled "the pentecostal experience indispensable to a place in the bridehood" [Church-Bride-Kingdom, pp. 88-97]. By this time Godbey had equated pentecost with entire sanctification. Godbey taught that only the bride, or the "sanctified," would be raptured [Commentary on the New Testament, 1:232-3; 254]. Therefore, when Christ returned with his saints to set up the millennial kingdom, only the "sanctified" would reign with him.
f) The baptism of the Spirit was equated with entire sanctification
Although passages such as 1 Cor 12:13 and Gal 3:27 clearly associate Spirit baptism with the new birth, it has been claimed that there are two baptisms; that the Holy Spirit baptizes believers into the body of Christ and that subsequent to the new birth, Christ baptizes believers with the Holy Spirit.
Theologically, it is absurd to divide up the Trinity and teach that the Holy Spirit baptizes every believer into Christ at the new birth, but that Christ has not baptized every believer with the Spirit at that time. If there is a baptism by the Son and a baptism by the Spirit, why not also a baptism by the Father?
Upon examination of every passage in Scripture which refers to Spirit baptism, we will discover that this artificial distinction between Christ's baptism and the Spirit's baptism does not exist. Christ is always the baptizer. He baptizes with the Spirit into the body of Christ or into the realm of the Spirit and the Church (the body of Christ).
By making the baptism with the Holy Spirit an experience subsequent to entrance into the kingdom of God, the modern holiness movement has obscured the significance of water baptism. Water baptism and Spirit baptism are two halves of one act or the one baptism. That one act or baptism is entrance into the kingdom of God. Baptism consists of an inward effusion of the Holy Spirit, outwardly typified by the application of water as its emblem. Water baptism, properly understood, is an outward sign of this inward grace. This is one event, not two; it is an act of initiation which occurs at the time of regeneration ("The Fallacy of Teaching Two Baptisms," The Arminian Magazine, Fall 1998).
g) Holiness is a crisis experience, not an ethical lifestyle.
Progressive sanctification is ignored in favor of a crisis experience. The all important issue is to testify to the experience, when the emphasis should be upon living the life. This emphasis upon seeking an experience, coupled with the teaching that the baptism with the Holy Spirit was an experience following regeneration, led to pentecostalism a generation later.
Holiness is claimed presumptively and must be testified to definitely. Wesley counseled that it was not necessary to testify to having attained a specific blessing -- "neither perfection, sanctification, the second blessing, nor the having attained. Rather speak of the particulars which God has wrought for you. You may say, "At such a time, I felt a change which I am not able to express; and since that time, I have not felt pride, or self-will, or anger, or unbelief; nor any thing but a fulness of love to God and to all mankind" [Plain Account, "Advice for the Entirely Sanctified," #6].
Phoebe Palmer insisted that the seeker testify definitely to entire sanctification in order to retain it. No doubt seekers were often pressured into claiming something they did not understand. A missionary wrote about a native who was really struggling with faith while seeking the second blessing. "He can't see how to believe before he believes." In other words, he cannot see how claiming it makes it so.
The mere profession of this blessing does not produce Christian perfection. Yet Palmer taught no evidence was necessary other than the witness of the Word that God would do the work if we met the conditions. This profession of holiness tended to produce bigotry, not sensitivity to the Spirit. A standardized profession of holiness has not necessarily produced the practice of holiness.
h) This second blessing results in a permanent state of sanctification.
While the word "eradication" is not found in scripture, there are metaphoric expressions which are incorrectly interpreted literally. Sin is not a physical substance to be removed like a stump or a rotten tooth which is pulled out. Illustrations such as wrestling Leviathan, the crocodile of carnality, make for vivid preaching, but create unrealistic expectations. We must always watch and pray, while trusting in the present tense cleansing of the blood as we walk in light.
While scripture uses phenomenal language, it is a mistake to interpret this language concretely. Al Truesdale calls this tendency "reification." Reification is the fallacy of treating an abstraction as substantive (WTJ, 31:2).
Eradicate means to pull up by the roots. The danger in using this term is that it conveys the concept that sin is a physical substance that can be removed once and for all, like a tooth is extracted or the roots of a tree dug out. Does that result in a sinless state? Does this eradication include the subconscious mind? If the sin nature were eradicated in parents, how could it be passed on to their children? If it comes through Adam and not the parents, would the sanctified parents still be in need of the cleansing blood moment by moment? If sin is eradicated and then the person backslides, does the sin nature return? Some have taught that the backslider may need forgiveness, but not cleansing. Thus eradication results in a permanent state.
8. The Keswick emphasis is a more optimistic version of the Reformers, who taught that the sin nature will always be with us. Keswick is the name of a resort town in England where annual conventions have been held since 1875. The Keswick convention teaches that believers live defeated lives until they discover victorious, Spirit-filled living. Keswick teaches that the believer must consecrate his life completely and the Holy Spirit will counteract the sin nature which frees the believer from the power of sin in his life and empower him for service.
They teach the Holy Spirit counteracts the sin nature and helps us suppress it. We agree that this is our condition in regeneration (Gal 5:17-24), but we believe God's grace can take us beyond this.
However, the Keswick message is not a complete theology; it is an additive. It does not address the ethical and social dimensions of Christianity, but tends to focus on inner piety [Dieter, Five Views, p. 186].
While this more Calvinistic holiness movement has debated with the more Wesleyan holiness movement over terminology, my greatest concern is the impression that those who are born again are still defeated and under the power of sin. I have exactly the same concerns with the emphasis of the American holiness movement. Wesley said, "We know no Gospel without salvation from sin" [Letters, 6:326].
9. Pentecostalism. Jesus warned that it is possible to be lawless and to have never know God, yet to be able to prophesy, drive out demons and perform many miracles (Matt 7:21-3). Therefore, the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-3) should be sought instead of the gifts of the Spirit.
The American holiness movement explained Christian perfection in terms of power and taught it was the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Within one generation there were those within the holiness movement who concluded that speaking in tongues was the initial evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
The earliest record of tongues speaking at a holiness camp occurred in Missouri in 1881, although the historian reported that "similar things had occurred in Illinois" [Kiergan (1916-7), 31]. It is generally agreed that the American pentecostal movement began with Charles F. Parham in 1901 when he began to teach that tongues was the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Parham taught at the Bethel Bible School in Topeka, KS that tongues was the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit. In 1901 his students claimed to have 21 distinct languages -- Chinese being the first. Parham believed it would no longer be necessary to study foreign languages. Missionaries could receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit and take the gospel around the world.
However, it turned out that after those missionaries got to the field that no one could understand them. Linguists have analyzed tapes of tongues-speaking and have not found one example of a legitimate language.
Yet his wife wrote in his biography that Parham "preached sanctification as a second definite work of grace, as taught by John Wesley and the early Methodists" [The Life of Charles F. Parham: Founder of the Apostolic Faith Movement (1930), 21].
Parham's Apostolic Faith Movement was based upon the beliefs that:
1. Tongues was the absolutely indispensable
evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
2. The gift of tongues was
given for the purpose of world evangelism and would thus hasten the premillennial
return of Christ.
Tongues were initially believed to be actual foreign languages which would enable this last generation to evangelize the whole world. Thus, they were not only a sign to the individual that he had been baptized with the Holy Spirit, but they were also a sign that the last days were here. This was the "latter-day rain."
3. Those who received the baptism with the Spirit were sealed for the rapture and constituted the five wise virgins who comprised the bride of Christ and who alone would be taken in the rapture.
This teaching should be recognized as "borrowed" from the radical holiness teachings of Godbey and Watson.
Parham discipled W. J. Semour, a black evangelist who had previously attended God's Bible School. Semour took the Apostolic Faith teaching to Los Angeles and from 1906-9 people from all over the world flocked to 312 Azusa St. On June 14, 1906 A. G. Garr became the first white person to speak in tongues at the Azusa Street Mission.
Garr was an evangelist with the Metropolitan Church Association, better known as the Burning Bush Movement. Garr closed the Burning Bush Mission and took its members to Azusa Street. In doing so Garr moved from a holiness church which accepted tongues as an evidence of the baptism to a pentecostal church which considered tongues as the evidence.
On August 27, 1906 Seymour wrote for Parham to come to Azusa Street because "Satan is working." Parham arrived in October and was shocked, finding things worse than he anticipated. He said the hypnotists and spiritualists had taken over. For the rest of his life Parham declared that the Azusa Street meeting was a case of "spiritual power prostituted." Parham pled with Semour to repent for deceiving the people. Parham was soon invited to leave. He went around the corner to conduct services. Seymour and Parham were never reconciled.
Phineas F. Bresee, founder of the Church of the Nazarene, lived in Los Angeles and wrote on Dec 13, 1906 that the Asuza Street meeting was insignificant in both numbers and influence. According to Bresee, the situation was "a senseless mumble . . . a poor mess" which bordered on fanaticism and heresy. However, glowing reports were being sent back east. As late as 1914 articles by Frank Bartleman still appeared in holiness periodicals, including God's Revivalist.
The pentecostal revival made great inroads into the holiness movement. Charles Edwin Jones said the pentecostal movement swept "almost the entire independent Holiness movement of the southeastern United States into the pentecostal camp." In 1901 H. F. Reynolds reported the "so-called Tongues Movement" had taken every Nazarene church in Florida except one.
By January 1907 reports circulated which accused Parham of immorality. Parham was arrested in San Antonio, TX on July 19, 1907 on charges of sodomy. He was released on bail four days later and no formal indictment was ever filed. James R. Goff, Jr. wrote that there is neither enough hard evidence to condemn him nor enough doubt to sufficiently clear him [Fields White Unto Harvest (1988), 141].
The "Apostolic Faith" movement of Charles Parham failed to restore apostolic Christianity because Parham did not have an adequate grasp of apostolic doctrine (Acts 2:42) nor did his life exemplify Christian perfection. A grasp of the history of the Christian Church will help us discern the work of God, an adequate theology will help Church leaders keep the work of God on track, but we must also seek Christian holiness and maintain a vital relationship with Jesus Christ. A genuine movement of God will be characterized by the seeking after more of God's love. For as Wesley cautioned
If you are seeking anything but more love you are looking wide of the mark, you are getting out of the royal way. When others ask, "Have you received this or that blessing?" if they mean anything but more love, they are leading you out of the way and putting you on a false scent.
a) We are not to seek a particular gift; the Holy Spirit divides them as He wills.
After giving a listing of spiritual gifts (charasma) in 1 Cor 12, at v 11 Paul teaches that the Holy Spirit gives them to each man, just as he determines. If there are as many as 21 gifts of the Spirit, why insist that only one is the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit?
Tongues advocates do not agree among themselves as to what tongues evidences. Among Roman Catholic charismatics it is renewal, not salvation. Among The Way and United Pentecostals - it is the evidence of salvation. Among Assemblies of God and non-holiness pentecostals, it is the second work. Among Pentecostal Holiness it is the third blessing.
Furthermore, tongues is not a distinctly Christian phenomenon. Plato mentions it among pagan religions. It was common in the worship of Venus. It was common among Mother Ann Lee and the Shakers and among Mormons. When their temple was dedicated in Salt Lake City, hundreds of elders all spoke in tongues. Tongues is common among Hindus. In the occult world, spiritualists list tongues as a manifestation of their church.
b) According to 12:30, all do not speak in tongues? Literally it reads, not all speak with tongues.
Six times in Acts the Holy Spirit was given; three times the phenomenon of tongues was present and three times it was absent.
c) According to 14:22 tongues is a sign to the unbeliever, not a sign to the believer that he or she has the Holy Spirit.
In other words, their purpose is evangelistic, not confirmatory. Therefore, tongues are to be interpreted so that everyone will know what has been said (14:32). And tongues are to be used one at a time, at the most 3 ( 14:29).
I object to the atmosphere of confusion in which these scriptural commandments are disregarded. We cannot say "amen" to what we cannot understand. The Holy Spirit is not the author of such confusion.
Oral Roberts teaches that "on rare occasion the Holy Spirit manifests tongues and interpretations in a way seemingly not in accordance with rules laid down in Scripture." The same Spirit that inspired the scriptures would not contradict his own word.
d) The genuine gift of tongues is real languages.
In Acts 2:8-11, 15 regions or dialects are mentioned. Everyone heard in their own language. In both Acts and 1 Cor the word "unknown" is italicized and not in the original text. Glossolalia means known languages.
Some concluded that they were speaking the language of angels, not men (see 1 Cor 13;1). However, this is a 3rd class condition, even if I could, an exaggeration to make a point. Nowhere else in scripture is an angelic language mentioned and this verse does not establish such a fact.
e) Tongues can be easily counterfeited.
A physical phenomenon therefore does not evidence a spiritual reality. A seeker with laryngitis could not get the Spirit!
Today people are coached. They are to abandon control and just say anything. But according to 1 Cor 14:32 "the spirit of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets." The indwelling of the Spirit gives us greater self-control. It is a dangerous practice to open yourself to anything and become passive. God does not bypass our minds, but enlightens our mind.
f) Tongues-speaking does not produce holy living.
Stanley Horton, Assembly of God scholar admitted, "the baptism in the Holy Spirit is not of itself a sanctifying experience" [Five Views on Sanctification, p. 132]. Another pentecostal leader (Stiles, Jack E.?) wrote that a great host of people, who have spoken in tongues, are not manifesting holiness, but are conducting themselves in ways in which any Christian knows is displeasing to God." Therefore, 14:1 should read, you seek tongues, but instead seek love.
The first doctrinal controversy occurred as pentecostal converts with a non-holiness background began to question the necessity of the second blessing. William H. Durham lead the group who believe Christian experience involved two steps -- conversion and the baptism with the Holy Ghost. Durham followed the theology of Finney and Mahan which denied that original sin remained in the believer. About half of the pentecostal movement adopted the "finished work" theology, while the other half taught three works of grace [Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition, 165]. Thus, for many pentecostals the first theological change was a rejection of entire sanctification.
Across the 20th century the pentecostal movement has been characterized by flamboyant evangelists such as Aimee Semple McPherson who made their own rules and were accountable to no one. McPherson was the role model for Kathryn Kuhlman. In 1938 she married Burroughs A. Waltrip who had left his previous wife because he had fallen in love with Kathryn. They divorced in 1947. She operated independently and was never ordained. In Occult ABC Kurt Koch evaluated the ministry of Kuhlman after a thorough investigation which included a personal interview. He raised serious doubts concerning whether she was operating under the power of the Holy Spirit or as a medium.
William Branham claimed to be the new Elijah, the forerunner of Christ's return and the head of the 7th Church age. He taught annihilation, denying the eternal punishment of hell (as did Parham), adopted the Jesus Only teaching, and was expected by his followers to raise from the dead.
The coroner's report on the death of A. A. Allen in 1950 reported a very high and concentrated level of alcohol in the blood stream. The cause of death included "acute alcoholism."
Roberts Liardon reported in that Jack Coe always seemed to be in competition with other preachers. 1951 that Jack Coe visited an Oral Roberts meeting and measured the length of Roberts' tent, ordering one slightly larger [God's Generals, 365].
Reverend Ike, Father Divine, Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton, Jim and Tammy, Jimmy Swaggart, Earnest Ansley, and Benny Hinn represent an egocentric pentecostalism at its worst. They all played by their own rules.
The pentecostal movement seemed to struggle with an inferiority complex and at the same time with a feeling of superiority. Not only did they refuse accountability, it seemed they did not even believe scriptural commands applied to them as long as they had the Holy Ghost. The emphasis was on power, not purity; upon emotional experience not ethical holiness; the gifts instead of the fruit of the Spirit. Thus, they separated the Holy Spirit from Christian perfection and holy living. Yet in some instances unknown pentecostal pastors helped their congregations find a spiritual balance and had genuine saints in their congregation.
10. The Charismatic Movement. The charismatic movement began in an Episcopal church in 1960. For the charismatic movement, tongues was a experience, not a doctrine. Yet their emphasis on the Holy Spirit forced all the denominations influenced by charismatics to develop or redefine the role of the Holy Spirit. R. J. Rushdoony said that while the early Church held councils to state the ecumenical doctrines concerning the Father and the Son, no such council has ever been held to deal with the doctrines of the Spirit. While not every answer can be accepted as adequate, the charismatics can at least be thanked for forcing the question.
A survey by Gallup Poll indicated that 19% of all adult Americans (29 million) consider themselves to be Pentecostal or charismatic, yet only 17% of these people (5 million or 4% of the general population) have spoken in tongues. Unlike pentecostals, charismatics do not believe the gifts of tongues is a sign of a higher level of Christian experience nor are they promised as part of normal Christian experience, yet they believe God may give these gifts today ["The Charismatics Among Us," Christianity Today, 22 Feb 1980]. The movement is perceived as a lay-ministry movement or a prayer cell movement and in some locations it may be the best available option.
By 1983 people like Peter Wagner of Fuller Theological Seminary were speaking of a "third wave" of pentecostalism. Those within the third wave are evangelicals who exercise the gifts of the Spirit without accepting the previous labels.
More recently there has been the phenomenon of the "Toronto Blessing" or the "laughing revival" which centered around Rodney Howard-Browne and then the Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, FL [see "Faith, Feelings, and Fanaticism, The Arminian Magazine, Fall 1999].
As we enter the 21st century we can expect these movements and similar ones to either burn out as they veer away from orthodox Christianity or to be used by God as they move toward orthodox Christianity. Every legitimate move of the Holy Spirit will result in an emphasis on holy living. We do not yet know what all these new movements will be called, but they will come as the Spirit works with the Church. As we seek to evaluate men and movements, we need a grasp of what God has done throughout Church history. Whether or not these lay ministry, small group movements are aware of their heritage, the fact is that no one did it better than John Wesley.
Which view is right? There are elements of truth within every emphasis:
We will not be made complete without suffering.
We must be separate from the world.
The sacraments are a means of grace.
Whatever holiness we experience will be the result of faith, not works.
Holiness begins at the new birth.
There must be a surrender of our will.
We can have more of the Spirit.
The indwelling Spirit will assure and guide, which sometimes leads to the charge of mysticism.
The indwelling Spirit will give us power and spiritual gifts.
Yet these emphases, when taken to the extreme, can easily lead to a works orientation, ritualism, faith as a cloak which covers unrighteousness, no impetus to seek more of God, sanctification - an act of the will, emotionalism and fanaticism.
He drew from the Roman Catholic mystics, the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Calvinistic Reformers and synthesized the best into the Methodist doctrine of Christian perfection.
Wesley published the Christian Library between 1749-1755. It contained 50 volumes of literature from the early Fathers to his day which he had collected and edited. The first volume contained extracts from Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Macarius. These men wrote in the 2nd to 4th centuries.
For the most part these early writers advocated perfection, but were not specific concerning how one enters. They were more devotional than theological.
a) Eastern Orthodox contribution - the dynamic of perfecting grace
Writers from the Eastern Orthodox tradition included Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Basil, and Macarius the Egyptian. The significance of these writers was their emphasis upon perfection as a process rather than a state. They emphasized perfecting grace, not a perfected state. Perfection meant becoming that which God intended us to be.
b) Roman Catholic contribution - a mystical holiness which rose above institutionalism
Roman Catholic writers such as Francis de Sales, Madame Guyon, and Francis Fenelon taught a death to the self life. Thomas à Kempis wrote The Imitation of Christ, which Wesley edited and reprinted as The Christian's Pattern.
Wesley, of course, rejected the Catholic emphasis on the priesthood, but could appreciate their holiness ethic. In his sermon "On God's Vineyard," Wesley recommends Catholic writers Francis de Sales and Juan de Castaniza as having written "strongly and scripturally on sanctification." But he goes on the say that they were unacquainted with the nature of justification because of the Council of Trent which confused sanctification and justification.
c) Protestant contributions - ethical holiness/ the necessity of faith
1. Anglican - writers such as William Law taught love to God and to our neighbor. Jeremy Taylor emphasized purity of intention.
2. Puritan or nonconformist - emphasized social holiness. Wesley abridged John Preston's work, The New Covenant. Wesley agreed with Preston that Christian perfection is by faith and not works. However, the Puritans taught that this work could never be consummated in this life. But Wesley would not limit the work of the Spirit. After all, if God is sovereign, we are in error to limit what God can do.
Thus Wesley synthesized the three major streams of the Church, bringing together the sacramental, the mystical, and the evangelical.
W. B. Pope summarized four contributions Wesley made to our understanding of Christian holiness [3:96-99]:
The law of God produces an ethical holiness, but a misplaced emphasis leads to legalism. With legalism religion becomes primarily a set of rules and regulations. The basis of assurance is then self-righteousness.
Holiness must never be separated from a love for God. Wesley cautioned that if we were seeking anything other than more love we are "looking wide of the mark, you are getting out of the royal way" [Works, 11:430]. "Methodist doctrine boldly declares that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in believers, that is the righteousness of the new law of faith; and that as faith is reckoned for righteousness, so faith working by love is reckoned for perfection." However, love can lead to antinomianism. "No law but love." Wesley taught a perfect love that expresses itself through obedience to God's law and an ethical behavior toward our neighbor.
This effusion of love results in a destruction of sin. Wesley believed that we could be so full of the love of God that there was no room for sin. "The expulsive power of a new affection" was the description of Thomas Chalmers.
Without debating the proper word, whether it be "suspend" or "destroy," "eradicate" or "suppress" or "counteract," as though this was a permanent state, as we trust and obey our love for God expels sin.
While we must wait upon God to do the work, we do not wait passively, but attend to all the means of grace. Sanctification is made possible by God's grace, yet we must exercise faith, a present tense, obedient faith.
Wesley interviewed thousands of Methodists concerning their experience, had a sharp sense of logic, and a grasp of tradition. He said, "If I were convinced that none in England had attained what has been so clearly and strongly preached . . . I should be clearly convinced that we had all mistaken the meaning of those scriptures" [Works, 11:390].
How did he know what to keep and what to reject? Although he appreciated the place of tradition, reason, and experience, his ultimate authority was the Word of God. Jesus prayed, "Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth" (John 17:17). Adherence to the Word of God will keep us from danger and extremism. Obedience to the Word will keep us from sin and will drive us to seek holiness.
