John Wesley and Holiness.

bmjackson · Aug 3, 2019

On another forum on this site, someone is asking about John Wesley and holiness. My own studies on the subject have shown the following:

John Wesley said that in 1725, he read Bishop Taylors 'Rule and Exercises of Holy Living and Dying' and here it seems he was introduced to the doctrine of holiness. He was convicted by the writing and said that he resolved to dedicate ALL of his life to God, that every part of his life (not some only) must either be a sacrifice to God or to himself, and thereby the devil. He had realised on reading that previous to this only part of his life was fully dedicated. This is common in our Christian walk that there is an area that we have not submitted. It is when a man preaches holiness that the Holy Spirit can work in his hearers when they realise that their Christianity is of a very inferior sort espcially when compared to NT Christianity. It is what happens in revival, when one or two people start witnessing to what God has done in them.

In 1726, he read Kempis' 'Christian Pattern', note another book on sanctification, then a few years later, William Law's 'Christian Perfection' a well known and respected teacher of holiness doctrine. He says that he saw the impossibility of being 'half a Christian'. Some say that they are convicted that they are only 'playing at' being a Christian especially when comparing themselves with the Apostles.

After 1729 he really began to study the Bible even more studiously and realised that he must have the mind of Christ. In 1733 he preached on 'Circumcision of the Heart' (holiness) 1735, he went to America then as we know, in 1738 he had his Aldersgate experience.

If we read his sermon 'Circumcision' there is no doubt that he is saved and not just a nominal believer as such as taught. A careful read of it will show this. The time he took from first hearing of holiness to the time when he was entirely sanctified, 13 years in fact, is typical of the pattern in others. During this time the Holy Spirit was doing His work in John, stripping him of all confidence in himself, and building up a longing in him to lead to the crisis of failure when he was in America and met holiness folk, that he launched himself without reservation into the arms of the Saviour to have the work of ES done ie the implantation of a new heart which will enable him to be freed from the power of sin. During this time from 1725 Wesley was teaching the doctrine, but admitting that he did not have the blessing.

It was not until Aldesgate, the most significant time in his spiritual journey that he found what he was seeking. Thereafter he preached holiness in the power of the Holy Spirit and the great revival known as Methodism started.

The prayers in the Anglical church show that this doctrine was very clear in the prayers of confession but were/are not understood to refer to this repentance leading to entire sanctification. When John began to preach the doctrine, he was shunned, as all men are who try to preach it in established denominations that have gone astray from it, even the Nazarenes and Quakers.

Most merciful God,

Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

we confess that we have sinned

in thought, word and deed.

We have not loved you with our whole heart.

We have not loved our neighbours as ourselves.

In your mercy

forgive what we have been,

help us to amend what we are,

and direct what we shall be;

that we may do justly,

love mercy,

and walk humbly with you, our God.

Amen.

All Almighty and most merciful Father,

we have wandered and strayed from your ways like lost sheep.

We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts.

We have offended against your holy laws.

We have left undone those things that we ought to have done;

and we have done those things that we ought not to have done;

and there is no health in us.

But you, O Lord, have mercy upon us sinners.

Spare those who confess their faults.

Restore those who are penitent,

according to your promises declared to mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake,

that we may live a disciplined, righteous and godly life,

to the glory of your holy name.

Amen.

com7fy8 · Aug 3, 2019

forgive what we have been,

help us to amend what we are,

and direct what we shall be;

Possibly, this is talking about how we are in our character. I suspect a number of people talking about holiness can take a shortcut to just or mainly their behavior > their standards for outward acting.

So . . . how we are is important. I think this includes how Jesus is "gentle and lowly in heart" > Matthew 11:28-30. So, being truly holy includes how we are gentle and humble like Jesus.

In this part of the prayer > I am not sure why someone would use "what" we are, versus "how" we are. I think the word "how" might help our attention more to how our character needs to become because of God's correction. "What" could have an implication which is more about what our label could be, of if we are socially acceptable or not.

So, I'm curious what is the thinking and purpose of such choice of words. I would say it is intentional; so what is the intention, please?

bmjackson · Aug 3, 2019

com7fy8 said:
In this part of the prayer > I am not sure why someone would use "what" we are, versus "how" we are. I think the word "how" might help our attention more to how our character needs to become because of God's correction. "What" could have an implication which is more about what our label could be, of if we are socially acceptable or not.

So, I'm curious what is the thinking and purpose of such choice of words. I would say it is intentional; so what is the intention, please?

In my opinion it means we are sinners. This is what we are unless we have been entirely sanctified.

com7fy8 · Aug 3, 2019

bmjackson said:
In my opinion it means we are sinners. This is what we are unless we have been entirely sanctified.

Well, in the Bible a sinner is a person who is a child of Satan > a child of wrath > Ephesians 2:1-3.

But if we have trusted in Jesus, our identity is child of God. But yes at times we sin. But this does not make our identity "sinner". Hebrews 12:4-14 guarantees how every child of God is being corrected. I see this means that all of us will keep needing some kind of correction all through our lives.

So, by "entirely sanctified", do you mean a person is still in this life but is not getting any kind of correction, at all, from God?

I would say as long as we still are growing in Jesus, we still need more correction to be more like Jesus.

It is like how if I cook a hotdog, at times, you don't call me a cook. You call me a child of God, and we point out how every child of God still needs the correction which is testified in Hebrews 12:4-14 >

"But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons." (Hebrews 12:8)

So, if this means every child of God keeps needing correction for one's entire life in this world, then there is no such thing as entire sanctification in which there is no sinning, at all. However, a person matures in how the person lives God's way; so how a more mature person needs correction is different than a newborn baby in Jesus.

For one example, we have >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world" (in Philippians 2:13-16).

A new Christian might need major correction about complaining and arguing. And there can be a lot which is showing outwardly. But a mature Christian might get started in one's imagination complaining or arguing, but gets corrected by God before the person sins by talking in a wrong way. So, I see how any Christian, even very mature, still needs correction.

Even so, God's word says to live "without" complaining and arguing, and if you are "without" clothing, how much clothing can you be wearing, if you are "without"????

At yet, I find that Hebrews 12:4-14 does mean every one of His children on this earth needs correction, somehow > or else someone is "without" correction (Hebrews 12:8) and therefore is an illegitimate.

In any case Philippians 2:13-16 does mean what God means by how we can become "without fault" in this world's "crooked and perverse generation". God commands this; so He knows this is realistic to expect of us . . . because of how God in us is able to so succeed in us > Philippians 2:13.

But if "without" does mean no imperfection, at all - - - in comparison with Jesus, of course . . . this means there is nothing in us which can even start to have us complaining. This means in us, not only in our outward show. I am sure that entire sanctification can not only or mainly be about outward behavior or just about what we make choices to do. It is first about our character which controls what can and can not effect us.

And boredom is a form of complaining, isn't it? And how about loneliness? Is not loneliness a form of complaining about how much companionship God has provided for us????

And raising my voice to argue or control a person is contrary to how Christian leaders are to be "examples to the flock" >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

If we are entirely "without" any fault, at all, in our character, then, my opinion is we can not give in to any such negative stuff, in us, for even a moment . . . if we are so . . . in comparison with Jesus.

But, if I can give in to arguing for a few seconds before I stop in the middle of it and repent and apologize > this does not make my identity "sinner", but a child of God is getting correction.

So, what is the focus, then, of someone who claims to believe in entire sanctification?? Do they make a point of talking about Philippians 2:13-16, for one example??

And do we talk about personally submitting to how our Heavenly Father personally rules every child of God in His own peace? >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:!5)

If for a moment I disobey how God personally rules my character and thinking and feelings and relating and actions, I am sinning. For example, if I give in to worry, this is disobedient to Philippians 4:6-7.

Also, our Apostle Paul says > "first of all" > to pray for any and all people, in 1 Timothy 2:1-4. So, if I am only or mainly praying for my own self and ones close to me, this is favoritistic prayer, and Jesus says, "if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" in Matthew 5:46. So, I am sinning by not loving any and all people like Jesus on the cross had hope for any evil person, at all > and how Jesus loved, on Calvary's cross, is our example which we are commanded to follow >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

These are basics of obeying God's word. So, is this what a person preaching entire sanctification is emphasizing? Have these people made a point of pointing out these scriptures to you . . . these basics about how to love and how to personally submit to our Heavenly Father in His peace? Or, what do they emphasize will happen if we become "entirely sanctified"?

I mean, what have you personally gotten out of that message, please?

Phil W · Aug 3, 2019

bmjackson said:
On another forum on this site, someone is asking about John Wesley and holiness. My own studies on the subject have shown the following:

My own studies of his writings show me he was 'off base' on, among other things, sanctification.
He preached perfection, but seemed oblivious to its implementation.

[

bmjackson · Aug 4, 2019

@com7fy8

Eph 2:1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

The Bible contrasts light from dark, good from evil, sinners and saints, the tree of life and the tree of death. The spirit and the flesh. It is a mistake to think that bad and good water can flow from the same tap. The verse quoted says that those who walking according to the prince of the power of the air, are fulfilling the desires of the flesh and the mind. You cannot have a bit of holiness. It is all or nothing and the Bible is clear that we are supposed to have crucified the flesh. The children of disobedience are not the unsaved. They are children - and it always means children of the living God not the lost.

And these are the ones that require correction. It does not say throughout their lives. Peter sinned and was corrected by Paul. there were no more reports of him needing to be corrected. He was restored. Those who have gone through this correction call it the dark night of the soul. They go through a terrible time like Paul in Romans 7 then they are delivered or entirely sanctified by chapter 8.

13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain. (Phil 2)

The verse you quoted says the point of the correction is that we may be made holy and the scripture expects it in this life, that is nothing in it that says it will occur at death.

"But if "without" does mean no imperfection, at all - - - in comparison with Jesus, of course . . . this means there is nothing in us which can even start to have us complaining. This means in us, not only in our outward show. I am sure that entire sanctification can not only or mainly be about outward behavior or just about what we make choices to do. It is first about our character which controls what can and can not effect us."

Many scriptures are for those who have not reached the stage of entire sanctification and must be read in that context. And indeed it is the whole man 1 Thes 5:23 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.

"So, what is the focus, then, of someone who claims to believe in entire sanctification?? Do they make a point of talking about Philippians 2:13-16, for one example??"

Paul is encouraging the heaers to reach that stage. Once in that state they have to hold on to it by faith.

"If for a moment I disobey how God personally rules my character and thinking and feelings and relating and actions, I am sinning. For example, if I give in to worry, this is disobedient to Philippians 4:6-7."

Indeed and you have fallen from grace and need to be restored.

"Also, our Apostle Paul says > "first of all" > to pray for any and all people, in 1 Timothy 2:1-4. So, if I am only or mainly praying for my own self and ones close to me, this is favoritistic prayer, and Jesus says, "if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" in Matthew 5:46. So, I am sinning by not loving any and all people like Jesus on the cross had hope for any evil person, at all > and how Jesus loved, on Calvary's cross, is our example which we are commanded to follow >"

As before Paul is teaching the unESed mainly. When one is then God will lead the prayers of that person. And yes we will love all men as ourselves once pure.

"These are basics of obeying God's word. So, is this what a person preaching entire sanctification is emphasizing? Have these people made a point of pointing out these scriptures to you . . . these basics about how to love and how to personally submit to our Heavenly Father in His peace? Or, what do they emphasize will happen if we become "entirely sanctified"?"

When one has been given a pure heart and the mind of Christ then there is no need of man to teach you - the teraching comes direct from Christ. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1John 2:27

"I mean, what have you personally gotten out of that message, please?"

I was baptised by the Spirit and became holy and he is holy. Just as He instructs.

bmjackson · Aug 4, 2019

Phil W said:
My own studies of his writings show me he was 'off base' on, among other things, sanctification.
He preached perfection, but seemed oblivious to its implementation.[

I think that John was offbase on a few things and was a bit confused. He had read the writings of those who were fully onbase with this doctrine of perfection. JW was at pains to say that he was not teaching sinless perfection but that was because he did not understand it fully.

Phil W · Aug 4, 2019

bmjackson said:
I think that John was offbase on a few things and was a bit confused. He had read the writings of those who were fully onbase with this doctrine of perfection. JW was at pains to say that he was not teaching sinless perfection but that was because he did not understand it fully.

Could be, but the Methodist church that came from his teachings has completely abandoned life without sin.
Regretfully.

bmjackson · Aug 5, 2019

Phil W said:
Could be, but the Methodist church that came from his teachings has completely abandoned life without sin.
Regretfully.

As have the Nazarenes Quakers and Salvation Army who began like the Methodists. Are you familiar with their writings and where they differ from you as you don't seem to accept 'second blessing' doctrine?

com7fy8 · Aug 5, 2019

bmjackson said:
I was baptised by the Spirit and became holy and he is holy. Just as He instructs.

Thank you for taking the time to answer and make yourself clear.

I think what can happen is someone gets a doctrine which is Biblical, but they do not do it the way God means it and does it with us. And then we can get sidetracked with wording it and explaining it, and outward practice.

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

We, I understand from this, are all "called in one body" to be personally submissive to God in us ruling us in His own peace. And ruling is all the time . . . twenty-four/seven, not turn it off and turn it on. So, we need such correction and adjusting and tuning . . . by God Himself, so we do this.

"Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)

"be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might" > in Ephesians 6:10.

Jesus is almighty. The power of this peace is almighty against fear and lusts and sinning. But He is perfectly humble and gentle and all-loving, not dominating and controlling. So, we minister this by example, not only explanation and promoting.

And God knows how we really are becoming.

bmjackson · Aug 5, 2019

com7fy8 said:
We, I understand from this, are all "called in one body" to be personally submissive to God in us ruling us in His own peace. And ruling is all the time . . . twenty-four/seven, not turn it off and turn it on. So, we need such correction and adjusting and tuning . . . by God Himself, so we do this.

Yes we need God to guide us to keep us on the path 24/7 I agree with you, but this is to keep us from sin not to rescue us afterwards as it says in Jude :24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.

I am afraid that the church does the very thing you accuse me of, and thereby excuses sin when Christ came to save us from it. I used to believe as you because I had been taught it but one day the Spirit fell on me and I was permanently corrected of that error (not that we can neveer fall again - we can but rarely).

It is not a matter of control - it is the old nature in us put to death and Christ manifesting Himself instead - peace and joy indeed.

These words do seem foolish though to the man who is not under conviction

Phil W · Aug 5, 2019

bmjackson said:
As have the Nazarenes Quakers and Salvation Army who began like the Methodists. Are you familiar with their writings and where they differ from you as you don't seem to accept 'second blessing' doctrine?

Though not familiar with their doctrines or tenets, everyone of both that I have talked to says "No man can live without sin".
Very disappointing to me.

bmjackson · Aug 5, 2019

Phil W said:
Though not familiar with their doctrines or tenets, everyone of both that I have talked to says "No man can live without sin".
Very disappointing to me.

Well yes we have already agreed that these denominations have moved away from the doctrines of their founders. It is these original writings that l am on about. Do you understand what l mean by second blessing holiness? It's not a term l like to use but it says what it means basically - that holiness does not occur at initial salvation if you want to call it that meeting with Christ for the first time etc.

Phil W · Aug 5, 2019

bmjackson said:
Well yes we have already agreed that these denominations have moved away from the doctrines of their founders. It is these original writings that l am on about. Do you understand what l mean by second blessing holiness? It's not a term l like to use but it says what it means basically - that holiness does not occur at initial salvation if you want to call it that meeting with Christ for the first time etc.

I would reject that notion, as our "holiness" or sanctification happens when the blood of Christ is applied to our vessels...just like the instruments of the old temple.
That happens when we are "immersed" into Christ and into His death. (Rom 6:3-7)
From that point on, we are made fit for God's usage, consecrated for His use and for the residency of the Holy Ghost.
Second blessing sounds like the false doctrines of gradual sanctification.

BTW, the original documents are what I used to decide Wesley was off base to start with.

bmjackson · Aug 5, 2019

First of all l would like to thank you for the conversation so far because l have never got fully to grips with your stance. I came from the most widespread one, that Romans 7 is the normal Christian life, that we will always struggle with sin to the holiness doctrine one, which is that Paul has come under conviction by the Holy Spirit to see that his flesh still has the rule over him and he needs deliverance.

He says that he delights in the law in his inward man, which cannot be said by a person who is lost and blind and has not accepted the gospel. It also contradicts how he describes himself elsewhere as a Pharisee who is proud to say he keeps the law perfectly.

Although useful at times, the term second blessing is misleading in the way you have pointed out, in that it seems to imply that the blood of Christ was not applied once and for all. It was, but for man, it is not enough that he accepts this mentally which he does when he first hears and accepts the gospel. He does not have a full grasp of the meaning of it and that it is to be activated as it were, by grasping that man is not to obey God in his own strength.

If l were to study your stance, which theologians would l be looking for and by what name is the system known by? I assumed it was Arminianism. Is that correct?

Phil W · Aug 5, 2019

bmjackson said:
First of all l would like to thank you for the conversation so far because l have never got fully to grips with your stance. I came from the most widespread one, that Romans 7 is the normal Christian life, that we will always struggle with sin to the holiness doctrine one, which is that Paul has come under conviction by the Holy Spirit to see that his flesh still has the rule over him and he needs deliverance.

Your welcome.
But your perspective of Romans 7 is not correct.
Rom 7 is a transition between the Rom 6 death of the fleshly old man and the Rom 8 walk in the flesh instead of in the flesh.

He says that he delights in the law in his inward man, which cannot be said by a person who is lost and blind and has not accepted the gospel. It also contradicts how he describes himself elsewhere as a Pharisee who is proud to say he keeps the law perfectly.

That is correct, as Paul is speaking in the present-narrative tense...narrating his previous life as a Pharisee's failures at keeping the Mosaic Law.
But the end of Rom 7 "turns the corner" with verse 23..."But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."
The turn?
Romans 8:2..."For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
He is now free from the law of sin that he was once a slave to.
His slavery is only in his past as a Jewish pharisee.
And, Rom 7:24..."O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"
Paul had just addressed the deliverance from the body of death in Romans 6:6, "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."

Although useful at times, the term second blessing is misleading in the way you have pointed out, in that it seems to imply that the blood of Christ was not applied once and for all. It was, but for man, it is not enough that he accepts this mentally which he does when he first hears and accepts the gospel. He does not have a full grasp of the meaning of it and that it is to be activated as it were, by grasping that man is not to obey God in his own strength.

He will "grasp it" after he is taught what happens at his water baptism.
That is when and where the blood of Christ is applied...at our death with Him.

If l were to study your stance, which theologians would l be looking for and by what name is the system known by? I assumed it was Arminianism. Is that correct?

I'm not familiar with man's philosophies, so I don't claim alignment with any "known brand".
The doctrine which is according to Godliness is scriptural; the doctrine of the apostles, and of God. (1 Tim 6:3-4)

bmjackson · Aug 7, 2019

Phil W said:
Rom 7 is a transition between the Rom 6 death of the fleshly old man and the Rom 8 walk in the flesh instead of in the flesh.

Yes I agree. Where we differ is that I believe that many Christians are walking in the flesh as was Paul when he claimed that he delights in the law in his inward man Romans 7. You did not give your explanation of that. An unsaved man cannot and a Pharisee sees only the outward obedience as being necessary. That is why it caused such a strir when Jesus said that it must also be the inward man and looking at a woman in lust is also adultery. It was a new one for them.

Phil W said:
He will "grasp it" after he is taught what happens at his water baptism.

Ah so this is the pointof salvation is it, the waters that only clean the body and not the soul 1Peter3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: or in other words the baptism of the Spirit.

So okay you do not identify completely with a theological system, many don't. I don't. But here must be one where you are in agreement with quite a bit of what they say.

"Classical Arminianism is the theological system that was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by some of the Remonstrants;[15] its influence serves as the foundation for all Arminian systems. A list of beliefs is given below:

Depravity is total: Arminius states "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."[16]
Atonement is intended for all: Jesus's death was for all people, Jesus draws all people to himself, and all people have opportunity for salvation through faith.[17]
Jesus's death satisfies God's justice: The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through Jesus's work on the cross. Thus Christ's atonement is intended for all, but requires faith to be effected. Arminius states that "Justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteousness through mercy… or that man is justified before God… according to the rigor of justice without any forgiveness."[18] Stephen Ashby clarifies: "Arminius allowed for only two possible ways in which the sinner might be justified: (1) by our absolute and perfect adherence to the law, or (2) purely by God's imputation of Christ's righteousness."[19]
Grace is resistible: God takes initiative in the salvation process and his grace comes to all people. This grace (often called prevenient or pre-regenerating grace) acts on all people to convince them of the Gospel, draw them strongly towards salvation, and enable the possibility of sincere faith. Picirilli states that "indeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads to regeneration unless finally resisted."[20] The offer of salvation through grace does not act irresistibly in a purely cause-effect, deterministic method but rather in an influence-and-response fashion that can be both freely accepted and freely denied.[21]
Man has a freed will to respond or resist: Free will is granted and limited by God's sovereignty, but God's sovereignty allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist.
Election is conditional: Arminius defined election as "the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers, and to accept them unto eternal life."[22] God alone determines who will be saved and his determination is that all who believe Jesus through faith will be justified. According to Arminius, "God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith."[22]
God predestines the elect to a glorious future: Predestination is not the predetermination of who will believe, but rather the predetermination of the believer's future inheritance. The elect are therefore predestined to sonship through adoption, glorification, and eternal life.[23]
Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer: Justification is sola fide (by faith alone). When individuals repent and believe in Christ (saving faith), they are regenerated and brought into union with Christ, whereby the death and righteousness of Christ are imputed to them for their justification before God.[24]
Eternal security is also conditional: All believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned.[25] Apostasy (turning from Christ) is only committed through a deliberate, willful rejection of Jesus and renunciation of saving faith. Such apostasy is irremediable.[26]" Wiki

So, apart from your belief in water baptism saving, and that the righteousness of Christ is imparted and not imputed alone, where would you differ in the above? In order to discuss doctrine I need to know where you are coming from but you seem relucatant to give that information and I wonder why.

If you want me to give you that same information, it is George Fox with whom I am the most in agreement with though do not agree with him 100% and thnk he was off base on a number of things but he did agree with me about the three stages for the believer and that entire sanctification becomes a reality for a man once they see how useless they are obeying in the flesh or in their own strength.

bmjackson · Aug 7, 2019

I can't seem to edit but I wanted to say that Augustine believed in water baptism. Where do you differ from him elsewhere?

Dave-W · Aug 8, 2019

Phil W said:
I would reject that notion, as our "holiness" or sanctification happens when the blood of Christ is applied to our vessels...just like the instruments of the old temple.
That happens when we are "immersed" into Christ and into His death. (Rom 7:3-7)
From that point on, we are made fit for God's usage, consecrated for His use and for the residency of the Holy Ghost.
Second blessing sounds like the false doctrines of gradual sanctification.

BTW, the original documents are what I used to decide Wesley was off base to start with.

What you are talking about is our legal status before God. We are declared righteous and holy by the work of our Lord.

If I understand correctly, bmjackson is talking about our actual walk in this life being holy and righteous. Those are 2 very different things.

As to "gradual sanctification" being a false doctrine; Paul supports it:

2 Corinthians 3:18
But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

From glory to glory. One step at a time. Gradually looking more and more in this life like our Lord.

Phil W · Aug 8, 2019

bmjackson said:
Yes I agree.
Where we differ is that I believe that many Christians are walking in the flesh as was Paul when he claimed that he delights in the law in his inward man Romans 7.
You did not give your explanation of that.

Thanks for the chance to fill in the holes.
If they are walking in the flesh, (pre Rom 6), they are not walking in the Spirit (Rom 8).
There is a sequence going on in Rom 6, 7, and 8.
Rom 7:25..."I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
There is a difference being noted here. Which is leading Paul's life? His mind or his flesh?
He just finished lamenting his failures while in the flesh, but was now celebrating being led by the Spirit-mind. The transition from walking in the flesh to walking in the Spirit was completed with this verse.
Then Rom 8 defines our walk in the Spirit INSTEAD of in the flesh.

Ah so this is the point of salvation is it, the waters that only clean the body and not the soul 1Peter3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: or in other words the baptism of the Spirit.

Hmm..
You kinda have that convoluted.
The waters of baptism, in the name of Jesus Christ, is what remits, cleanses us of all our past sins. (Acts 2:38)
The baptism of the Holy Spirit-gift of the Holy Ghost is given by God after we repent of sins...typically done before water baptism.

So okay you do not identify completely with a theological system, many don't. I don't. But here must be one where you are in agreement with quite a bit of what they say.

I can't think of a single "system" that teaches a man CAN be free from sin.

"Classical Arminianism is the theological system that was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by some of the Remonstrants;[15] its influence serves as the foundation for all Arminian systems. A list of beliefs is given below:

Depravity is total: Arminius states "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."[16]

Atonement is intended for all: Jesus's death was for all people, Jesus draws all people to himself, and all people have opportunity for salvation through faith.[17]

Jesus's death satisfies God's justice: The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through Jesus's work on the cross. Thus Christ's atonement is intended for all, but requires faith to be effected. Arminius states that "Justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteousness through mercy… or that man is justified before God… according to the rigor of justice without any forgiveness."[18] Stephen Ashby clarifies: "Arminius allowed for only two possible ways in which the sinner might be justified: (1) by our absolute and perfect adherence to the law, or (2) purely by God's imputation of Christ's righteousness."[19]

Grace is resistible: God takes initiative in the salvation process and his grace comes to all people. This grace (often called prevenient or pre-regenerating grace) acts on all people to convince them of the Gospel, draw them strongly towards salvation, and enable the possibility of sincere faith. Picirilli states that "indeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads to regeneration unless finally resisted."[20] The offer of salvation through grace does not act irresistibly in a purely cause-effect, deterministic method but rather in an influence-and-response fashion that can be both freely accepted and freely denied.[21]

Man has a freed will to respond or resist: Free will is granted and limited by God's sovereignty, but God's sovereignty allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist.

Election is conditional: Arminius defined election as "the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers, and to accept them unto eternal life."[22] God alone determines who will be saved and his determination is that all who believe Jesus through faith will be justified. According to Arminius, "God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith."[22]

God predestines the elect to a glorious future: Predestination is not the predetermination of who will believe, but rather the predetermination of the believer's future inheritance. The elect are therefore predestined to sonship through adoption, glorification, and eternal life.[23]

Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer: Justification is sola fide (by faith alone). When individuals repent and believe in Christ (saving faith), they are regenerated and brought into union with Christ, whereby the death and righteousness of Christ are imputed to them for their justification before God.[24]

Eternal security is also conditional: All believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned.[25] Apostasy (turning from Christ) is only committed through a deliberate, willful rejection of Jesus and renunciation of saving faith. Such apostasy is irremediable.[26]" Wiki

So, apart from your belief in water baptism saving, and that the righteousness of Christ is imparted and not imputed alone, where would you differ in the above? In order to discuss doctrine I need to know where you are coming from but you seem reluctant to give that information and I wonder why.

I abhor studying the doctrines of men who don't initiate their theses with the acknowledgment that men can be non-sinners.
Nothing else matters!

If you want me to give you that same information, it is George Fox with whom I am the most in agreement with though do not agree with him 100% and thnk he was off base on a number of things but he did agree with me about the three stages for the believer and that entire sanctification becomes a reality for a man once they see how useless they are obeying in the flesh or in their own strength.

Thanks, but no thanks.
Why are you holding to the words of 99%ers?
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

John Wesley and Holiness.

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads