Holiness Movement

[Searching_for_Christ]

I really didn't know where to put this thread so I figured right here would be the best option. I have looked into the Holiness movement a tad last night (Christian perfectionism yadayada...) who here adheres to this? and what scriptural support can you give me that a Christian can become near or fully sinless in this life time?

 

[JimB]

From past threads in this forum on legalism, there are probably very few here that adhere to old school “holiness” (OSH) which was not holiness at all, just legalism. I was nurtured in an OSH Pentecostal church and it took me decades to finally break the hold it had on me (i.e., the bondage it brought me under).

~Jim

Even the smallest thing when, held close enough to the eye, can blot out the sun.​

 

[~RENEE~]

I grew up in a very holiness AOG. Lived the whole thing. It's a sin for women to cut their hair. It's a sin for women to show their knees. It's a sin for women to show their elbows. It's a sin to wear jewelry other than a watch and a wedding ring.

The Holiness movement is very much a man made thing. It does not bring you closer to God it only put's so many legalistic rules on you. The only Holiness that can bring you closer to God is the Holiness that is in Christ.

 

[JimB]

I grew up in a very holiness AOG. Lived the whole thing. It's a sin for women to cut their hair. It's a sin for women to show their knees. It's a sin for women to show their elbows. It's a sin to wear jewelry other than a watch and a wedding ring.

The Holiness movement is very much a man made thing. It does not bring you closer to God it only put's so many legalistic rules on you. The only Holiness that can bring you closer to God is the Holiness that is in Christ.

I’m just surprised my old church didn’t force their women to wear burqas.

Of course the men could dress any way they wanted to (within limits). Most of the dress codes seemed to be directed toward women.

~Jim

Even the smallest thing when, held close enough to the eye, can blot out the sun.​

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

hmm...I hope there is actually someone around who believes this stuff lol. I was reading more on it, and I guess all these "restrictions" you two are reminiscing about where things based on convictions via the Holy Spirit? oh well, that doesn't matter. I find this Christian Holiness movement very intriguing.

 

[JimB]

hmm...I hope there is actually someone around who believes this stuff lol. I was reading more on it, and I guess all these "restrictions" you two are reminiscing about where things based on convictions via the Holy Spirit? oh well, that doesn't matter. I find this Christian Holiness movement very intriguing.

If they were personal “convictions” they should have been personal (and I would be careful about calling some of our "personal" Pharisaical legalistic beliefs as “via the Holy Spirit"). When our personal values are imposed on others, that’s just plain old legalism.

For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? (1 Cor. 10.29)

~Jim

Even the smallest thing when, held close enough to the eye, can blot out the sun.​

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

I wasn't declaring anything, I was just stating something I had read. Also in response to what you just posted there are scriptures that talk of the "weaker" brother, for instance if a Christian woman wore a skirt and that was a stumbling block for YOU, then she should be mindful to not wear such things around you because she then becomes a stumbling block to you.

 

[imperfectchristian]

hmm...I hope there is actually someone around who believes this stuff lol. I was reading more on it, and I guess all these "restrictions" you two are reminiscing about where things based on convictions via the Holy Spirit? oh well, that doesn't matter. I find this Christian Holiness movement very intriguing.

If you look back at posts on legalism in this forum I believe you will arguably find when I posted that I am one of the most outspoken people against legalism. Unlike Jim, God is still dealing with me on getting over some things that I was taught through the years. KJV only, Christian rock (anything with a beat) is satanic, no marking or highlighting in the Bible because it is like writing on the face of God, no PG or higher rated movies allowed EVER, etc...

However, I do believe if you feel the Lord is leading you to abstain from any or all of these things or others that you should certainly do so. As long as your convictions are in agreement with the holiness movement then you will most likely be very happy within their group. However when your convictions begin to change, and they do change, when you decide you no longer agree with certain teachings then you are going to be facing heavy resistance.

Hope this helps,

 

[~RENEE~]

I wasn't declaring anything, I was just stating something I had read. Also in response to what you just posted there are scriptures that talk of the "weaker" brother, for instance if a Christian woman wore a skirt and that was a stumbling block for YOU, then she should be mindful to not wear such things around you because she then becomes a stumbling block to you.

with that in mind note my friend that the Holiness movement teaches it is a sin for a woman to wear anything other than a skirt or dress.

 

[~RENEE~]

If God is dealing with you on some things by all means listen to Him and live the way He desires for you to live. But do not attach yourself to something that is so bound in man made rules and legalism.

Know this when you attach yourself to this type of movement the religion in it will move you to either buck against it all completly or become extremely religious yourself. Either way is the wrong road.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

I'm not saying I'm going to join this movement (tho its a bit of a thought) however here is where I differ. I may think that the "holiness" part of the movement is "good" but this legalism you guys talk about "only skirts and dresses" "nothing with a heavy beat in music" its seems they have left the "sinfulness" of such things up to some "group" that makes the decision HOWEVER anything outside of what scripture says is sinful, is and SHOULD be left to PERSONAL convictions. If I find heavy metal is sinful then it is sinful for ME but not for the dude next to me, things not addressed by scripture like that are left up to YOU. My 2 cents


I'm just looking into the whole Charismatic/pentecostal stuff is all...I'm very "skeptical" about a lot of it, however not so much of this movement.

 

[bobznew]

[quote=Searching_for_Christ;54162124]I'm not saying I'm going to join this movement (tho its a bit of a thought) however here is where I differ. I may think that the "holiness" part of the movement is "good" but this legalism you guys talk about "only skirts and dresses" "nothing with a heavy beat in music" its seems they have left the "sinfulness" of such things up to some "group" that makes the decision HOWEVER anything outside of what scripture says is sinful, is and SHOULD be left to PERSONAL convictions. If I find heavy metal is sinful then it is sinful for ME but not for the dude next to me, things not addressed by scripture like that are left up to YOU. My 2 cents


quote]

I think this assessment of things is spot on.

I live in a town where we have a VERY large church that requires that you subscribe to all of the "holiness" rules before you can actually join the church. And if someone sees you deviate from these rules, heaven help you. It's all a lot of religious bondage in my opinion. They have taken something that could potentially be something that honors God (if done by personal conviction, leading of the H.S., and a desire to do the right thing BECAUSE of God's love, and not in order to WIN God's love), and have turned it into something that becomes an obligation -- mandatory behavioral norms, if you will. These folks inevitably end up manifesting one of two characteristics -- haughtiness or condemnation. And EITHER is against what God wants for his children.

 

[JimB]

If you look back at posts on legalism in this forum I believe you will arguably find when I posted that I am one of the most outspoken people against legalism. Unlike Jim, God is still dealing with me on getting over some things that I was taught through the years. KJV only, Christian rock (anything with a beat) is satanic, no marking or highlighting in the Bible because it is like writing on the face of God, no PG or higher rated movies allowed EVER, etc...

However, I do believe if you feel the Lord is leading you to abstain from any or all of these things or others that you should certainly do so. As long as your convictions are in agreement with the holiness movement then you will most likely be very happy within their group. However when your convictions begin to change, and they do change, when you decide you no longer agree with certain teachings then you are going to be facing heavy resistance.

Hope this helps,

Among all the things that were regenerated when we came to Christ one was certainly our conscience. If, for conscience’s sake, you do not want to listen to rock and roll (or if you do, for that matter), or dress in a certain way, or not eat/eat certain meats, or worship on certain days, or dance/not dance, or drink/not drink any beverage of your choice, or do/don't do anything else, that is between you and your conscience (and, one would hope, God). It is when you try to transfer your values on others that it becomes legalism.

And the Wesleyan perfectionist “Holiness” movement that influenced early Pentecostalism (and a few that are still around today) confused the term holiness, which is imputed, with what was nothing more than crass legalism—imposing the leaders’/group's values on others. We are to resist this because it brings us into bondage to the will of others. That is, after all, what Galatians is all about.

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. (Galatians 5.1)

For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? (1 Cor. 10.29)

But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. (1 Cor. 2.15)

~Jim

Even the smallest thing when, held close enough to the eye, can blot out the sun.​

 

[bobznew]

Among all the things that were regenerated when we came to Christ one was certainly our conscience. If, for conscience’s sake, you do not want to listen to rock and roll (or if you do, for that matter), or dress in a certain way, or not eat/eat certain meats, or worship on certain days, or dance/not dance, or drink/not drink any beverage of your choice, or do/don't do anything else, that is between you and your conscience (and, one would hope, God). It is when you try to transfer your values on others that it becomes legalism.

And the Wesleyan perfectionist “Holiness” movement that influenced early Pentecostalism (and a few that are still around today) confused the term holiness, which is imputed, with what was nothing more than crass legalism—imposing the leaders’/group's values on others. We are to resist this because it brings us into bondage to the will of others. That is, after all, what Galatians is all about.

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. (Galatians 5.1)

For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? (1 Cor. 10.29)

But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. (1 Cor. 2.15)

^^^^^ What he said.

 

[LinkH]

I know people associate lists of clothes to wear and what not to wear with 'Holiness.' I wouldn't define the movement that way. Maybe I'm influenced by Synan's writings who defines the Holiness movement based on their doctrine of sanctification.

The Holiness movement grew out of the Methodist revivals and the teachings of John Wesley. Wesley did teach modesty, not wearing pearls, and such. But he also taught about matters of the heart as they relate to such things.

Wesley had an experience where he believed he'd been sanctified, that he reached a state where he achieved a certain victory over sin. Read Wesley's stuff for the details. He wrote a book, The Case for Christian Perfection. Various varieties of understandings of sanctification evolved in the Holiness movement. There are groups that associate it with reaching a perfect state where you never sin anymore. Some Holiness authors considered sanctification to be the same thing as being baptized with the Holy Ghost.

In the sanctification doctrine sense, part of the Pentecostal movement is 'Holiness' and part of it isn't, if I recall Synan's interpretation of it correctly. At Azusa, Seymore, and others taught people to be saved, sanctified, and baptized with the Holy Ghost. This was seen as three distinct experiences, at least in a lot of cases (more than one could happen to an individual at the same time.) That revival went on from 1904-1906.

In 1910, a preacher from a Baptist background came to LA teaching on the 'finished work of the cross.' Seyemore didn't like his teachings and locked the Azusa building doors on him. So he preached elsewhere. His teaching cleared things up for a lot of people. People that werne't from a Holiness background couldn't find three distinct steps in the Bible. The Holiness folks were probably used to reading the idea of sanctification as a distinct experience into the word when it appeared in the Bible. But, let's face it; there just anything in the Bible that teaches sanctificaton as a one-time experience apart from salvation.

Many of the Holiness denominations in the Southeast held to the 'three step' viewpoint like the Pentecostal Holiness and the Church of God (Cleveland), and many other less famous groups. Some Holiness groups rejected the initial evidence doctrine or the exercise of tongues outright. The Church of God out of Anderson, Indiana (formerly Evening Light Saints, of whom Seyemore had been a part) did not accept the Pentecostal movement. Neither did the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene, which later dropped 'Pentecostal' from its name. The Salvation Army was also Holiness but did not join the Pentecostal movement.

Now, I think about half the COG (Cleveland) denomination's preachers aren't doctrinally 'Holiness.'

The AOG formed after Azusa Street and is not Holiness by Synan's definition.

But if you equate 'clothes-line-religion' with Holiness, then some AOG's may be, and some 'doctrinally' Holiness churches nowaydays aren't.



Well, let's

Now, any old

 

[he4rty]

Interesting post Linkh,

I saw you mentioned about the Sally Army as being Holiness and considering the fact they started during the Prohibition era of America and seemed to have an agenda of saving the drunks and gamblers by encouraging abstience, wonder how much cultural influence has had a part in the foundings of the denominations possibly classed as holiness.

Was there a particular need for a call of abstience at the time which maybe now seems legalistic.

Just some thoughts.

 

[JSGuitarist]

I suppose that I've come at least close to the movement, I am not entirely sure how to define boundaries between the holiness movement and revival Christianity. I assume that this movement involves characters such as John Wesley, the Moravians, Thomas Kempis, Charles Finney or William Booth?

There are some things that holiness preachers have contributed that are wonderful. At times legalistic, yes, but these people can't help but make you thirsty. One of the preachers I admire I'd say he was one such preacher, Leonard Ravenhill. He name-drops John Wesley a lot, and has been called by some the last great holiness preacher to come out of England. I admit I don't endorse everything he says (I'm a little more monergistic than he was), but he was dangerous to apathy. If I need some fire, all I really need to do is give him a listen.

Some of the greatest Christian writings I've read have come for holiness preachers of the "revival" types, if you will.

There is something in it that is born of God in that there is a hatred of sin, and a desire to move on from sin. That is, there is a strong desire to see the church of God living in the capacity of the Holy Spirit where they continue towards taking on the character of Christ.

I will say, there are extremes that you do want to avoid. I will say that because most in this movement are synergistic, that the extremes will be synergistic ones.

For one, some such as Charles Finney taught that you must be sinless to be saved, and that you have the perfect capacity to fulfill the full law of God. Avoid this. If Christ came and offered me sinless character I'd take it, but his lectures on theology put the burden on you to make yourself presentable to God. This is essentially revived Pelagianism. And trust me, you encounter this name as one of the greats, but be discerning.

Also, the view on the atonement can be questionable. One particular view is called moral government, where there was no actual expiation for sin, but Christ died in order to make an impression on your heart that would drive you to want to be more holy. I cannot buy this because it's clear that the death of Christ was one of satisfaction for sin, whether particular or universal.

On that note though, Wesley never believed he saved himself, kept himself saved, or would in the end be saved on his own account. Even in his Plain Account of Christian Perfection he didn't claim that the proposed perfection was a saving factor. He knew that it was by grace through faith alone that he would be resurrected.

As in all movements, remember that the people in the movement are certainly fallible. I say this because when you first look in it's consuming if you're the kind whose looking for something above the status quo, but eventually you will have disagreements. It feels different from everything else (it certainly is), but it's not a perfect movement. But always keep the people as brothers in Christ, because some characters in this line I would love to have known such as Wesley. And as I've seen in my own life, if they are on fire you'll end up catching it.

Regardless what you believe on perfection, we certainly could be more "perfect" than we are. It's that sanctifying work that offers the evidence of God working in a person.

Here's a good video on the isse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BYoyN-biMY

That's all I know to say. I don't know if that helped any. Bless you bro.

 

[LinkH]

I suppose that I've come at least close to the movement, I am not entirely sure how to define boundaries between the holiness movement and revival Christianity. I assume that this movement involves characters such as John Wesley, the Moravians, Thomas Kempis, Charles Finney or William Booth?

Using the Vincent Synan definition which defines Holiness based on beliefs in sanctification then Wesley and Booth would be in. A friend of mine who reads about such things said Wesley meant Zinzendorf from the Moravians and he did not agree with Wesley's view of sanctification when they discussed it. If I am not mistaken Thomas a'Kempis was a Medieval Catholic monk.

I don't think Finney was theologically Holiness.


That doesn't mean these other men did not believe in holiness, btw.

 

[467AIR]

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']The Holiness movement would better be described as the legalist movement. [/FONT]

 

[Brother-Ruben]

I like Colossians 3, of which the heading in my Bible is Rules for Holy Living.

" 1Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. 7You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
12Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
15Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. 17And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. Rules for Christian Households

18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
21Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. 22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, 24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism."

I think Paul started a "Holiness Movement" back in the day.