# Wesleyan or reformed view of holiness?



## Jon 316

Hi, 

I am currently reading a book written by someone from the church of the nazerine (weslyan holiness). And I was just wondering, why are reformed people so against the holiness movement's view of sanctification? 

My understanding is as follows...

Reformed, emphasise total depravity and the lifetime struggle against sin.

Weslyian view says the believer can be free from sin. 

Reformed view says sin will always have the upper hand at times.

As far as I can see, the N,T seems to favour the Weslian view?


----------



## MrMerlin777

The problem is that the Wesleyan view tends towards perfectionism. The idea that one can be completely sinless this side of glory. The New Testament is pretty clear (as is the rest of Holy Writ) that we still have sin and we still struggle against it. "If we say we are without sin we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1John 1:8

Also see Romans 7:15-25


----------



## Jon 316

MrMerlin777 said:


> The problem is that the Wesleyan view tends towards perfectionism. The idea that one can be completely sinless this side of glory. The New Testament is pretty clear (as is the rest of Holy Writ) that we still have sin and we still struggle against it. "If we say we are without sin we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1John 1:8



I wonder if the 'term' perfection is a red herring and an unhelpful one to a point. It seems, going by this book, its about a heart purity which comes from God by faith as a gift of grace. The heart purity is maintained trhough constant abiding in Christ. There is always the potential to sin and fall. But the believer need not. As the other text from the book John says 'I write these things that you do not sin'.


----------



## Whitefield

It has been my experience that the fundamental difference between Reformed and Wesleyan on the matters of perfection/holiness boils down to this: who is the actor and who is the respondent. In Reformed theology God is the actor and man is the respondent. In Wesleyan theology man is the actor and God is the respondent.


----------



## MrMerlin777

Whitefield said:


> It has been my experience that the fundamental difference between Reformed and Wesleyan on the matters of perfection/holiness boils down to this: who is the actor and who is the respondent. In Reformed theology God is the actor and man is the respondent. In Wesleyan theology man is the actor and God is the respondent.



Thanks you put that much better than I could have.


----------



## CharlieJ

John, the big difference is whether you view sanctification as an on/off switch or a process. The Wesleyan/Keswick view of sanctification posits two natures in the saved person. At any moment in time, the person "is" one or the other. Also, in this view, only intentional violations of the law of love can be called sin. So, a person may hold wrong views about God or worship wrongly, but that wouldn't be "sin", because the person is acting or thinking in concert with their love toward God. Also, there is no real progressive internal transformation going on in Wesleyan/Keswick theology. Every day, it is the same choice between the two opposed natures.

On the other hand, Reformed theology emphasizes regeneration, union with Christ, and the means of grace as avenues for internal transformation, allowing the saved person to increasingly love and serve God. Even at best, however, none of our works are "perfect", but they are accepted by God based on the mediation of his Son.


----------



## Pilgrim

Here is an interesting journal article that may be of interest on Second Blessing (Keswick or Wesleyan, basically) views of holiness and early Dallas Seminary Dispensationalism. I found it useful in tracing how the two teachings became intertwined. 

The author comes to the conclusion that there is no necessary connection between one and the other, but that the combination of the two in the teaching during the early years at Dallas Theological Seminary was incidental to the time (late 19th/early 20th Century) in which both views were becoming popular.


----------



## Whitefield

CharlieJ said:


> John, the big difference is whether you view sanctification as an on/off switch or a process. The Wesleyan/Keswick view of sanctification posits two natures in the saved person. At any moment in time, the person "is" one or the other. Also, in this view, only intentional violations of the law of love can be called sin. So, a person may hold wrong views about God or worship wrongly, but that wouldn't be "sin", because the person is acting or thinking in concert with their love toward God. Also, there is no real progressive internal transformation going on in Wesleyan/Keswick theology. Every day, it is the same choice between the two opposed natures.
> 
> On the other hand, Reformed theology emphasizes regeneration, union with Christ, and the means of grace as avenues for internal transformation, allowing the saved person to increasingly love and serve God. Even at best, however, none of our works are "perfect", but they are accepted by God based on the mediation of his Son.



I'm not so sure the Wesleyan stance can be simply viewed as binary. Wesley himself spoke of "going on to perfection", however, he did expect that any Christian endeavoring toward perfection would experience this side of the grave. Sanctification in the Wesleyan tradition is progressive and I think the more fundamental distinction comes at the level of self-achievement (progress).


----------



## tdowns

*My understanding.*

Is it fails to recognize the depravity of man, even in regeneration.

My understanding, is that on our holiest day, our righteousness is filthy rags, so we continue to rest in the work of Christ, both for our Justification and Sanctification...while the Wesleyan will trust in his own merit (infused with grace), and when it fails, will create elaborate veils of betrayal to self and world to maintain their guise of "holiness".

On my best day, I cling to the Life and Death of Christ.


----------



## Pilgrim

Whitefield said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> John, the big difference is whether you view sanctification as an on/off switch or a process. The Wesleyan/Keswick view of sanctification posits two natures in the saved person. At any moment in time, the person "is" one or the other. Also, in this view, only intentional violations of the law of love can be called sin. So, a person may hold wrong views about God or worship wrongly, but that wouldn't be "sin", because the person is acting or thinking in concert with their love toward God. Also, there is no real progressive internal transformation going on in Wesleyan/Keswick theology. Every day, it is the same choice between the two opposed natures.
> 
> On the other hand, Reformed theology emphasizes regeneration, union with Christ, and the means of grace as avenues for internal transformation, allowing the saved person to increasingly love and serve God. Even at best, however, none of our works are "perfect", but they are accepted by God based on the mediation of his Son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure the Wesleyan stance can be simply viewed as binary. Wesley himself spoke of "going on to perfection", however, he did expect that any Christian endeavoring toward perfection would experience this side of the grave. Sanctification in the Wesleyan tradition is progressive and I think the more fundamental distinction comes at the level of self-achievement (progress).
Click to expand...


From what I recall from my previous membership in the Wesleyan church, that church teaches that there are three aspects of sanctification: initial, progressive and entire. (The pastor said in the membership class that he did not believe in entire sanctification and from what I recall basically skipped over it.) 

My understanding is that some of the development of the idea of entire sanctification (or "perfection") came after Wesley's death and was an emphasis of the 19th century Holiness movement in the USA. The Church of the Nazarene and the Wesleyan churches are "Holiness" churches in that regard. My understanding is that is one reason they (or their precursors as both churches as constituted today are the products of various mergers) never reunited with the main Methodist church after 1865 was because they thought the Methodists did not place the proper emphasis on that teaching, along with maybe a few others.


----------



## Hamalas

As far as the practical outworking of this theology, I can give some testimony with relatives of mine. I have several (extended) family members who hold to the Wesleyan view. Many of them believe that they have permanently "conquered" certain sins. I even have one uncle who tells people that he hasn't sinned since 1977. I find that hard to believe. At least one _danger_ of Wesleyan holiness theology can be a tendency to underestimate sin and justify spiritual blindness.


----------



## Hippo

I would really reccomend the short book "Holiness, The False and the True" by H A Ironside.

Ironside labored for years in the Salvation Arrmy under the yoke of the holiness movement and in my view his analysis is both moving and devestating. 

Ironside is not even a Calvinist but he saw the bankruptcy at the heart of seeking holiness in man rather than God.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Ellen White and the slew of other charlatans that came out of the so-called "Second Great Awakening" held to Weslyan perfectionism, and its a lie from the pit of Hell. 

It is a cornerstone to the lie that is Seventh Day Adventism.

Charles Wesley can be commended as a philanthropist but as a faithful preacher of the gospel he was a monkey wrench to the gospel at best and an enemy within at worst, strong words i realize but the world celebrates his philanthropy and that has never merited anyone outside of Christ into Heaven.


----------



## CharlieJ

Whitefield said:


> I'm not so sure the Wesleyan stance can be simply viewed as binary. Wesley himself spoke of "going on to perfection", however, he did expect that any Christian endeavoring toward perfection would experience this side of the grave. Sanctification in the Wesleyan tradition is progressive and I think the more fundamental distinction comes at the level of self-achievement (progress).



I'm not sure about the actual John Wesley Wesleyan theology. I was speaking more about the developed Keswick theology that is common throughout the US. I think that they would pay lip-service to progressive sanctification, but a key problem is their emphasis on "abiding". In Keswick theology, the "abiding" life is a zone, if you will, that we get into through surrender, a state of passivity. While we are there, we are fully under the control of the Spirit and do not sin. While we are not there, we are fleshly and do lots of bad things. So, the practice of Keswick theology is binary.


----------



## Pilgrim

Hippo said:


> I would really reccomend the short book "Holiness, The False and the True" by H A Ironside.
> 
> Ironside labored for years in the Salvation Arrmy under the yoke of the holiness movement and in my view his analysis is both moving and devestating.
> 
> Ironside is not even a Calvinist but he saw the bankruptcy at the heart of seeking holiness in man rather than God.



I haven't read Ironside's book but would expect it to be helpful.

J.C. Ryle's _Holiness_ may still be the best single book which sets forth the Reformed view on the subject.


----------



## JBaldwin

tdowns said:


> Is it fails to recognize the depravity of man, even in regeneration.
> 
> My understanding, is that on our holiest day, our righteousness is filthy rags, so we continue to rest in the work of Christ, both for our Justification and Sanctification...while the Wesleyan will trust in his own merit (infused with grace), and when it fails, will create elaborate veils of betrayal to self and world to maintain their guise of "holiness".
> 
> On my best day, I cling to the Life and Death of Christ.



This puts it very well. I have been away from the Keswick (holiness) movement for over 20 years, and I'm still recovering. I was in it for 5 years after being in fundamentalism from childhood until my early 20s. It was happy day when I finally realized that there wasn't an ounce of goodness in me. Christ covers me with His righteousness, and any good I may do is because of the work of His Spirit within me. 

This is found throughout the Scriptures and it becomes very obvious when looking at the life of the Apostle Paul who in the early part of His ministry called himself the least of the apostles, but the end of his life, he was calling himself the chief of sinners. 

I loved what a friend of Jerry Bridges (author of Pursuit of Holiness) quoted from Bridges. Since the time of writing the book, God has taken him through a number of painful struggles in sanctification. He says, if he were to write that book again, he would write it differently. He said, the title should be called "The Pursuit of God". To pursue God is to pursue holiness, and that, In my humble opinion is the difference between Weslyen thinking and reformed thinking. Weslyen thinking is all about being holy. Reformed thinking is all about knowing Christ.


----------



## Whitefield

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Charles Wesley can be commended as a philanthropist but as a faithful preacher of the gospel he was a monkey wrench to the gospel at best and an enemy within at worst, strong words i realize but the world celebrates his philanthropy and that has never merited anyone outside of Christ into Heaven.



Do your mean Charles or John? Charles didn't do much preaching, and due to his continually good relationship with George Whitefield, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have a reformed bone or two in his body; whereas John had a visible distaste for anything Reformed, including the Reformed articles in the official documents of the church he lived and died in.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Whitefield said:


> No Longer A Libertine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Wesley can be commended as a philanthropist but as a faithful preacher of the gospel he was a monkey wrench to the gospel at best and an enemy within at worst, strong words i realize but the world celebrates his philanthropy and that has never merited anyone outside of Christ into Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do your mean Charles or John? Charles didn't do much preaching, and due to his continually good relationship with George Whitefield, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have a reformed bone or two in his body; whereas John had a visible distaste for anything Reformed, including the Reformed articles in the official documents of the church he lived and died in.
Click to expand...

I meant John. Charles wrote respectable hymns.


----------



## MrMerlin777

Whitefield said:


> No Longer A Libertine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Wesley can be commended as a philanthropist but as a faithful preacher of the gospel he was a monkey wrench to the gospel at best and an enemy within at worst, strong words i realize but the world celebrates his philanthropy and that has never merited anyone outside of Christ into Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do your mean Charles or John? Charles didn't do much preaching, and due to his continually good relationship with George Whitefield, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have a reformed bone or two in his body; whereas John had a visible distaste for anything Reformed, including the Reformed articles in the official documents of the church he lived and died in.
Click to expand...


Yep, Charles was more of a hymn writer than a preacher. One of his hymns is one of my favorites. 

"And can it be that I should gain an interest in the Saviour's blood?"
"Died He for me who caused His pain. For me who Him to death persued."
"Amazing love! How can it be that Thou my God shouldst die for me?"
"Amazing love! How can it be that Thou my God shouldst die for me?"

And then there's this verse...

"Long my imprisoned spirit lay fast bound in sin and nature's night."
"Thine eye diffused a quickening ray I woke the dungeon flamed with light."
"My chains fell off my heart was free I rose went forth and followed thee."
"My chains fell off my hert was free I rose went forth and followed thee."


----------



## Craig

Having come out of Free Methodism, which is Wesleyan/Holiness/Entire Sanctification/Perfectionism...I can tell you what the difference is.

Legalism. Man-made rules to live by and for the Christian who understands that sin is always present in him, he will be ruined by despair. I'm not saying this "could" happen...or "might" happen...I lived it. To the rest that don't despair of John Wesley's insipid, evil, hateful, blasphemous teachings...they, like it has been noted above, think they've conquered sin entirely. A pastor of my old church was highly regarded by the people...so much so that they said he had attained a state of being sinless!

Anyone can doll up their Pharisaism with biblical language, but that doesn't mean they've conveyed biblical content. There is no difference between Wesleyan "holiness" doctrine and Rome's doctrine of justification. Heck, they're basically canonizing people when they proclaim others (or themselves) are perfect.


----------



## Jon 316

Perhaps there are different interpretations of the Weslyian view therefore we are talking about different things.

Also, perhaps we misunderstand certain terms which are used in holiness circles.

Some key things are clear in this book I am reading

1) Sanctification is recognised as a process
2) Sanctification is based on the work of Christ and the Spirit of Christ and not outward performance. 
3) The gospel provides victory over sin (not just forgiveness.
4) Christ living in me and through me is the key to Sanctification,
5) There was even mention of the means of grace in the process of sanctification.

Perhaps this book is a modified holiness view. But these principles seem scripturally sound to me.


----------



## Hippo

A quote from Ironside:



> "Perhaps the saddest thing about the movement to which I have referred is the long list of shipwrecks concerning the faith to be attributed to its unsound instruction. Large numbers of persons seek 'holiness' for years only to find they have had the unattainable before them. Others profess to have received it, but are forced at last to own it was all a mistake. The result is sometimes that the mind gives way beneath the strain; but more frequently unbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures is the logical result. It is for persons dangerously near these shoals of infidelity and darkness that I have penned these papers. God's word remains true. He has not promised what He will not perform. It is you, dear troubled one, who have been misled by faulty teaching as to the true nature of sanctification, and the proper effects of the indwelling Spirit of God. Let neither gloomy unbelief nor melancholy disappointment hinder your . . . searching the Scriptures daily whether these things be so. And may God in His rich grace and mercy give every self-occupied reader to look away to Christ alone, 'who, of God, is made unto us wisdom: even righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.'


----------



## Jon 316

Hippo said:


> A quote from Ironside:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Perhaps the saddest thing about the movement to which I have referred is the long list of shipwrecks concerning the faith to be attributed to its unsound instruction. Large numbers of persons seek 'holiness' for years only to find they have had the unattainable before them. Others profess to have received it, but are forced at last to own it was all a mistake. The result is sometimes that the mind gives way beneath the strain; but more frequently unbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures is the logical result. It is for persons dangerously near these shoals of infidelity and darkness that I have penned these papers. God's word remains true. He has not promised what He will not perform. It is you, dear troubled one, who have been misled by faulty teaching as to the true nature of sanctification, and the proper effects of the indwelling Spirit of God. Let neither gloomy unbelief nor melancholy disappointment hinder your . . . searching the Scriptures daily whether these things be so. And may God in His rich grace and mercy give every self-occupied reader to look away to Christ alone, 'who, of God, is made unto us wisdom: even righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.'
Click to expand...


Perhaps I'm not getting it. But I find holiness teaching does point me to Christ as the basis for my sanctification???


----------



## Hippo

Jon 316 said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A quote from Ironside:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Perhaps the saddest thing about the movement to which I have referred is the long list of shipwrecks concerning the faith to be attributed to its unsound instruction. Large numbers of persons seek 'holiness' for years only to find they have had the unattainable before them. Others profess to have received it, but are forced at last to own it was all a mistake. The result is sometimes that the mind gives way beneath the strain; but more frequently unbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures is the logical result. It is for persons dangerously near these shoals of infidelity and darkness that I have penned these papers. God's word remains true. He has not promised what He will not perform. It is you, dear troubled one, who have been misled by faulty teaching as to the true nature of sanctification, and the proper effects of the indwelling Spirit of God. Let neither gloomy unbelief nor melancholy disappointment hinder your . . . searching the Scriptures daily whether these things be so. And may God in His rich grace and mercy give every self-occupied reader to look away to Christ alone, 'who, of God, is made unto us wisdom: even righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm not getting it. But I find holiness teaching does point me to Christ as the basis for my sanctification???
Click to expand...


And you think that you can, and indeed should, be free from sin in this life?


----------



## Jon 316

Hippo said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A quote from Ironside:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm not getting it. But I find holiness teaching does point me to Christ as the basis for my sanctification???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think that you can, and indeed should, be free from sin in this life?
Click to expand...


I think there are plenty of bible texts which state that a believer does not need to be defeated by temptation??? Do you want me to quote them?


----------



## Hippo

Jon 316 said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm not getting it. But I find holiness teaching does point me to Christ as the basis for my sanctification???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that you can, and indeed should, be free from sin in this life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there are plenty of bible texts which state that a believer does not need to be defeated by temptation??? Do you want me to quote them?
Click to expand...


If you read Wesley this sinless state is often accompanied by some redefinition of sin to explain why these perfected saints still seem to us mortals to be not quite perfected. 

This is the problem with practicing weslyn holiness, it either leads to sin not being seen as sin or to failure, or more importantly a perceived failure of God's promises. We are looking to our response not to God's person and historic work.

Of course sanctification is important and there is much in the Holiness movement that no one can argue with, but the doctrine as a whole verges on the diabolical.

I can point you to plenty of texts that show that our sinful nature will remain until we enter glory. As with all theology it is not a matter of throwing around seemingly opposing texts but looking at the issue systamatically.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

The proof text that people of the perfectionism persuasion usually like to point to outside of context is "Be Holy as my Father is Holy..."


----------



## cih1355

Jon 316 said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm not getting it. But I find holiness teaching does point me to Christ as the basis for my sanctification???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that you can, and indeed should, be free from sin in this life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there are plenty of bible texts which state that a believer does not need to be defeated by temptation??? Do you want me to quote them?
Click to expand...



There can be an instance where a believer can overcome a particular temptation at a particular date and time, but he is not going to live his entire life in a state of sinless perfection 100% of the time.


----------



## MrMerlin777

cih1355 said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that you can, and indeed should, be free from sin in this life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are plenty of bible texts which state that a believer does not need to be defeated by temptation??? Do you want me to quote them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *There can be an instance where a believer can overcome a particular temptation at a particular date and time, but he is not going to live his entire life in a state of sinless perfection 100% of the time.*
Click to expand...


Well said.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

Frankly, these types of questions seem to be kinda like the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. 

If one is to answer "no, we can't stop sinning", you may assume we are being lax on sin. However, if we answer "yes", we defy clear Biblical passages that seem to indicate we will continue to struggle with sin.

The Lord taught us to him daily, since the prayer includes "give us *this day* our daily bread", and within that daily prayer he taught us to pray "forgive us of our trespasses". We don't claim to be wiser than our Lord, and if he taught us to pray for forgiveness of our daily trespasses, we trust that the thrice holy God can find fault with our performance any day of the week.


----------



## moral necessity

First of all, the holiness movement tends to have a small view of sin. When they speak of "victory", they are often referring to external behaviors that are not being committed. What they fail to grasp, is that such external behaviors are only the fruit of the real sin lying underneath of it all. Sin involves the initial cumpulsion and minute desire towards a behavior that is contrary to absolute perfection, not just the stifling of it once it has compelled us from within. Also, they entirely leave out the sins of omission. What about all of the things I should be doing that I am not doing, like actions of love towards my neighbor, or the thousands of needs I could have met for others today that I did not lift a finger towards. How about the sins of attitude.....was I really wanting to love my neighbor when I helped him rake his leaves yesterday....was I desiring it with my entire heart......and what about my motives while doing so......were they 100% for the glory that God would have for himself as a result of it? Basically, a stoical monk with a half-iron will would be able to outdo most perfectionists, because the main thing is emphasized that must be conquered is external, known, sinful actions. Give an unregenerate person enough motive, and they'll stifle about any desire within them that is sinful. Hold a gun to their head 24/7, or to that of a family member, and watch how much p*rn they watch, or how much they get drunk, or how strict they now keep the sabbath. Israel did a pretty good job at keeping those laws that demanded their life from them if they didn't obey. So, I think the holiness movement first has a small view of what sin is in the first place.

Second, I think that, where the holiness movement messed up, was with their understanding of what was restored in regeneration. They believe that the faculty of the will is entirely restored to wholeness. The other two faculties of the understanding and the affections they still see as partially corrupted. Whereas, reformed thinking, in my opinion, sees all three faculties as only partially restored. Sanctification is still needed in all three areas. And so, sometimes our wills are overpowered by the sin within us, as was David's, Samson's, Solomon's, and many others. John Newton speaks about this in several of his letters, as does Owen in a few of his discourses, if I remember correctly.

But, I'm with you, in that it is frustrating, b/c often the difference is hard to catch onto, b/c what they promise is what we all want. And, once you trade in 17 years of your life for believing it, and realize that you're actually a worse sinner afterwards then you were starting out in the first place, you look back at all those decisions you made because of it, and all the advice you gave to other young believers, and just cringe. It was a path of utter darkness for me, one that was filled with misery, doubt, and fear...and the joy and peace of the gospel were nowhere to be found, nor was true sanctification. For, if victory over true sin was attainable, I sure wasn't experiencing it, if I was honest about it. So, off to church I went, for my weekly beatings.......*sigh*


----------



## turmeric

You might enjoy John Owen's classic works on _Sin and Temptation, Mortification of Sin, _and _Indwelling Sin._


----------



## moral necessity

JBaldwin said:


> I loved what a friend of Jerry Bridges (author of Pursuit of Holiness) quoted from Bridges. Since the time of writing the book, God has taken him through a number of painful struggles in sanctification. He says, if he were to write that book again, he would write it differently. He said, the title should be called "The Pursuit of God". To pursue God is to pursue holiness, and that, In my humble opinion is the difference between Weslyen thinking and reformed thinking. Weslyen thinking is all about being holy. Reformed thinking is all about knowing Christ.



I never knew this! I'd love to find out more about this transformation within Jerry Bridges, and his thoughts looking back on this work of his. That was the book given to me by someone who pushed holiness in a similar fashion.


----------



## turmeric

Someone told me " He's reformed, read this" when I was on my Keswick Recovery program. I was a little baffled. I'm happy to hear he finally got the picture.


----------



## JBaldwin

moral necessity said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I loved what a friend of Jerry Bridges (author of Pursuit of Holiness) quoted from Bridges. Since the time of writing the book, God has taken him through a number of painful struggles in sanctification. He says, if he were to write that book again, he would write it differently. He said, the title should be called "The Pursuit of God". To pursue God is to pursue holiness, and that, In my humble opinion is the difference between Weslyen thinking and reformed thinking. Weslyen thinking is all about being holy. Reformed thinking is all about knowing Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew this! I'd love to find out more about this transformation within Jerry Bridges, and his thoughts looking back on this work of his. That was the book given to me by someone who pushed holiness in a similar fashion.
Click to expand...


My pastor knows Jerry Bridges, and he is the one who shared this with us.


----------



## Iconoclast

I think the wording of the confession of faith shines in this section. A careful and deliberiate reading of it helps to distinguish any notion we have that being free from the bondage of sin,and its ultimate penalty- and being free from all sin leaves very quickly. Ryle, Owen, and many others help us to examine our heart motives in their writings.
God is so Holy that we cannot fully grasp what that consists of, but we strive to gain a clearer understanding of Isa.6, or Rev.4/5.
Thankfully by the grace of God we can see growth in many areas. Look carefully and re-read this section of the confession phrase by phrase and see if you think they were not biblically accurate in their statements


> CHAPTER 13; OF SANCTIFICATION
> 
> Paragraph 1. They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally,1 through the same virtue, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them;2 the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,3 and the several lusts of it are more and more weakened and mortified,4 and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,5 to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.6
> 1 Acts 20:32; Rom. 6:5,6
> 2 John 17:17; Eph. 3:16-19; 1 Thess. 5:21-23
> 3 Rom. 6:14
> 4 Gal. 5:24
> 5 Col. 1:11
> 6 2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 12:14
> 
> Paragraph 2. This sanctification is throughout the whole man,7 yet imperfect in this life; there abides still some remnants of corruption in every part,8 wherefrom arises a continual and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.9
> 7 1 Thess. 5:23
> 8 Rom. 7:18, 23
> 9 Gal. 5:17; 1 Pet. 2:11
> 
> Paragraph 3. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail,10 yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;11 and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in his Word has prescribed to them.12
> 10 Rom. 7:23
> 11 Rom. 6:14
> 12 Eph. 4:15,16; 2 Cor. 3:18, 7:1


----------



## JohnGill

Pilgrim said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would really reccomend the short book "Holiness, The False and the True" by H A Ironside.
> 
> Ironside labored for years in the Salvation Arrmy under the yoke of the holiness movement and in my view his analysis is both moving and devestating.
> 
> Ironside is not even a Calvinist but he saw the bankruptcy at the heart of seeking holiness in man rather than God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read Ironside's book but would expect it to be helpful.
> 
> J.C. Ryle's _Holiness_ may still be the best single book which sets forth the Reformed view on the subject.
Click to expand...


You can read Holiness by J. C. Ryle online here.


----------



## Jon 316

> I can point you to plenty of texts that show that our sinful nature will remain until we enter glory. As with all theology it is not a matter of throwing around seemingly opposing texts but looking at the issue systamatically



I agree with your point on systematic study. 

However, does the bibles texts which show that the 'sinful nature' remains (although is that not a dodgy translation of the word which should read 'flesh'?) undermine the truths in scripture which point to deliverance from sin? 

Excuse the paraphrases and lack of exact references (I dont have much time). 

I.e Corinthians speaks of 'God always providing a way of escape for the tempted believer'. 



> The Lord taught us to him daily, since the prayer includes "give us this day our daily bread", and within that daily prayer he taught us to pray "forgive us of our trespasses". We don't claim to be wiser than our Lord, and if he taught us to pray for forgiveness of our daily trespasses, we trust that the thrice holy God can find fault with our performance any day of the week.



The Lord also taught in that prayer, that we should pray 'Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from Evil'. 

Leaving aside the term 'perfection' or 'sinless. (Inorder to avoid reducing sin). *Is it not true that the bible expects believers to triumph over temptation? *



> First of all, the holiness movement tends to have a small view of sin. When they speak of "victory", they are often referring to external behaviors that are not being committed. What they fail to grasp, is that such external behaviors are only the fruit of the real sin lying underneath of it all.



I'm not sure that this is the case. Perhaps the holiness movement moved towards that. But the book I am reading, from a Nazerene perspective. and what I understand of Weslyian theology, suggests the opposite. In fact what I have been reading explicitly says it is not about external behaviour, neither is it (holiness) about decisions of the will. *It is instead about purification of heart on the basis of the application of the work of Christ to the believer by The Holy Spirit. *



> But, I'm with you, in that it is frustrating, b/c often the difference is hard to catch onto, b/c what they promise is what we all want. And, once you trade in 17 years of your life for believing it, and realize that you're actually a worse sinner afterwards then you were starting out in the first place, you look back at all those decisions you made because of it, and all the advice you gave to other young believers, and just cringe. It was a path of utter darkness for me, one that was filled with misery, doubt, and fear...and the joy and peace of the gospel were nowhere to be found, nor was true sanctification. For, if victory over true sin was attainable, I sure wasn't experiencing it, if I was honest about it. So, off to church I went, for my weekly beatings.......*sigh*



I appreciate your dispair, and I appreciate this is one of the most common criticisms of the holiness movement. 

However, my experience has been the opposite. In that, the times when I have known the sweetest presence of Christ, victory over sin, etc is when I have read key truths from certain holiness writers i.e Andrew Murray and now this book I am currently reading. 

The truth which I refer to is that *It is Christ in me and through me who produces holiness.* Christ is my Holiness. Its not by striving, or decisions but by faith in the finished work of Christ whose benefits are applied in me, to me, and through me by the Spirit of Christ. 

Infact, even William Gurnall (Puritan?) says in his complete Christian armour regarding the promise of deliverance found in the scripture *'sin shall not have dominion over you'.* He encouraged believers to find refuge in this verse.


----------



## Whitefield

Jon 316 said:


> The truth which I refer to is that *It is Christ in me and through me who produces holiness.* Christ is my Holiness. Its not by striving, or decisions but by faith in the finished work of Christ whose benefits are applied in me, to me, and through me by the Spirit of Christ.



But in Arminian Wesleyan theology Christ is in you only by your invitation and remains in you only by your permission. So because of your invitation and your permission holiness ultimately depends upon you.


----------



## turmeric

Whitefield said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth which I refer to is that *It is Christ in me and through me who produces holiness.* Christ is my Holiness. Its not by striving, or decisions but by faith in the finished work of Christ whose benefits are applied in me, to me, and through me by the Spirit of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in Arminian Wesleyan theology Christ is in you only by your invitation and remains in you only by your permission. So because of your invitation and your permission holiness ultimately depends upon you.
Click to expand...

 
True, that "sanctification by faith" or "exchanged life" takes a lot of work on the part of the believer.


----------



## moral necessity

Jon 316 said:


> First of all, the holiness movement tends to have a small view of sin. When they speak of "victory", they are often referring to external behaviors that are not being committed. What they fail to grasp, is that such external behaviors are only the fruit of the real sin lying underneath of it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that this is the case. Perhaps the holiness movement moved towards that. But the book I am reading, from a Nazerene perspective. and what I understand of Weslyian theology, suggests the opposite. In fact what I have been reading explicitly says it is not about external behaviour, neither is it (holiness) about decisions of the will. *It is instead about purification of heart on the basis of the application of the work of Christ to the believer by The Holy Spirit. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, I'm with you, in that it is frustrating, b/c often the difference is hard to catch onto, b/c what they promise is what we all want. And, once you trade in 17 years of your life for believing it, and realize that you're actually a worse sinner afterwards then you were starting out in the first place, you look back at all those decisions you made because of it, and all the advice you gave to other young believers, and just cringe. It was a path of utter darkness for me, one that was filled with misery, doubt, and fear...and the joy and peace of the gospel were nowhere to be found, nor was true sanctification. For, if victory over true sin was attainable, I sure wasn't experiencing it, if I was honest about it. So, off to church I went, for my weekly beatings.......*sigh*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your dispair, and I appreciate this is one of the most common criticisms of the holiness movement.
> 
> However, my experience has been the opposite. In that, the times when I have known the sweetest presence of Christ, victory over sin, etc is when I have read key truths from certain holiness writers i.e Andrew Murray and now this book I am currently reading.
> 
> The truth which I refer to is that *It is Christ in me and through me who produces holiness.* Christ is my Holiness. Its not by striving, or decisions but by faith in the finished work of Christ whose benefits are applied in me, to me, and through me by the Spirit of Christ.
> 
> Infact, even William Gurnall (Puritan?) says in his complete Christian armour regarding the promise of deliverance found in the scripture *'sin shall not have dominion over you'.* He encouraged believers to find refuge in this verse.
Click to expand...


Well....I agree that many holiness preachers go so far as to say that victory over all internal motions of sin is attainable. It's just that, when I've pressed the issue of whether or not this refers to the actual bent towards sin within us or not, I've never gotten a yes answer from them. I just don't think that either scripture or experience supports such a belief. When I read Romans 6-8, I see that we have died to sin in the same manner that Christ died to sin (6:10,11), which is to it's ability to condemn us. Our death to sin was to it's guilt, not to it's power. We are to reckon ourselves dead to the guilt of sin. Our removal from the Law's condemnation of us (ch. 7) now legally allows us to be joined to Christ in marriage, and now, sanctifying power can flow from him to us via his Spirit. However, we are still in bondage to sin, (7:14), although not to the same degree, for we have a new law of holiness working in us at the same time. Sin is impaired, but not destroyed. It's power is weakened, but not removed. It's dominion is gone, but it's army still holds fortresses throughout the countryside. Victory is certain, but it is not entirely present. And so, Paul goes on to say in Chapter 8, vs. 23-25 that we must wait for full redemption. Our full deliverance lies in hope. And, who hopes for what he sees. But, we hope for what we do not see, but rather wait for it with patience. The holiness movement does not want to wait in hope. They expect deliverance now, and, in order to grant it to you, they either have to lessen the standard of perfection or else make us into good liars. John says, that "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (I Jn. 1:8). So, my question to them, when they say that we can have victory over sin b/c we are now dead to it power, is, "well, then where's the struggle?" If it has no power, then the struggle is gone. 

I agree with you in what you say above, that 'Christ in me and working through me produces holiness', but, I don't think it actually produces it in perfection this side of glory, for sin is always contaminating us to some degree at the same time. As for the puritan above regarding "sin not having dominion", be cautious with what "dominion" means, for the holiness people tend to take it too far, in my opinion. It doesn't mean that the other basketball team won't score a point any more. It just means that finally now, we get to at least score a few of our own, whereas before, we could score none.

Keep reading and thinking it through. I'm on your side.....and I don't want to seem like I'm here to just combat your points with rebuttal, so, sorry if I have done that too much. I enjoy hearing you out and listening to your thoughts. I have the Works of John Wesley here on my shelf, so, I'll try to take a look at them, and see if there's some similarities in what you're reading and what he says. BTW, I'd be interested in knowing the book you're reading, if you don't mind sharing that. I'd enjoy comparing his thoughts with Wesley's at my own leisure as well.

Blessings and warm fellowship!


----------



## MW

Jon 316 said:


> And I was just wondering, why are reformed people so against the holiness movement's view of sanctification?



If you are interested in reading further on the subject, I heartily recommend Sinclair Ferguson's response to the Wesleyan view of sanctification in the book "Christian Spirituality," ed. Donald L. Alexander.


----------



## Jon 316

moral necessity said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the holiness movement tends to have a small view of sin. When they speak of "victory", they are often referring to external behaviors that are not being committed. What they fail to grasp, is that such external behaviors are only the fruit of the real sin lying underneath of it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that this is the case. Perhaps the holiness movement moved towards that. But the book I am reading, from a Nazerene perspective. and what I understand of Weslyian theology, suggests the opposite. In fact what I have been reading explicitly says it is not about external behaviour, neither is it (holiness) about decisions of the will. *It is instead about purification of heart on the basis of the application of the work of Christ to the believer by The Holy Spirit. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, I'm with you, in that it is frustrating, b/c often the difference is hard to catch onto, b/c what they promise is what we all want. And, once you trade in 17 years of your life for believing it, and realize that you're actually a worse sinner afterwards then you were starting out in the first place, you look back at all those decisions you made because of it, and all the advice you gave to other young believers, and just cringe. It was a path of utter darkness for me, one that was filled with misery, doubt, and fear...and the joy and peace of the gospel were nowhere to be found, nor was true sanctification. For, if victory over true sin was attainable, I sure wasn't experiencing it, if I was honest about it. So, off to church I went, for my weekly beatings.......*sigh*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your dispair, and I appreciate this is one of the most common criticisms of the holiness movement.
> 
> However, my experience has been the opposite. In that, the times when I have known the sweetest presence of Christ, victory over sin, etc is when I have read key truths from certain holiness writers i.e Andrew Murray and now this book I am currently reading.
> 
> The truth which I refer to is that *It is Christ in me and through me who produces holiness.* Christ is my Holiness. Its not by striving, or decisions but by faith in the finished work of Christ whose benefits are applied in me, to me, and through me by the Spirit of Christ.
> 
> Infact, even William Gurnall (Puritan?) says in his complete Christian armour regarding the promise of deliverance found in the scripture *'sin shall not have dominion over you'.* He encouraged believers to find refuge in this verse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well....I agree that many holiness preachers go so far as to say that victory over all internal motions of sin is attainable. It's just that, when I've pressed the issue of whether or not this refers to the actual bent towards sin within us or not, I've never gotten a yes answer from them. I just don't think that either scripture or experience supports such a belief. When I read Romans 6-8, I see that we have died to sin in the same manner that Christ died to sin (6:10,11), which is to it's ability to condemn us. Our death to sin was to it's guilt, not to it's power. We are to reckon ourselves dead to the guilt of sin. Our removal from the Law's condemnation of us (ch. 7) now legally allows us to be joined to Christ in marriage, and now, sanctifying power can flow from him to us via his Spirit. However, we are still in bondage to sin, (7:14), although not to the same degree, for we have a new law of holiness working in us at the same time. Sin is impaired, but not destroyed. It's power is weakened, but not removed. It's dominion is gone, but it's army still holds fortresses throughout the countryside. Victory is certain, but it is not entirely present. And so, Paul goes on to say in Chapter 8, vs. 23-25 that we must wait for full redemption. Our full deliverance lies in hope. And, who hopes for what he sees. But, we hope for what we do not see, but rather wait for it with patience. The holiness movement does not want to wait in hope. They expect deliverance now, and, in order to grant it to you, they either have to lessen the standard of perfection or else make us into good liars. John says, that "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (I Jn. 1:8). So, my question to them, when they say that we can have victory over sin b/c we are now dead to it power, is, "well, then where's the struggle?" If it has no power, then the struggle is gone.
> 
> I agree with you in what you say above, that 'Christ in me and working through me produces holiness', but, I don't think it actually produces it in perfection this side of glory, for sin is always contaminating us to some degree at the same time. As for the puritan above regarding "sin not having dominion", be cautious with what "dominion" means, for the holiness people tend to take it too far, in my opinion. It doesn't mean that the other basketball team won't score a point any more. It just means that finally now, we get to at least score a few of our own, whereas before, we could score none.
> 
> Keep reading and thinking it through. I'm on your side.....and I don't want to seem like I'm here to just combat your points with rebuttal, so, sorry if I have done that too much. I enjoy hearing you out and listening to your thoughts. I have the Works of John Wesley here on my shelf, so, I'll try to take a look at them, and see if there's some similarities in what you're reading and what he says. BTW, I'd be interested in knowing the book you're reading, if you don't mind sharing that. I'd enjoy comparing his thoughts with Wesley's at my own leisure as well.
> 
> Blessings and warm fellowship!
Click to expand...



I'm enjoying your input, thanks. 

The book is _The Power to Be Free: Discovering Life in the Spirit of Christ_ by Frank Moore


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy

JBaldwin said:


> tdowns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it fails to recognize the depravity of man, even in regeneration.
> 
> My understanding, is that on our holiest day, our righteousness is filthy rags, so we continue to rest in the work of Christ, both for our Justification and Sanctification...while the Wesleyan will trust in his own merit (infused with grace), and when it fails, will create elaborate veils of betrayal to self and world to maintain their guise of "holiness".
> 
> On my best day, I cling to the Life and Death of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said, the title should be called "The Pursuit of God". *To pursue God is to pursue holiness*, and that, In my humble opinion is the difference between Weslyen thinking and reformed thinking. Weslyen thinking is all about being holy. *Reformed thinking is all about knowing Christ*.
Click to expand...

 
I love this! You hit the nail on the head! Those portions I put in bold are truths that I honestly had no understanding of until just a few short weeks ago. One of the elders and I are studying Gal. 5. I had always thought that Gal 5 was commanding believers to put on the fruit of the Spirit - to "be holy as I am holy". This, however, only leads to moralism. We ourselves are unable to put on the fruit of the Spirit *precisely* because it is the Spirit's fruit. We are unable to bear such fruit ourselves. This is why moralism burns us out. Our responsibility in sanctification is not to bear fruit, but to abide in Christ just as branches must abide in the vine. If we look at the "holiest" men of church history, they are those people who have been most enamored with Christ. Augustine, John Calvin, Edwards, they all had a passion for Christ that totally consumed them. Because they desired Christ and loved Him, they were transformed more into His image.


----------



## JBaldwin

> I love this! You hit the nail on the head! Those portions I put in bold are truths that I honestly had no understanding of until just a few short weeks ago. One of the elders and I are studying Gal. 5. I had always thought that Gal 5 was commanding believers to put on the fruit of the Spirit - to "be holy as I am holy". This, however, only leads to moralism. We ourselves are unable to put on the fruit of the Spirit precisely because it is the Spirit's fruit. We are unable to bear such fruit ourselves. This is why moralism burns us out. Our responsibility in sanctification is not to bear fruit, but to abide in Christ just as branches must abide in the vine. If we look at the "holiest" men of church history, they are those people who have been most enamored with Christ. Augustine, John Calvin, Edwards, they all had a passion for Christ that totally consumed them. Because they desired Christ and loved Him, they were transformed more into His image.



Galatians 5 has had a deep impact on me, too. Another passage that transformed my understanding was Philippians 3. "I count all things as rubbish, that I may win Christ."


----------



## TaylorOtwell

Calvinist Cowboy said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tdowns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it fails to recognize the depravity of man, even in regeneration.
> 
> My understanding, is that on our holiest day, our righteousness is filthy rags, so we continue to rest in the work of Christ, both for our Justification and Sanctification...while the Wesleyan will trust in his own merit (infused with grace), and when it fails, will create elaborate veils of betrayal to self and world to maintain their guise of "holiness".
> 
> On my best day, I cling to the Life and Death of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said, the title should be called "The Pursuit of God". *To pursue God is to pursue holiness*, and that, In my humble opinion is the difference between Weslyen thinking and reformed thinking. Weslyen thinking is all about being holy. *Reformed thinking is all about knowing Christ*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love this! You hit the nail on the head! Those portions I put in bold are truths that I honestly had no understanding of until just a few short weeks ago. One of the elders and I are studying Gal. 5. I had always thought that Gal 5 was commanding believers to put on the fruit of the Spirit - to "be holy as I am holy". This, however, only leads to moralism. We ourselves are unable to put on the fruit of the Spirit *precisely* because it is the Spirit's fruit. We are unable to bear such fruit ourselves. This is why moralism burns us out. Our responsibility in sanctification is not to bear fruit, but to abide in Christ just as branches must abide in the vine. If we look at the "holiest" men of church history, they are those people who have been most enamored with Christ. Augustine, John Calvin, Edwards, they all had a passion for Christ that totally consumed them. Because they desired Christ and loved Him, they were transformed more into His image.
Click to expand...


Very encouraging - thanks.


----------

