John Wesley and Holiness.

[bmjackson]

 

[Dave-W]

I just think of myself as a Christian, not a British Christian.

British citizens do not have group specific directives and obligations. Jews do.

But this is getting too far afield from the OP question on John Wesley and holiness/entire sanctification.

 

[Phil W]

No because here is what he said of his Pharisee state "Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." (Phil 3:6)

Agreed, his past as a Pharsitical Jew.
But we all know that no man can keep the Law perfectly.
Had they been able to, Christ, and the NT, would have been unnecessary.
Keeping the Law perfectly includes blood sacrifices for sins.
Paul uses the caveat..."the righteousness which is in the Law".
But the Law made no man righteous.
If the Law could make a man 80% righteous...that was the "perfectly" Paul meant.

He claimed that he was able to keep the law not that he failed. His conscience did not accuse him. Nor did he delight in the law in his inward man. He was entirely unaware of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit being entirely outside of the kingdom as a Jew.

NO. He didn't say he kept the law perfectly, but that he kept the righteousness OF the Law perfectly.
That isn't real righteousness...as Stephen would testify.
Was stoning Stephen righteous?
NO, but by the Law it was.

Romans 6 states the legal state of the saved one,

Oh, oh...I sense man's wisdom creeping in here...code words built to accommodate sin.
"Legal state"?
I thought we were done with the Law?
Rom 6 describes the death of the old man, and his burial and resurrection with Christ.
The rebirth Jesus spoke of in John 3.

Romans 7 describes how Paul although knowing his legal position, found it was not working for him. Romans 8 describes how the problem was resolved and he was able to walk in the Spirit, by trusting that Christ had delivered him from the law of sin and death.

It seems odd that Paul would write out what happens at baptism into Christ and into His death but not take part in the rebirth after the death and burial of his own flesh.

Your interpretation of Romans 7 is the one that was widely held in the church since the start. In opposition, the interpretation that I speak of was in existence but only amongst the few - the few that really walked in holiness because after their initial coming to Christ found that they had not known just how deep the flesh ruled them. It took a crisis for them to see this.

I guess they should have read Romans 6 to learn how to crucify and bury the "flesh".
Since the start is the best place to get correct information...I will stick with those who had the Holy Ghost...from the beginning.

It is at his point that a man is truly entirely sanctified and can lead others who struggle into the blessing, and this is known as revival. There have been no true revivals of your teaching. It is Arminianism and does not bring life to the church because it just discounts those who oppose as Calvinists as unsaved. All of ther great revivalists like Finney taught the 'second blessing'.

So how long have you been a non-sinner?

 

[bmjackson]

NO. He didn't say he kept the law perfectly, but that he kept the righteousness OF the Law perfectly.
That isn't real righteousness...as Stephen would testify.
Was stoning Stephen righteous?
NO, but by the Law it was.

I don't know why we are having so much trouble with this one. Of course he was unable to keep the law, but I am talking about his conscience. His conscience was clear when he was a Pharisee. He thought that he served God well, yet here we have him, according to your theology, lammenting in Romans 7 that he was incapable of doing what he knew he should and doing what he knew he shouldn't but you don't see any contradicion there? Please help me to understand.

Oh, oh...I sense man's wisdom creeping in here...code words built to accommodate sin.
"Legal state"?
I thought we were done with the Law?
Rom 6 describes the death of the old man, and his burial and resurrection with Christ.
The rebirth Jesus spoke of in John 3.

What I mean is that Paul describes the way things should be. Then he goes on to say they aren't like that for him.

It seems odd that Paul would write out what happens at baptism into Christ and into His death but not take part in the rebirth after the death and burial of his own flesh.

Not sure what you mean here.

I guess they should have read Romans 6 to learn how to crucify and bury the "flesh".
Since the start is the best place to get correct information...I will stick with those who had the Holy Ghost...from the beginning.

Well it usually begins when a man discovers that everything in the garden is not lovely, usually in a crisis of some sort. He finds that his faith is not standing up to the challenge and seeks the answer.

So how long have you been a non-sinner?

I have to admit that I am not walking in the blessing though I do not sin deliberately.
I have walked in it on three occasions the longest lasting 18 months.

 

[Phil W]

I don't know why we are having so much trouble with this one. Of course he was unable to keep the law, but I am talking about his conscience. His conscience was clear when he was a Pharisee. He thought that he served God well, yet here we have him, according to your theology, lammenting in Romans 7 that he was incapable of doing what he knew he should and doing what he knew he shouldn't but you don't see any contradicion there? Please help me to understand.

Doesn't "Who shall save me from this body of death?" sound like a lament?
It is clearly a narration of a former time, as Romans 6:6 had just spelled out how to kill "the body of sin".

What I mean is that Paul describes the way things should be. Then he goes on to say they aren't like that for him.

And they weren't "like that for him" at the time he refers to...his past as a Pharisee.

Not sure what you mean here.

Your POV is that Rom 7 is Paul's life as a Christian...from a Christian's perspective.
But Christians have already killed "this body of death", and been freed "from the law of sin in their members".
Paul is talking from his past's perspective in Romans 7.

Well it usually begins when a man discovers that everything in the garden is not lovely, usually in a crisis of some sort. He finds that his faith is not standing up to the challenge and seeks the answer.

What do you mean by "it"?

I have to admit that I am not walking in the blessing though I do not sin deliberately.
I have walked in it on three occasions the longest lasting 18 months.

All sin is deliberate.
If, after you have a true turn from sin, you will kill the flesh, with the affections and lusts, you won't commit any more sin.

 

[Dave-W]

All sin is deliberate.

No it is not. Some sins are done completely unaware.
Other sins are committed by trying to do the right thing but failing.

 

[bmjackson]

Doesn't "Who shall save me from this body of death?" sound like a lament?
It is clearly a narration of a former time, as Romans 6:6 had just spelled out how to kill "the body of sin".


And they weren't "like that for him" at the time he refers to...his past as a Pharisee.

I still am totally bamboozled as to why I cannot get though on this. One more try then I am done. Pharisee Paul did not lament about his service to God. Christian Paul walking in the flesh did. Both were in the past but the context was entirely different. Christian Paul who had advanced to walking in the Spirit had no need to lament any more. The progression is clearly outlined in Romans 6 7 & 8.

Your POV is that Rom 7 is Paul's life as a Christian...from a Christian's perspective.
But Christians have already killed "this body of death", and been freed "from the law of sin in their members".
Paul is talking from his past's perspective in Romans 7.

His past as far as not being to succeed as a Christian. He did succeed in his own eyes as a Pharisee. Christian may indeed have had their old man crucified, but unless it has moved from the legal strate to their actual experience, they will not overome. This is pure holiness teaching.

What do you mean by "it"?

The process of sanctification.

All sin is deliberate.
If, after you have a true turn from sin, you will kill the flesh, with the affections and lusts, you won't commit any more sin.

Let's take a young girl who is repeatedly raped by her father. She marries but finds that when she is under stress like when she has just given birth, her old emotional shutdowns when someone touches her body, that enabled her to get through this trauma, makes her want to pull away from her husband but she is told not to deprive him. She accepts this mentally but her emotions have been damaged so she is unable to respond without it causing her deep distress. Is she sinning?

 

[Phil W]

No it is not. Some sins are done completely unaware.
Other sins are committed by trying to do the right thing but failing.

According to James 1:14-15, sin requires temptation, drawing away of one's lust, enticement and conception.
Without one of those "bricks in the wall", there is no sin.
As... "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." (Gal 5:24)...without lusts there is no sin.
If man does something "completely unaware" there was no lust, enticement, temptation, or conception, and not a sin.
What do you base your POV on?

 

[Phil W]

I still am totally bamboozled as to why I cannot get though on this. One more try then I am done. Pharisee Paul did not lament about his service to God. Christian Paul walking in the flesh did. Both were in the past but the context was entirely different. Christian Paul who had advanced to walking in the Spirit had no need to lament any more. The progression is clearly outlined in Romans 6 7 & 8.

I see this misunderstanding's heart...you think Christians walk in the flesh.
I know they don't because, as Paul wrote in Rom 6:3-6 the flesh has been killed and buried.
Galatians 5:24 confirms this.
So does most of Romans 8.
So does 2Cor 10:2-3, and Eph 2:3...plus more.

His past as far as not being to succeed as a Christian. He did succeed in his own eyes as a Pharisee. Christian may indeed have had their old man crucified, but unless it has moved from the legal strate to their actual experience, they will not overome. This is pure holiness teaching.

Your "legal state" doctrine is an enablement for men to remain in the flesh.
The crucifixion of one's flesh has either happened or it hasn't.
No amount of "man's wisdom" can circumvent that truth.

The process of sanctification.

The blood of Christ sanctifies us...right?
That holy blood was applied to us when we were "immersed" into Christ and into His death at our baptism.
That is the "process".

Let's take a young girl who is repeatedly raped by her father. She marries but finds that when she is under stress like when she has just given birth, her old emotional shutdowns when someone touches her body, that enabled her to get through this trauma, makes her want to pull away from her husband but she is told not to deprive him. She accepts this mentally but her emotions have been damaged so she is unable to respond without it causing her deep distress. Is she sinning?

No, but she sure isn't exhibiting that she is a new creature.
She should have been able to forgive her dad.

 

[Dave-W]

According to James 1:14-15, sin requires temptation, drawing away of one's lust, enticement and conception.

SOME sins. Not all. There is nothing in the text to indicate it was all inclusive.

If man does something "completely unaware" there was no lust, enticement, temptation, or conception, and not a sin.

Leviticus 5:17
Now if a person sins and does any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he was unaware, still he is guilty and shall bear his punishment.

What do you base your POV on?

The above verse plus the actual definitions of the words both OT and NT for "sin." They are archery terms (as was "sin" in old english) which meant to take aim at a target but miss the mark or bulls eye.

 

[bmjackson]

I see this misunderstanding's heart...you think Christians walk in the flesh.
I know they don't because, as Paul wrote in Rom 6:3-6 the flesh has been killed and buried.
Galatians 5:24 confirms this.
So does most of Romans 8.
So does 2Cor 10:2-3, and Eph 2:3...plus more.

No I do not. The problem is that I have used the word Christian where I should have used the word carnal. It is how the Bible describes them. Already have come to Christ but have not been delivered from the power and presence of sin.

Your "legal state" doctrine is an enablement for men to remain in the flesh.
The crucifixion of one's flesh has either happened or it hasn't.
No amount of "man's wisdom" can circumvent that truth.

No it is not. I maean that the reality of what has been done, has not been 'applied' by the person.

The blood of Christ sanctifies us...right?
That holy blood was applied to us when we were "immersed" into Christ and into His death at our baptism.
That is the "process".

At the Spirit baptism we are cleansed from sin.

No, but she sure isn't exhibiting that she is a new creature.
She should have been able to forgive her dad.

It is not as easy as mentally saying we forgive as trauma is enbedded in the body so that for example, one could be triggered and vomit even though forgiveness has been given. This is much deeper healing that takes time and entire sanctification sometimes though unsaved people can manage this healing with psychological help.

You keep slipping me into the Calvinist camp even though I insist that I believe that true believers are without sin. But you don't seem to listen and indeed show no signs that you want to understand where I am coming from and I have observed this with other people you discuss with. I am afraid that it shows a self centredness that you will deny.

 

[Phil W]

No I do not. The problem is that I have used the word Christian where I should have used the word carnal.

That I can understand and agree with.

It is how the Bible describes them. Already have come to Christ but have not been delivered from the power and presence of sin.

They may be "at the door", but they still need to "go in".

No it is not. I mean that the reality of what has been done, has not been 'applied' by the person.

Doesn't that mean they don't have the faith that it has been applied to them?

At the Spirit baptism we are cleansed from sin.

The baptism of the Holy Ghost is given by God in response to our turn from sin and water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins. (Acts 2:38)
Which scripture do you use to get your opinion?

It is not as easy as mentally saying we forgive as trauma is enbedded in the body so that for example, one could be triggered and vomit even though forgiveness has been given. This is much deeper healing that takes time and entire sanctification sometimes though unsaved people can manage this healing with psychological help.

If we don't forgive, we won't be forgiven.
As "entire sanctification" happens when the blood of the Sanctifier is applied, we can't get anymore cleaner after our water baptism.
We can't get anymore set apart or atoned for.
We can't get more consecrated.
Either one is or they are not sanctified.
We will continue to grow in grace and knowledge, but we start out as perfect sons and daughters of God.
It isn't something we "grow into".

You keep slipping me into the Calvinist camp even though I insist that I believe that true believers are without sin. But you don't seem to listen and indeed show no signs that you want to understand where I am coming from and I have observed this with other people you discuss with. I am afraid that it shows a self centeredness that you will deny.

Not being familiar with the doctrines of the unholy, it is difficult to "defend myself".
True believers are indeed without sin.
Partially sanctified folks aren't free from sin.
God will provide the grace and comfort for "that girl", but she must ask for, and accept, the help.

 

[Phil W]

SOME sins. Not all. There is nothing in the text to indicate it was all inclusive.

This is a list of the ingredients for sin, given by an apostle of the Lord.
You can bet it is conclusive.

Leviticus 5:17
Now if a person sins and does any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he was unaware, still he is guilty and shall bear his punishment.
The above verse plus the actual definitions of the words both OT and NT for "sin." They are archery terms (as was "sin" in old english) which meant to take aim at a target but miss the mark or bulls eye.

Thank God for the changes that took place in the new covenant.

 

[Dave-W]

Thank God for the changes that took place in the new covenant

That was not one of them.

 

[Phil W]

That was not one of them.

Really?
If a child darts out in front of your car and is killed, did you commit a sin?
It seems you are just looking for things to be condemned about.
Jesus came to free us from service to sin.
If we can still commit accidental sins His mission was a failure.

 

[bmjackson]

That I can understand and agree with. They may be "at the door", but they still need to "go in".
Doesn't that mean they don't have the faith that it has been applied to them?

Exactly. The Carnal are in another state of being which is why the scriptures describe them as not Christian nor lost or wicked. They know all of the doctrines and believe that Christ was crucified and raised from the dead, but they have not applied the blood to themselves. They compromise with sin and believe in a gradual sanctification. Wrong, one is either holy or unholy as all of the types and symbols from the OT show.

The baptism of the Holy Ghost is given by God in response to our turn from sin and water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins. (Acts 2:38)
Which scripture do you use to get your opinion?

1Peter 3:21 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.

As the verse shows, it is not the dipping or sprinkling - the putting away of the filth with water, that saves us, but the cleansing of the man and his pure mind in the removal of sin that saves. Water was the type of the Spirit baptism to come under the Old Covenant, which was shown in the New Testament period by water baptism accompanying it. There was no need to continue it in later times. Many many are water baptised and show no sign of even believing in God later. It made no difference to me when I was immersed. It was not until years later when I was baptised in the Spirit that I was made holy and without sin.

If we don't forgive, we won't be forgiven.
As "entire sanctification" happens when the blood of the Sanctifier is applied, we can't get anymore cleaner after our water baptism.
We can't get anymore set apart or atoned for.
We can't get more consecrated.
Either one is or they are not sanctified.
We will continue to grow in grace and knowledge, but we start out as perfect sons and daughters of God.
It isn't something we "grow into".

As above.

Not being familiar with the doctrines of the unholy, it is difficult to "defend myself".
True believers are indeed without sin.
Partially sanctified folks aren't free from sin.
God will provide the grace and comfort for "that girl", but she must ask for, and accept, the help.

Then you do not follow the example of the Apostle Paul who educated himself in the beliefs of the people he wanted to evangelise (Mars Hill in Athens)

 

[bmjackson]

So do you now accept that here are three possible interpretations of Romans 7 if there are three states that a man can find himself in? The saved, the unsaved and the partially saved? How would a partially saved man fit into the chapter?

 

[Dave-W]

and the partially saved?

No such thing. Either you go to heaven, “saved;” or you go to hell; “unsaved.”

 

[bmjackson]

That was Phil W' s expression not mine.

 

[Phil W]

Exactly. The Carnal are in another state of being which is why the scriptures describe them as not Christian nor lost or wicked. They know all of the doctrines and believe that Christ was crucified and raised from the dead, but they have not applied the blood to themselves. They compromise with sin and believe in a gradual sanctification. Wrong, one is either holy or unholy as all of the types and symbols from the OT show.

If they are not Christians, they are lost, wicked.
One is holy or they are not.

1Peter 3:21 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.

As the verse shows, it is not the dipping or sprinkling - the putting away of the filth with water, that saves us, but the cleansing of the man and his pure mind in the removal of sin that saves. Water was the type of the Spirit baptism to come under the Old Covenant, which was shown in the New Testament period by water baptism accompanying it. There was no need to continue it in later times. Many many are water baptised and show no sign of even believing in God later. It made no difference to me when I was immersed. It was not until years later when I was baptised in the Spirit that I was made holy and without sin.

Though I see your point, I don't agree with it.
Let's look at the verse with the parenthesized part cut out...
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
How does baptism connect to the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
How does baptism save us "by" the resurrection if Jesus?
Romans 6:3-6 fills in the blanks.
In water baptism we take part in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
It is the actual death and burial of our old selves and our own resurrection with Christ to walk in newness of life...rebirth.
Still, all of this is a moot point for those who don't turn from sin first.

Same as above.

At our "immersion" into Christ, His sanctifying blood is on us as it was on Him.
Peter writes..."Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;" (1 Peter 4:1)
Jesus' blood is applied while we "suffered in the flesh" with Him.

Then you do not follow the example of the Apostle Paul who educated himself in the beliefs of the people he wanted to evangelize (Mars Hill in Athens)

I can't imagine Paul giving much thought to the ways of the heathens...outside of his thirty something (?) years of rubbing shoulders with them.
As my ministry doesn't involve juxtaposing with other sects, I simply supply what God offers and let the chips fall where they will.
They generally tell me all I need to know when they try to refute the grace of God. Either with accommodations for sin, or something else all the false sects have in common.
All the heathen sects are very much alike.
They all love sin more than they love God.[/QUOTE]