WesleyGospel Ministries

GOSPEL PUBLISHING HOUSE (AG)

Ernest S. Williams, Systematic Theology.

Harold Horton, The Gifts of the Spirit.

PATHWAY PRESS (COG)

French Arrington, Christian Doctrine.

HARPERCOLLINS (VINEYARD) – Hardcovers

John Wimber, Power Evangelism.

—. Power Healing.

—. Power Points.

Richard J. Foster, Celebration of Discipline.

—. Prayer.

—. Streams of Living Water.

OTHERS

John Wimber, Power Encounters.

Rich Nathan, Empowered Evangelicals.

John Sherrill, They Speak With Other Tongues.

John Paul Jackson, The Biblical Model of Dream Interpretation.

Stephen Hill, Time to Weep.

Jeff Doles, Miracles and Manifestations In the History of the Church.

Dr. John R. Rice, Healing In Answer to Prayer.

Cecil Robeck, Charismatic Experiences In History.

Dr. Sam Storms, Understanding Spiritual Gifts.

Dr. Jack Deere, Why I Am Still Surprised by the Power of the Spirit.

Dr. Stanley Burgess, The Holy Spirit (3 vols).

Dr. Bernard McGinn, The Presence of God (7 vols).

Ronald Knox, Enthusiasm.

Adolphe Tanquerey, The Spiritual Life.

Augustin Poulain, The Graces of Interior Prayer.

Stanley Frodsham, With Signs Following.

Frank Bartleman, Azusa Street.

Herbert Thurston, The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism.

Jordan Aumann, Spiritual Theology.

—. Christian Spirituality in the Catholic Tradition.

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The Three Ages of the Interior Life.

George Mallone, Those Controversial Gifts.

R. Loren Sandford, Understanding Prophetic People.

Dr. Craig Keener, Gift and Giver.

—. Miracles (2 vols).

—. Miracles Today.

Ronald Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church.

Donald Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism.

Morton Kelsey, Encounter With God.

Angelo Pastrovicchi, Saint Joseph of Cupertino.

LaMar Boschman, The Rebirth of Music.

Archibald Alexander, Thoughts on Religious Experience.

H. Richard Casdorph, The Miracles.

David C. Lewis, Healing: Fiction, Fantasy, or Fact?

J. I. Packer, Keep In Step With the Spirit.

James Ryle, A Dream Come True.

Norman Russell, The Lives of the Desert Fathers.

Francis MacNutt, Overcome by the Spirit.

—. Healing.

—. Deliverance from Evil Spirits.

Guy Chevreau, Catch the Fire.

Charles Kraft, Christianity With Power.

Dr. Larry Martin, ed. “The Complete Azusa Street Library.”

Bruce Yocum, Prophecy.

Wayne Grudem, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?

Andrew Daunton-Fear, Healing in the Early Church.

Ronald Kydd, Healing Through the Centuries.

Gary Greig, ed. The Kingdom and the Power.

This was a hard read, but I felt like it solidified my views on the prophetic. This book is in a way the first and foremost authority on the subject of charismatic prophecy in Third Wave evangelicalism. Liberalism, universalism, and the New Age movement have no point of reference to the theological framework that Grudem is teaching from. Rather, he is a Baptist charismatic pastor with some background in the Vineyard church during John Wimber’s days (this book was originally published in 1988 and revised in 2000). The first endorsement on the back of the book is by Wimber, who says, “This conservative evangelical scholarly work gives a solid theological basis for further development of a practical theology of spiritual gifts.” This is a Vineyard book. An endorsement is also given by Stanley Horton, the foremost theologian in the Assemblies of God: “thorough, Biblical, and practical.” Grudem is addressing Reformed Christians (both cessationists and charismatics), Baptist charismatics, Vineyard people, Assemblies of God people, and non-denominational evangelical charismatics. He especially seems to be targeting pastors, because the substance of the book is about how charismatic prophecy is of a substantially lesser authority than the authority of Scripture. In fact, this seems to be the main theme of this 400 page tome. Personal prophecies are to be judged and evaluated by pastors and their churches by the standard of Biblical doctrine:

1 Thessalonians 5:19-21: “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good.” Churches are encouraged to be charismatic, to have prophets that have revelations, who then prophesy those revelations during church services, which are then supposed to be judged by those listening (or tested according to the Bible), and to hold fast to whatever was found to be good in such prophecies, and to reject what is bad or useless. Cessationists, who reject charismatic prophecy altogether, are found guilty of quenching the Holy Spirit’s activity in the church services. 1 Corinthians 14:29: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.” A maximum of three prophecies per church service is allowed, so that the rest of the time can be given to worship and Bible teaching (1 Cor. 14:26). The interpretation of tongues is a form of prophecy; and so this would also fall under the three-prophecies-per-church-service limit.

I disagree with Grudem about 1 Corinthians 14:30: “If anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.” Grudem interprets this to mean that personal charismatic prophecies were held to be so unimportant and so unauthoritative as to mean that if one prophet is sharing a revelation during a service, that the next prophet should stand up and actually interrupt the first prophet, and the first prophet should be okay with that, and not continue to prophesy the rest of his revelation (p. 59). I don’t see this at all being in agreement with doing things decently and in order or not in a spirit of confusion, for God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:40, 33). Adam Clarke actually agreed with Grudem’s view, and says “interrupt another” is the meaning of “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” in 14:32; but Wesley, in commenting on that verse, speaks against the idea of ecstatic prophecy (Grudem agrees with Wesley in ch. 5), saying that a frenzied, and uncontrollable ecstasy is the way of the pagan prophets, and not the way of the Christian prophets, who have total control over their rational faculties as they are sharing revelations with others (prophesying). But I agree with Matthew Henry against the view of Grudem and Clarke regarding 14:30. Henry says:

Indeed, it is by many understood that the former speaker should immediately hold his peace. But this seems unnatural, and not so well to agree with the context. For why must one that was speaking by inspiration be immediately silent upon another man’s being inspired, and suppress what was dictated to him by the same Spirit? Indeed, he who had the new revelation might claim liberty of speech in his turn, upon producing his vouchers; but why must liberty of speech be taken from him who was speaking before, and his mouth stopped, when he was delivering the dictates of the same Spirit, and could produce the same vouchers? Would the Spirit of God move one to speak, and, before he had delivered what he had to say, move another to interrupt him, and put him to silence? This seems to me an unnatural thought. Nor is it more agreeable to the context, and the reason annexed (1 Corinthians 14:31): That all might prophesy, one by one, or one after another, which could not be where any one was interrupted and silenced before he had done prophesying; but might easily be if he who was afterwards inspired forbore to deliver his new revelation till the former prophet had finished what he had to say. And, to confirm this sense, the apostle quickly adds, The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets (1 Corinthians 14:33); that is, the spiritual gifts they have leave them still possessed of their reason, and capable of using their own judgment in the exercise of them.

The practical conclusion to draw is that during a charismatic church service, everyone is sitting down. Then Prophet #1 stands up to share a prophecy; and as he is prophesying, it so happens that Prophet #2 gets a revelation while Prophet #1 is speaking. The course of action to be followed, would be for Prophet #2 to stand up so that Prophet #1 could see him, and get the cue that he had also received a revelation that needed to be shared. And out of humility and respect, Prophet #1 wraps up what he is trying to say (he gets to the point, and refuses to disclose the many details of his dream or vision); and then he sits down, and opens up the floor for Prophet #2 to start speaking. The same procedure should be followed if Prophet #3 gets a revelation and stands up. I’m pretty sure the early Quakers and the early Pentecostals followed this practice.

Female prophets (or prophetesses) are to remain subject to male leadership in the church. They are not to assume a Bible teaching position over men (because it carries the authority of God’s law) (1 Tim. 2:12); and they are to prophesy in a gentle, respectful manner that respects the men in the church (1 Cor. 11:5). Feminism and the Jezebel spirit should have no place in a Biblical evangelical charismatic church.

“Thus says the Lord” is advised against in modern charismatic prophecy, because that phrase carries with it the idea of the absolute, unquestioned authority of an Old Testament prophet. Such an authority Christian prophets simply do not have, but rather their prophecies are to be sifted, tested, judged, and evaluated; and if necessary, rejected. It is better to preface modern prophecies with something that conveys less certainty, more humility, and less authority; something that clearly communicates that what is going to be shared could possibly come from the Holy Spirit, but that the prophet fully understands it should be tested and judged by Scripture. Saying something like, “I feel like the Holy Spirit is saying…” is much safer language.

Grudem’s most mystical part of the book is chapter 5 (“The Source of Prophecies”), which was originally titled, “The Psychological State of the Prophet,” in ch. 2 of his more technical version called The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians. But I was actually not impressed too much. He spends most of his time teaching that prophecy is not ecstatic, which I think might be a stretch, seeing that Peter’s trance occurs in Acts 10:10. But I will admit that sharing a revelation (or the act of prophesying) is always possible while in a rational state of mind. Receiving a revelation, however, is a different story: and I think the Bible allows for some degree of ecstasy or trance during visions. Grudem mentions a few mild mystical experiences by name, and says these can be revelations: “words, thoughts, or mental pictures” (p. 110). Overall I was left unimpressed at his lack of teaching about these experiences, since there is such a lack of such experiences in the body of Christ. In all the 400 pages of this book, there is also no section on dream interpretation, which I saw as a real weakness. This made me think that Jack Deere’s Surprised by the Voice of God might be stronger in this area. In the whole book, nothing is mentioned about contemplative prayer either, which the Catholic saints used to see as the main way to hear the Holy Spirit and receive direct revelation (for direction on this, see Augustin Poulain’s The Graces of Interior Prayer). In the later 2000 edition, Grudem does briefly mention “intuition, ‘hunches,’ dreams, feelings of being led by the Holy Spirit” (p. 305).

It seems that Grudem’s favorite concept of direct revelation is that of random thoughts popping into people’s heads during a prayer meeting (pp. 142-143). He lends no great emphasis to dreams, visions, and their interpretation; which I see as a very great weakness: “If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream” (Num. 12:6). The Bible’s emphasis is on dreams and visions as the source of prophecies, not random thoughts in a rational frame of mind. I won’t discount random thoughts during concentrated prayer, but I just want to lay the emphasis on dreams and visions as the source of revelations and prophecies. Acts 2:17: “It shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams.” 1 Samuel 9:9: “Formerly in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, he spoke thus: ‘Come, let us go to the seer’; for he who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer.” Jim Goll (The Seer, p. 22) teaches that prophets more so hear God’s voice but seers more so have dreams and visions; but 1 Samuel 9:9 equates prophets and seers. A seer of dreams and visions is “now called a prophet” or spokesman for God. I think Grudem would have done better to emphasize the life of a Christian dreamer, how to experience more visions, and how to interpret dreams and visions with Biblical symbolism (as in Ira Milligan’s Understanding the Dreams You Dream).

1 Corinthians 14:3: “He who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.” In his book The Christian Prophet (1798), Adam Clarke defined edification to mean “building up the soul in the knowledge, love, and image of God”; exhortation: “calling the soul near to God” (James 4:8); comfort: to be Christian counseling, bringing assurance of salvation. George Fox, the Quaker leader saw Hebrews 3:15 (“Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts”) as an exhortation, or an urgent warning against sinning, backsliding, or apostasy (Journal, p. 185, year 1673). I believe that both Clarke and Fox are correct: a prophetic exhortation can be either just a calling of people to come closer to God; but it can also be a warning against apostasy, because by it people are warned against apostasy from God, and are automatically urged to come back to God. Any modern-day charismatic prophet that rejects such exhortations, or warning prophecies, is probably a false prophet who only flatters people and speaks smooth things (Isa. 30:10). But David Wilkerson’s The Vision, for example, contains all the elements of a truly Biblical charismatic prophecy: edifications, exhortations (both warnings and callings to God), and comforts.

Chapter 12 has some pretty strong arguments against cessationism; and maintains the charismatic continuationist view that the miraculous gifts will continue until the return of Christ.

On page 224, Grudem lists some books on prophecy that influenced this book, the most prominent was apparently Bruce Yocum’s Prophecy (1976) by a Catholic charismatic; I also feel drawn towards George Mallone’s Those Controversial Gifts (1983; Vineyard; I think this might be more of a dreams and visions theology). Further thinking on this made me want to overlook anything associated with Kenneth Hagin or any Word of Faith prosperity gospel preachers involved with prophecy, as that would probably be the spirit of Balaam (2 Peter 2:15; Jude 1:11). This would mean excluding John and Paula Sandford (The Elijah Task); and even John Paul Jackson (Understanding Dreams and Visions) and James Goll (The Seer), both of which speak favorably of Hagin. Although Sandford and Jackson were seers, I don’t think they purified their theology enough for me to feel one in spirit with them. I feel much more comfortable taking my dreams and visions theology from Ira Milligan.

Appendix A: “The Office of Apostle” argues that the apostolic ministry ceased with the death of the last of the twelve apostles. I would disagree with Grudem on this point. Grudem’s view is that the primary function of an apostle was to write Scripture (see also p. 314). But I don’t see the word “apostle” ever used this way in the New Testament. The word simply means “one sent.” There is no question that the original twelve apostles were special, because they had physically been with Jesus for His entire ministry (Acts 1:21-22); and as such, they had earned a special sense of authority to write Scripture that was recognized by the early church; but Grudem fails to notice that Luke, Mark, and Jude were also writers of Scripture and they were not part of the original apostolic band (neither was Paul). I do not believe that the original purpose and intent of the word “apostle” as we have it in Ephesians 4:11 could be transliterated into “Scripture writer.” The word “apostle” literally means “one sent” in the Greek. So, I agree with Jack Deere’s view, as he expresses it in Surprised by the Power of the Spirit in pages 241ff, that the calling of an apostle has not ceased, and in fact has continued throughout the history of the church, and may actually account for the lives of the saints, and various evidences of miraculous gifts in church history (as with St. Patrick who was called “the Apostle of Ireland,” St. Columba “the Apostle to the Picts,” or St. Benedict, St. Francis of Assisi, John Knox, George Fox, John Wesley, Charles Finney, William J. Seymour at the “Apostolic Faith Gospel Mission” where the Azusa Street Revival occurred and gave birth to the worldwide Pentecostal movement). What we have in these examples, I think, are what we have in Ephesians 4:11 in the word “apostles”: they were miraculously gifted missionaries and church founders, reformers, and revivalists, who began great revivals and spiritual movements. The whole history of evangelical revivalism, I believe, is seasoned with apostles (in of course, a much lesser sense of authority than the original twelve). It recent times, it might be appropriate to say that John Wimber and David Wilkerson were apostles.

Appendix C: “The Sufficiency of Scripture” states that no charismatic prophecy, whether written or verbal, should ever be considered on the same level of authority as the Bible (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19). Unlike the Apocrypha, or The Book of Mormon, which has a subtitle that says it is Another Testament of Jesus Christ…an evangelical charismatic prophecy will always present visions as subject to the careful judgment and evaluation of the church, as the Bereans who searched the Scriptures to see whether these things were so (Acts 17:11). Bill Wiese’s 23 Minutes in Hell, Rebecca Springer’s Within Heaven’s Gates, and David Wilkerson’s The Vision all fall into this category. Niether Wiese, nor Springer, nor Wilkerson would have ever dared to suggest that these books of theirs be added to the Bible! And they would have only asked people to believe what they were capable of believing, so long as they felt it agreed with the Bible, and that the Holy Spirit bore witness in their hearts to some thing they mentioned in their books.

APPENDICES ADDED FOR 2000 EDITION

Some of my favorite parts of the book are in this section.

Appendix 1: “Prophecy and Prophets” is a great overview of the book in a short, concise manner; its a great chapter-long overview of Biblical prophecy and the history of Biblical prophecy.

Appendix 2 argues that the “word of wisdom” and “word of knowledge” are not miraculous gifts, but are more natural talents of the Holy Spirit for Bible teaching and theology (this view was also held by Aquinas, Augustine, and Bunyan). But I disagree; and so did some of the church fathers. In the history of the church, there was never any full agreement about the proper use of these words. Cyril, Ambrose, and Tertullian all seemed to think they were supernatural; so do Assemblies of God and Vineyard theologians generally. Its hard for me to see the “manifestations of the Spirit” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:7-10 as anything other than a physical, visible, demonstrable miraculous gift. The word “manifestation” literally means revelation. “The revelations of the Spirit” is another way to say it. Grudem contends, however, that “prophecy” is the only proper word to use in this list for an utterance of supernatural knowledge. For all practical purposes, though, I think it is hair-splitting to do away with the phrase “word of knowledge” when someone wants to prophesy or speak of a prophecy. It’s just part of the established Pentecostal and charismatic lingo; and so, I say we should continue to use it.

Appendix 3 has some pretty straightforward statements against cessationism which are good to have around.

Appendix 5 is a good summary of the whole book’s message and theme.

Appendix 6 argues that the “foundation of apostles and prophets” in Ephesians 2:20 should be “the foundation of the apostles who are also prophets” (the twelve apostles); thus there is no need for normal prophets to cease in their continuing function in the church.

Appendix 7 is an amazing, extremely valuable section: “Some Evidence for the Existence of the Gift of Prophecy at Various Points in the History of the Church” shows that some of the Puritan theologians actually held to a cautiously charismatic point of view like the CMA or the Vineyard (such as in Samuel Rutherford’s A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist or Richard Baxter’s A Christian Directory or George Gillespie’s Treatise of Miscellany Questions or William Bridge’s “Scripture Light the Most Sure Light”), but he also mentions some reformers by name who were acknowledged by these godly theologians as Protestant saints who had sometimes experienced the gift of prophecy: George Wishart, John Knox, John Davidson, John Welsh (all mentioned in John Howie’s The Scots Worthies), and also John Huss, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, and Charles Spurgeon. (“Lawless enthusiasts” or carnal, antinomian, charismatic pretenders are also marked out, such as Anne Hutchinson.) To the list of true prophets, I would also add George Fox, John Wesley, Charles Finney, William J. Seymour, Smith Wigglesworth, John Wimber (with reservation), and David Wilkerson. This list for the most part, I would say, along with Rutherford, that they were “holy and mortified preachers,” and also prophets.

I woke the same
As any other day except a voice was in my head
It said, “Seize the day
Pull the trigger, drop the blade and watch the rolling heads”

The day I tried to live
I stole a thousand beggar’s change
And gave it to the rich, yeah
The day I tried to win
I dangled from the power lines
And let the martyrs stretch, yeah

Singin’ one more time around (I might do it)
One more time around (I might make it)
One more time around (I might do it)
One more time around (I might make it)
The day I tried to live, yeah

Words you say
Never seem to live up to the ones inside your head
The lives we make
Never seem to ever get us anywhere but dead

The day I tried to live
I wallowed in the blood and mud
With all the other pigs, hey

Singin’ one more time around (might do it)
One more time around (might make it)
One more time around (I might do it)
One more time around (I might make it)
The day I tried to live, yeah
I tried

I woke the same as any other day you know
I should have stayed in bed
Eh-hey

The day I tried to win
I wallowed in the blood and mud
With all the other pigs
And I learned that I was a liar
I learned that I was a liar
I learned that I was a liar
I learned that I was a liar

Singin’ one more time around (might do it)
One more time around (I might make it)
One more time around (might do it)
One more time around (I might make it)
The day I tried to live, live
Just like you
Just like you

One more time around (one more time around)
One more time around (one more time around)
–Soundgarden, “The Day I Tried To Live”–

—

Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
–Matthew 15:19 (NKJV)–

¹ After these things Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth. ² And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them. ³ So, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked; for by occupation they were tentmakers. ⁴ And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.
–Acts 18:1-4 (NKJV)–

Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.
–1 Peter 2:24 (NKJV)–

He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the Word.
–Ephesians 5:26 (NKJV)–

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
–Romans 12:2 (NKJV)–

Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.
–John 17:17 (NKJV)–

Leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God.
–Hebrews 6:1 (NKJV)–

Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
–2 Corinthians 7:1 (NKJV)–

I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts.
–Hebrews 8:10 (NKJV)–

⁴³ When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. ⁴⁴ Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. ⁴⁵ Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.
–Matthew 12:43-45 (NKJV)–

¹² Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. ¹³ Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, ¹⁴ I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
–Philippians 3:12-14 (NKJV)–

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
–Matthew 5:8 (NKJV)–

Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.
–2 Corinthians 6:17 (NKJV)–

Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
–James 4:4 (NKJV)–

Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.”
–1 Corinthians 15:33 (NKJV)–

No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
–1 Corinthians 10:13 (NKJV)–

⁹ I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. ¹⁰ Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
–1 Corinthians 5:9-10 (NKJV)–

The cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
–Revelation 21:8 (NKJV)–

My son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.
–Luke 15:24 (NKJV)–

—

Arthur Gish, Beyond the Rat Race (Herald Press, 1973).

Dr. John R. Rice, The Unequal Yoke (Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1946).

Richard Steele, The Religious Tradesman (Sprinkle Publications, 1989).

John Owen, The Mortification of Sin (The Banner of Truth Trust, 2004).

John Bunyan, The Holy War (Whitaker House, 2001).

Originally from here. Since I wrote this, I’ve come to believe that John Wesley did not teach sinless perfectionism in the same way holiness people do, who follow after eradicationists like Phoebe Palmer. –J.B.

In this Facebook dialogue, the Wesleyan perfectionist reveals not only that he is Marcionite in that he pits the words of Christ against Paul’s words in Romans 7:14-25, but also that he is a Pelagian like Charles Finney and A. B. Simpson, both of whom denied the doctrine of original sin. He rejects the Baptist view of progressive sanctification, because he thinks it’s just another example of antinomians making excuses for their sinful behavior. He puts all Baptists in the cult category along with the Mormons! He redefines sin by saying that sin is only sin if done by personal outward actions. To him, sinful thoughts are not really sins. By taking this view of sin, it becomes easier for him to hold to a perfectionist view of the Christian life. He rejects creeds, and theologians, and Puritans, and reformers, and sets himself up as the only reliable interpreter of Scripture. Even though in the beginning of the dialogue, I told him my view of sanctification entails Romans 8, he soon lost sight of that, and thought my view of original sin and sanctification were one and the same doctrine. He saw no light at the end of the tunnel in the Baptist view: just one heaping mass of sinfulness. I propose a fight against sin, with sin and holiness warring within the Christian, as the apostle Paul and the Puritans did. He proposes that there is little to no fight against sin required, because he denies that sinful thoughts really are sins in the proper sense. So he can get away with saying he does not sin–even if he thinks about sinful things–so long as he does not outwardly do anything sinful. Such was the doctrine of the Pharisees: who did only “clean the outside of the cup” (Matt. 23:25).

—

Perfectionist: “STOP SINNING! You can do it!”

Wesley Gospel: “I agree to a point: Romans 7 and 8.”

Perfectionist: “I simply agree with Jesus; and know He doesn’t command the impossible. Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.” The same as saying stop sinning. That settles it for me.”

Wesley Gospel: “True, but there’s a lot more thought that’s been communicated in the Scriptures than just that one sentence. The whole Word of God harmonizes. I hold to this view:

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, through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (Acts 20:32; Romans 6:5, 6; John 17:17; Ephesians 3:16-19; 1 Thessalonians 5:21-23; Romans 6:14; Galatians 5:24; Colossians 1:11; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Hebrews 12:14).

2. This sanctification is throughout the whole man, yet imperfect in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh (1 Thessalonians 5:23; Romans 7:18, 23; Galatians 5:17; 1 Peter 2:11).

3. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; 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 hath prescribed them (Romans 7:23; Romans 6:14; Ephesians 4:15, 16; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 7:1).”

–The 1689 Baptist Confession, ch. 13: “Of Sanctification”

Perfectionist: “This is a mere teaching of a denomination my friend and isn’t sound. Many teachings of the reformers are full of error. Thus their doctrines follow such error. Luther did some good things but was still no more than a reformed Catholic still in much of his practices. The 1689 Baptist Confession is full of Calvinistic theology. It’s filled with John Calvin’s false gospel my friend. The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, also called the Second London Baptist Confession, was written by Particular Baptists, who held to a Calvinistic soteriology in England to give a formal expression of their Christian faith from a Baptist perspective. This is not a Biblical perspective but rather a biased one.

Aligning ourselves with man-made creeds is departing from our Biblical duty to follow Christ’s doctrines and the foundation in which He laid. So I cannot agree with the TULIP doctrine found in the 1689 Baptist Confession. From the false doctrine of the sinful nature to once saved always saved. Baptists are no different than Mormons, Catholics, etc…why? Because they follow tradition over the Scriptures.

The original post here is what Jesus said. And again it’s cut and clear. I believe any kind of reasoning away from the cut and clear words of Christ is departing from Biblical truth and just man’s attempt at explaining away conviction to hold to one’s sinfulness. As most Calvinists, Baptists, and reformers do.”

Wesley Gospel: “Partly I’d say, but we got to use our heads and common sense too, right. There are Bible verses in that statement, and those Bible verses are just as much the Word of God as “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:7). I’m sure you’d agree that all Scripture is inspired by God, and not just the words of Jesus (2 Tim. 3:16). Marcionism was the heresy that said only Jesus’ words are inspired. I believe that Romans 7 teaches that our bodies have a sinful nature (flesh, Gr. sarx)–and especially an inclination to sexual immorality and other carnal lusts. I believe that the Holy Spirit is needed along with free will to fight against sin and resist temptation, but I believe the Word of God consistently teaches that there are limits to holiness. Time will always tell the truth of this one by experience. Free will can only push you so far in the direction of righteousness, until you finally burn out and break down, and realize that you need the grace of God through the cross again. That is, unless you redefine sin. If you can redefine sin into something that does not affect the thoughts, or if sinful thoughts or sinful feelings are not properly “sins”–which would be totally unbiblical, because Jesus spoke of sins of the heart–then yes I guess you could get to the point of believing that sinless righteousness or entire sanctification is possible in this life, like the Methodists used to. I for one think it’s an extreme doctrine, usually based on passages from 1 John, and that it does not make any sense. Law and grace my friend. It’s not an either-or: it’s a both-and!”

Perfectionist: “Yes, I believe all Scripture is inspired by God. Which is Jesus! Amen! So I don’t agree with Marcionism. In Romans 7, Paul was speaking of an unconverted Paul. If what he was teaching there was the same as he was claiming in Romans 6 and 8, then he is contradicting himself. Which I do not believe that’s the case, so the problem must be with a person’s interpretation.

When you say law and grace. Let me say this as the Scriptures teach. I’m crucified with Christ. Dead to the law and under grace, because sin has no dominion over me. If it does then I’m under the law. The law of sin and death and in need of repentance. The law was only a schoolmaster to show my unconverted state before God. A ministry of death that cannot save.

So back to the original post. Does Jesus command the impossible? NO. I know He doesn’t and I know His grace given to the humble is power of God over sin. I’m dead to sin or dead in sin. Sin is always a choice we as free moral beings can make for ourselves. It’s not a sickness that we have no control over. There is just a curse on it. If we don’t walk in the light, sin will rule over us. That’s why we need to surrender to Jesus and repent. Then He gives us the Holy Spirit to overcome.

Greater is He that’s in me! Sin has no dominion over me because I’m under grace. If sin did, then I would need to repent. Can I still sin? I could. But don’t know why I would, knowing how God feels about it. Those who love the Lord now hate evil and sin. I want a blessing, not a curse. So I will never hold to a doctrine that teaches I can never have true victory. Especially knowing Jesus won and destroyed the works of the flesh: so I don’t have to walk in the flesh or be controlled by the flesh. Die daily and you too can walk in a worthy, perfect manner before the Lord. Especially because we are supposed to have His Spirit. So I don’t see any excuse for sin other than pride and choosing so.”

Wesley Gospel:

“In Romans 7, Paul was speaking of an unconverted Paul.”

“I disagree. I’ve heard J—- M—— and a number of holiness street preachers say this. If this were talking of Paul in his unconverted state, before he became a Christian, then apparently he hadn’t learned how to distinguish between past tense and present tense grammar. Because in the part on the sinful nature in Romans 7, Paul is using present tense language to describe the sinful nature that wars against his desire to be holy. It’s true that he refers to himself in the past tense in Romans 7:7-13, and this was clearly referring to him in his unconverted state, and he there says the Ten Commandments pointed him to God. But things change in Romans 7:14-25: he says all of this in the present tense (as he is writing): “I am unspiritual” (v. 14), “what I hate I do” (v. 15), “I agree that the law is good” (v. 16), “as it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me” (v. 17), “I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature” and “I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out” (v. 18), “I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing” (v. 19), “if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it” (v. 20), “although I want to do good, evil is right there with me” (v. 21), “in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me” (vv. 22-23), “what a wretched man I am!” (v. 25), “I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin” (v. 26). All of this is in present tense language. If Romans 7:14-25 is not written in the present tense, then I do not know the meaning of words. It is because of this passage, and Paul’s present tense language of the sinful nature residing within him, alongside a desire to obey God’s law, is what makes me believe the Baptist view of sanctification is right, and the Wesleyan view–at least their sinlessness teaching–is wrong.”

Perfectionist: “Again my friend. Romans 6 and 8: there is a huge contrast to the letter that’s wrote. If you wanna believe you are like the Romans 7 Paul, that’s on you. I choose to agree with Jesus that it’s possible to go and sin no more. Especially having Christ’s Spirit within me. Baptists have many false doctrines that are not Biblical. And I’ve mentioned those above. The present tense sinfulness is all around us. Not in us! That’s false doctrine my friend, and a serious charge against God, making Him the author of our sin. Making Him unjust. Creating us in a way that we had no choice; and then punishing us for a nature we cannot control. You might wanna rethink your position.”

Wesley Gospel:

“In my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me” (Romans 7:22-23), “what a wretched man I am!” (v. 25).

“Present tense…in him…in us…J—-, if you’re honest with yourself and God, you have sinful thoughts every week! The frequency of them is known only to you. I don’t need to rethink my position. I think like the Word of God thinks. I think what it tells me to. I also observe my experience. I use my common sense. Paul is not talking in the past tense. Paul is not talking about sin being around him, but inside of him, along with the desire for holiness. This is reality for a Christian. And I think it is pretentious–that it’s pretending, making a mockery out of Christianity–to think any Christian can constantly live above the sinful nature like the holiness people say. Some of them say there is no sinful nature, like Charles Finney. I look at these people and I shake my head. What a mass of nonsense and playing with words and semantics! When they know in their hearts how unclean they truly are, even as they fight and fight against their sinful inclinations. What a mass of dishonesty Wesleyan perfectionism truly is; and also a breeding ground for authoritarianism, because it makes people hold others, namely children, to unreasonable expectations. Neither does the doctrine of original sin require Supralapsarianism, as you suggest. God is not to blame for my sinful nature, Adam and Eve are: it is genetically inherited through the fall from our fallen ancestors. God created them innocent and sinless, but they sowed sinfulness into the gene pool after they ate the fruit. That’s why God warned them against it, saying they would “surely die” if they ate the fruit (Gen. 2:17). God did not create my sinful nature or yours. That would be Adam and Eve’s fault. Just like heart disease runs in my family. I need to eat healthy; and I need to be on guard against high blood pressure, because two of my grandparents had it. I have acid reflux because my mom had it. If sickness can be transmitted by genes, then of course the inclination to sin can be as well.”

Perfectionist: “Look man. If you are in Christ you should be dead to the law of sin and death. Dead to the flesh. Sin is always around us yes, in the actions of the lost, and the world. A sinful society and satanic influences. Yes temptation can come, but we have ways to escape, and do not have to give in. Sin is a choice. If you wanna believe you’ll always have sin in your life reigning inside you, then that’s on you. That’s not my experience, nor what I see being taught by the Scriptures. I cannot help you. If you can’t read right after Romans 7:25, and into Romans 8, to see the error in your interpretation, then I cannot help you. The carnal mind is at enmity with God; and those who walk in the flesh cannot please God, nor understand what the Scriptures are saying. A bad thought alone isn’t a sin until conceived. It should be taken captive unto the obedience of Christ and cast out. Set your mind on things above, and fill it with God’s Word, and you’ll find you have no room for such thoughts with the armor of God on. A helmet of salvation in which the fiery darts of Satan cannot control your mind. Forget Paul for a moment. WHAT DID JESUS SAY! GO AND SIN NO MORE. There really is nothing more to say. You either believe Him or not. Because I assure you that Paul believes Him. (Shaking my head.) The Scriptures say death passed on unto all men, not sin. You are in error my friend. Think wrong, live wrong. Sinners live sinful lives; and excuse their sin by believing in a false doctrine of the sinful nature inherited from Adam. The Scriptures don’t teach that unless you are reading a false translation. Again death passed on from Adam, not sin. The consequences for sin have always been death. No one inherits the guilt of another. The Baptists’ teachings have deceived you my friend. Perhaps you sent the wrong guy a Friend Request and this ain’t gonna work.”

Wesley Gospel: “You err by pitting Christ against Paul, making the Bible contradict itself, showing your position to be a confused one. I do read Romans 8, as well as 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, etc, which are all about using the Holy Spirit to fight against sin. You said, “A bad thought alone isn’t a sin.” Oh yes it is! There are many references to this in the Bible, the most notable being Jesus’ teaching about adultery (Matt. 5:28). As I said previously, I agree with the Baptist confession on sanctification. Never minding whatever other things they said. I believe they have a truly honest and balanced view of all the issues involved in Biblical sanctification. I make no excuses for sinful behavior other than admitting all people have an inbred sinful nature from Adam. To deny the doctrine of original sin is Pelagianism. That is a heresy. Not even John Wesley did that; and he was the theologian that developed the doctrine of entire sanctification that you hold to (see his sermon “Original Sin” where he spends most of his time proving the sinful nature of man inherited from Adam, but on 3.5 he begins to suggest that entire sanctification is possible in this life as a cure-all for original sin: so unlike a Pelagian, who denies the existence of original sin, Wesley implies that the original sin nature can actually be extinguished by entire sanctification through Bible study and Holy Spirit regeneration). The sinful nature is not inherited guilt, but it’s an inherited inclination to do evil. My hope for you, in me saying all these things, is that you would change your mind. Although I’m an Arminian, I don’t think that holiness people are right about everything. Although I agree with the Baptists and Presbyterians on sanctification, I don’t think Calvinists are right about everything either. But I do believe that the Bible is always right; and we need to use our common sense when we’re using it.”

— 

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

After I published this debate on a Facebook group for street preachers, my debater made some concluding remarks. 

1. He stated that Romans 7 is an exhortation to holy living–not a justification for being sinful. I completely agree with this. How he lost sight of that in our debate shows me how unreasonable holiness people can be with their perfectionist doctrine; and how tunnel vision can make them dismiss all of the relevant issues bearing on the complicated subject of sanctification.

2. “You cannot be led by the Spirit of God following doctrines of Calvinism.” He then quotes 2 Peter 3:16 as support for this: implying that all Calvinists are unlearned and unstable and they twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. Even though I am not a Calvinist, and he knows that, my acceptance of the Puritan doctrine of sanctification was enough for him to put me in the same damnation category. The Scots Worthies by John Howie might contest with my debater’s view: all the Scottish reformers were Calvinists and the paranormal evidence of the Holy Spirit permeates their life stories. The Great Awakening, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit there, all happened under the preaching of Jonathan Edwards, who happened to be a Calvinist preacher. I am not a Calvinist. I am a Wesleyan-Arminian, but that doesn’t mean that I need to accept Wesley’s erroneous teaching on entire sanctification. The same can be said of the Free Will Baptists and the Assemblies of God.

3. He pits Romans 7 and Romans 8 against one another. It does not make sense to him in any way that a Christian can have conflicted feelings about holiness. For him, it’s like a light switch: it’s either on or off. You’re either good or evil. Even though I quoted Romans 7:14-25 in its entirety to him, showing plainly that Paul is struggling in the present tense, as of writing, with a combination of unholy and holy feelings inside of himself…my debater cannot come to this point for himself. It’s just too confusing for him to accept such a complicated view of the human condition as a saved Christian man. It has to be a Bible translation problem or an interpretation problem. Why would God command holiness if people have original sin in their bodies? He also sees this as a slight against God’s character. He says, “It’s clear reading comprehension isn’t your thing. As you have twisted words I said, into your own understanding, out of context. Much like you do the Scriptures. Shame on you.” Manners sir, manners! But I forgive him though. Theological debates aren’t easy to do; and they will test the tempers of anyone. But seeing that this is coming from a man who is claiming sinless entire sanctification, I would think his remarks would have had more of the character of “the love of God” which is “shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 5:5). Instead, I get a reaction of arrogant pride, obstinacy, lacking all grace, at the sight of exposure, being proven wrong, exposing circular reasoning tautologies and unreasonable thinking patterns. Debates can bring out the worst in all of us, which seem to prove the doctrine of original sin, as I have been asserting.

4. He says I’m deceived and that I’m cherry picking with the denominational doctrine of Baptist sanctification. While I don’t think I’m deceived, he’s got a point by saying I’m cherry picking. When looking at different theological perspectives, we all have to pick the view that makes the most sense to us, don’t we? He has picked the Wesleyan view of sanctification, whether he’s aware of it or not. I have picked the Reformed view of sanctification, because it makes the most sense to me. There’s nothing wrong with that. For more about this, see Five Views on Sanctification edited by Stanley Gundry.

5. He resents the label of perfectionist and condemns me for saying so. I can understand that, for two reasons: 1. Nobody likes to be the recipient of name-calling, but in a theological debate, it is necessary to make distinctions for the sake of clarity. He says I am prideful for calling him this name; and that I am utterly a fool. 2. He says that I am bothered by his talk of holiness and obedience to Christ–that I hate holiness and obedience to God so much in fact, that now I have been moved to slander him, a fellow brother in Christ with the label of perfectionist. He then says that I am a sinner, unlike himself, and that by holding to the Reformed view of sanctification, and refuting his Wesleyan view, that I am only “seeking to justify myself.” He then says that he hopes that I repent from holding to the Baptist view of sanctification–clinging to their creed on sanctification–over and above the Word of God. What can I say to all of this? Only that I must have hurt his feelings with my perfectionist label, which I am partly sorry for, but not entirely: because as of the writing, that is exactly what he is: a perfectionist. He believes in sinless perfection. I am not bothered by talk of holiness, only by his perfectionist false doctrine of holiness. That I am bothered by. I am partially encouraged that he appears to be so zealous to obey the Word of God, but also disheartened that he has lowered the standard of righteousness by saying that sinful thoughts are not actually sins. In my view, the Baptists actually have a stricter view of holiness than this holiness preacher has, because they acknowledge the psychological conflict of sanctification. Whereas, this man makes it sound like its no problem. His arrogant boastfulness–of which I’ll admit I am guilty of ten thousand times more in matters of theology–is a sign to me that he has a sinful nature just like I do. The Holy Spirit has not eradicated or annihilated sin in his heart. He’s merely confused about the Bible teaching on holiness and how to understand his Christian life. I think his heart actually could be in the right place, and that he is probably saved–even though he doubts my salvation–but I see his main problem being an intellectual one. He is merely confused mentally about the nature of sanctification.

Great preaching on the sinfulness of sin and the depravity of the human heart;
and man’s need for the cross of Jesus.
–J.B.–

Pull right this way a little to the left
Leave your keys here and go read a book
I know what you are all about
And I am here to clean you out

You don’t need to stop before I’m finished
This will only take about ten minutes
Clear, coming down

Are you willing to be free, you’re in the place to be
It’s time to replace your dirt and grit
Shut up and let me do it (John 8:36; 1 John 1:9)

Why did you come if you don’t get clean
Your miles are up leave it here with me
You don’t go five miles and just break down
Don’t move at all and let me go to town

You don’t need to stop before I’m finished
This will only take about ten minutes
Is 10W-30 okay?

Are you willing to be free, you’re in the place to be
It’s time to replace your dirt and grit
Shut up and let me do it

You don’t need to stop before I’m finished
This will only take about ten minutes
Thank you, come again

Are you willing to be free, you’re in the place to be
It’s time to replace your dirt and grit
Shut up and let me do it
–Disciple, “10 Minute Oil Change”–

—

Charles Spurgeon, “An Unalterable Law.”