Black below is resultant form of “from the text” section (plus selections of setup material) of 2 Cor commentary plus SS use, recorded here for possible future consideration and re-writing in the form of a theological essay. Red are questions defined future work including attention to the papers from the previous global conference. Scripture is in red type as well.
Current Reflections on the Holiness Tradition
“We have this ministry”
“perfecting holiness” 2 Corinthians 6:4—7:16
Introduction
Steve M: “the living faith of the dead”?
So back to 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 as we remember its sandwich character, the theological steak between the whole wheat slices of personal reconciliation and warmth:
1. An Appeal for Fellowship (6:11-13)
11We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. 12We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. 13As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your hearts also.
An Exhortation to Holy Living (6:14—7:1)
14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people. 17"Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." 18"I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." 7:1Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.
3. Renewed Appeal for Fellowship (7:2-4)
2Make room for us in your hearts. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have exploited no one. 3I do not say this to condemn you; I have said before that you have such a place in our hearts that we would live or die with you. 4I have great confidence in you; I take great pride in you. I am greatly encouraged; in all our troubles my joy knows no bounds (NRSV).
The Coming of Titus (7:5-7) The Repentance of the Church (7:8-13a) The Experience of Titus in Corinth (7:13b-16)
. First, pastor and people are to cultivate an atmosphere of mutual openness and love (6:11-13), second, pastor and people are to maintain a relationship of trust and confidence in each other (7:2-16), [these two were of course expanded in the commentary] and third, pastor and people are to devote themselves as one to holiness of heart and life (6:14-7:1). We saw that the first two surround the third, and the third is at the heart of the integrity of the first two. So it is on this third apostolic concern, holiness of heart and life, that we will focus our attention today:
1.
Set the 2 Corinthians’ context. It is fascinating, and certainly theologically significant, that placed between passages dealing with the integrity of relationships within the church is a passage about the integrity of the church as “the temple of the living God” (6:16), people in whose individual lives and in whose corporate fellowship the holy God seeks to live: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people” (v 16). If nothing else this means that the call of God to holiness of life and heart is of utmost and decisive importance for us as the people of God. Without the reality of what biblical holiness means, the mutual openness, love, trust, and confidence that characterizes the Church as the Church of God becomes impossible. So it is imperative that we examine the apostolic presentation of the call to holiness. Reread “in the text” section (detailed exgesis) on this passage.
2.
Verses 14-18 tell us that it is a call from something and a call to something—from unethical and immoral living to ethical and moral living, from a clouded vision to an enlightened vision, from the domination of Satan to the lordship of God in Christ, from unbelief and doubting to belief and trust—all summed up as from the worship of our false gods to all of life placed within the very sanctuary of God. Simply put, as Christians we are to be done with all forms of idolatry that confront us in so many guises, those aspects of our lives that take the rightful place of God and contradict the “clean” or holy character of God: “touch no unclean thing.” William Barclay points out that “in first century Corinthian culture to be a Christian could mean that a person gave up their trade, or social life, or even family ties”(Barclay 1956, 248) as is tragically so true in some areas of the world today. Profoundly put, we are privileged to live in the assurance that we are God’s people, his sons and daughters, with whom he lives and walks as our Father. The motivation to respond to such a call is double, “from” and “to”—a deliverance and a gift!
3. [From commentary “in the text’ As the Scottish Presbyterian scholar James Denney wrote over a century ago, “the prompt decisive side” of a holy life is represented in let us cleanse ourselves and the its patient laborious side in perfecting holiness in the fear of God (Denney, 1894, 776). Although the focus of the appeal is not on a second crisis in sanctification as such, the actualization of the holiness ethic certainly presupposes a crisis or definitive point along the Christian journey. To be holy means first and primarily that we belong to God. The moral and ethical demand of this relationship is determined by our conception of God, and the extent of our surrender to the enabling power of his life within. The latter needs at some stage to be decisive and clear, a point when we fully repent of our self-sufficiency in things spiritual, a “crisis” moment when we finally allow grace to be truly grace in our living, whether we are fully aware of it or not.]
In 7:1 Paul gives us criteria by which to judge what the “unclean thing” is for us in our walk with God. The apostle states it clearly, “everything that contaminates body and spirit” or “all defilement of flesh and spirit” (NASB). Two things are obvious; holiness is a matter of both the inner and the outer life, what we do with and to our all too human bodies, and what we allow to fester in our thought, motive, and feeling lives. Our whole persons and the wholeness of our living are involved—flesh and spirit are both to be kept clean! Equally obvious is the test we apply throughout the day. As I seek to live moment by moment in the presence of God, does this action or thought defile or contaminate me, does it harm me physically, does it darken my mind and heart? Biblically put, does our heart condemn us (1 John 3:20)? Am I left feeling small, dirty, or estranged? If so, then it is a thing, a thought, an attitude, an action, an emotion not to be touched, not to be given admission, rather to be denied any continuing access, no longer allowed to influence our living. This kind of living Paul expresses as “perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.”
This implies that the call to holiness is a decisive call to life-long transformation of life as anticipated in 3:18: “we . . . are being transformed into his likeness with ever increasing glory.” The Benedictines speak here of the continuing “conversion of life” (conversatio morum). Holiness is obviously then ethically progressive, but as the use above of the term “decisive” suggests, is it not also relationally definitive, an intentionally established relationship with a holy God within which we live from henceforth? The Wesleyan heritage speaks of a divine act of entire sanctification that takes place “subsequent to regeneration,” popularly conceived in the holiness tradition as a distinct second work of grace. Much of this language and its accompanying emphasis has largely disappeared in any distinctive sense from the proclamation of the Wesleyan churches in lieu of a renewed attention on the spiritual disciplines, that is, “process” has for the most part overwhelmed “crisis” in the ecclesiastical life of the heritage. Insert or use footnote in the text? The word “subsequent” appears to be still alive in the minds of some but is it defined biblically or even theologically in any unique or definitive sense, or just as one among several moments or experiences in the process of “perfecting holiness” in the Christian life?
The holiness movement as it emerged from the 19th century, having assimilated the influence of the teaching and ministry of Phoebe Palmer (1807-1874) among other influences, narrowed the Wesleyan emphasis on Christian perfection down to a “faith formula” experience—follow the formula and receive an experience to which an assuring witness is borne by the Holy Spirit! But often there were “several” experiences reported in the search or on the way to the “settled” experience. In the minds of holiness theologians and preachers it appears to have become less “an experienced theology” than it was a “theologized experience” or a theology of experience as they attempted to ground the camp meeting experience of a “second work” in precise theological definitions and specific biblical texts, that is, to define a normative structure of religious experience. The quality of spiritual life and conduct was now expected to vindicate the somewhat crystallized formula of what had taken place in the believer’s heart. But these expectations did not always fully materialize or endure both in the inner lives of those who professed the experience and in the minds of those who observed their outer lives. So a rethinking and reformulation of the Wesleyan heritage began to take place in the 20th century due to many factors including (1) the advance of the discipline of psychology, (2) the emphasis on the more dynamic and relational nature of Scripture, and (3) the renewed study of the writings of John Wesley in the light of the insights and concerns of 20th century theology. The traditional formula was found wanting by many psychologically, biblically, theologically, and even historically! Is this paragraph accurate? Does it need a larger, more detailed sketch? Reread the “revisioning” papers.
Interestingly, Phoebe Palmer, who certainly contributed to the formulaic expression of the Wesleyan emphasis on “entire sanctification” and is easy for some of us to blame for the naïve simplicity of the formula as it entered the 20th century, may still help us in our concerns. Elaine A. Heath in her “The Via Negativa in the Life and Writing of Phoebe Palmer” attempts to show how apophatic mysticism impacted her theology and experience. Phoebe Palmer’s own path to spiritual satisfaction was a long and difficult struggle, with the solution coming with the exercise of faith in continuity with the apophatic tradition of spirituality. Thus the foundation of her spirituality and her most effective ministry was based in an informed and definitive exercise of faith, not primarily in an emotional experience. Reread article and continue to understand and document PP. E-mail Raser for opinion on article. See Denys Turner, The Darkness of God: Negativity in Christian Mysticism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Heath writes that Phoebe Palmer “entered into quietness of soul by means of the via negativa, rather than through kataphatic experiences of having her heart ‘strangely warmed’ as John Wesley did, or some other affective experience.” The point is that there is something about our 19th century holiness heritage, a baby that we dare not throw out with the bath, that is, a decisive, all-influencing, and uniquely defined moment, a stake driven down if you please, that determines the direction and straightness of the furrows we plow in the field of our subsequent Christian stewardship. Our heritage includes both the Wesleyan revival and the American Holiness Movement and any credible “rethinking or “revisioning” for our day must take in the authentic elements of both traditions. I was in part reacting to Rob’s paper here. Need to re-read it at this point. Further, Is the line of thought in the two preceding paragraphs helpful in my concern “not to throw the baby out with the bath,” and if so does it need more work in the Phoebe and the apophatic tradition?
4.
Then how do we define this biblical and relationally definitive faith-moment that sets the course for the progressive transformation of the Christian into the likeness of Christ? The context (6:14-18) indicates that Paul is speaking decisively in 7:1 with the aorist (punctiliar) tense, “let us cleanse ourselves” in a faith commitment to a life of “perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (NASB). We are aided in our definition by taking a clue from John Wesley with a “holiness hermeneutic” that works from “the privilege of grace to the crisis of faith.”
The biblical presentation of holiness or the sanctification of life as applied to persons is essentially a quality of life flowing from the grace of God in Jesus Christ. The Scriptures are concerned in hierarchical order first, with sanctification as a grace relationship to God in Jesus Christ, second, with sanctification as an ethic or response in life enabled by the Holy spirit consistent with the nature of that relationship, and third with sanctification as a faith-decision through which one enters into a perfected, or thorough-going grace relationship to the Christ of the cross and the resurrection. The biblical materials are to be interpreted and applied from the nature and privilege of the life in grace to the experiential need of some kind of a decisive “faith-crisis” for its full realization in day-to-day discipleship. The primary necessity for the “crisis” flows from the gospel’s presentation and call to the life of grace, the holy life. As we have seen, this approach is fully applicable to the Pauline text at hand: “Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God” (7:1).
As a fruitful holiness hermeneutic, “the privilege of grace to the crisis of faith” can be applied throughout the biblical record from the great commandment (Deut 6:4-5; Mark 12:28-31) to the Johannine presentation of “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) as they give biblical integrity to John Wesley’s crucial definition, “love excluding sin.” We will, however, confine ourselves here to two illustrations from Paul’s writings, the firs being somewhat grammatical, and the second more theological. First, the Pauline use of the indicative and imperative moods has been pressed by some interpreters to depict distinctly the two traditional crises. A careful study of the classic passage, Romans 6:1-14, suggests that it too falls better under the above hermeneutic:
What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
[Read new commentary on Romans by Greathouse/Lyons on Romans 6.] First the argument of the passage is primarily expositional in its intention rather than an exhortation to a specific situation in the Church. Second the positive imperative in 6:13, “present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life” (see 12:1), appears to be essentially a defining of the ethical response to a privilege of grace already experienced (vv 3-11). So basic to and an essential part of the full working out of the imperative in ethical life is a quality of relationship that needs to be realized in a second definite decision of faith. The experiential and theological reality of this second crisis is potentially included in the call of verses 10-11 that summarizes the previous indicatives and brings them to a decisive conclusion: “The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.” A conscious faith-identification with Christ in his death and resurrection (vv 3-10) in a full or decisive sense is one biblical way of defining the crisis of entire sanctification. I think this section needs expansion and more precise clarification. I need what you did with it.
In the following am I too much out of sync with newer and more accurate (?) understandings of Paul? Is legalism any longer a credible charge? Second is Paul’s theology of law and flesh in contrast to grace and Spirit. These four Pauline categories open up a way of understanding a second crisis theologically as well as some possibilities for articulating it psychologically. A helpful way to see this is to apply these categories to a text in Acts informed by the law and grace struggles of the Early Church and directly related to the disciples’ experience of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. In the context of the Jerusalem council Peter speaks in Acts 15:8-9 about the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Roman centurion Cornelius and his household (10:34-48):
“And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith” (NASB).
There were those in the Church who wanted to compromise the freedom of the gospel of grace by a return to circumcision and the Law of Moses (15:1, 5). The Church met at Jerusalem to solve the issue and Peter brings the experience of his ministry to Cornelius to bear on the problem.
In its literary context Peter’s speech functions as a miracle-authenticated call to discipleship in terms of the understanding of the gospel as experienced and understood in the Gentile mission. Peter saw in the miracle of the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48) the evidence that the nature of everyone’s relationship to God is one of unadulterated grace: “We believe that we [Jews] are saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus, in the same way as they [Gentiles] also are” (NASB; 15:11). From this perspective the cleansing of the heart by faith is understood theologically as that operation of the Holy Spirit in our Christian lives that cleanses our hearts all the way to grace.
This cleansing action of the Holy Spirit in the heart, to interpret in Pauline language, has primary reference to the issues of law and grace in salvation (see vv. 1, 5, 11). The “cleansing” of the heart is from all reliance on any human legalism to an utter dependence upon divine grace in salvation, from any confidence in the power of the flesh to a single trust in the presence of the Spirit for spiritual adequacy. Potentially to be “filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4) can be understood as having been brought by the cleansing presence of the Spirit all the way to grace in one’s relation to God and fellow-persons as a Christian.
Now back to Paul. His four categories of spiritual life—law, flesh, grace, Spirit—that figure so prominently in the letters of Galatians and Romans, are set forth theologically in the following chart on “Paul and Spiritual Existence.”
PAUL & SPIRITUAL EXISTENCE GALATIANS, ROMANS G L JUSTIFICATION------------------LIBERTY---------------SANCTIFICATION BY FAITH LIFE AS RELEASE OF LIFE R I
A F SPIRIT C E E
FREEDOM---------SONSHIP ASSURANCE---RESPONSIBILITY GALATIANS 2:20 SLAVERY ANXIETY
L D FLESH (Galatians 3:3) A E LICENSE LEGALSIM LIFE AS GUILT LIFE AS BURDEN W A T SIN AS DISOBEDIENCE SIN AS UNBELIEF SELF INDULGENCE SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS H
A few comments about the above chart relating it to the process of Christian experience will clarify our perspectives. The top half of the chart denotes a grace-Spirit existence and the bottom half a law-flesh existence. The left half of the chart raises the issue of freedom in spiritual life and the right half the concern of ethical responsibility. Often as new-born Christians in our quest for a holy life, having begun in the upper left-hand corner with the freedom of justification by faith, we seek to fulfill the ethical responsibilities of the Christian calling by moving at least in part to the lower right-hand corner: “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (NASB; Galatians 3:3). The hard fact is, as most of us have proven in our own attempts at spiritual responsibility, that somewhere in the early stages of our Christian lives we have sought, usually somewhat unaware of what we are doing, to please God partly in reliance on our own strength and wisdom—the flesh. Then on down the road after few or many embarrassing failures and the resulting struggles, the Holy Spirit begins to open our eyes to the nature of the problem, and invites us to “give up” on ourselves and make Him our sole source of spiritual power. This moment of repentance, acceptance, commitment, surrender, consecration (use your own term), may be viewed as the faith-crisis of entire sanctification. It takes place when we finally move in faith-commitment to the cross of Christ cleanly from a flesh-dependent existence with its “license-legalism” pendulum to a Spirit-dependent existence into that true realm of “liberty” where sanctification of life can become a way of life!
This does not mean that there will not be moments of “sin improperly so-called” or perhaps even of “sin properly so-called,” when in a moment of physical and psychical weakness, carelessness, anxiety, ego-threat or spiritual leanness, that we will not fail of the Christlikeness of attitude and behavior that we so much desire. But it does mean that when those moments do occur we are fully aware of the issue at stake, that in that moment we relied on ourselves—the flesh in its strength and wisdom, and not on the presence of Another—the Spirit of Christ in our lives. So I find these four categories, as elucidated by Paul, implicit in the Acts account, illustrated in the history of the Church, and experienced in my own walk with the Lord theologically satisfying as I attempt to do biblical justice to my own heritage.
Conclusion
The above is meant as primarily a “theology of Christian experience” rather than as an attempt to develop “a psychology of Christian experience.” Described is what the full faith-apprehension of the privilege entails rather than the chronological process that leads into it. Then to speak psychologically or experientially out of this theologically defined context, the second crisis of entire sanctification can then be defined as that moment in one’s Christian pilgrimage when the Holy Spirit leads one all the way to grace, when in a moment of conscious faith-commitment one decisively and once for all shifts from all reliance on human strength and wisdom in “Christian” living to a sole dependence on the Spirit of Christ for a holy life, from a confused and partially flesh-based spiritual life to a full commitment to a Spirit-grounded existence. Again this may take place almost without awareness in an obedient walk with Christ, as well as in a moment of deep struggle of soul.
Thus if it is properly qualified, biblically, theologically and psychologically, there can be a point in our Christian walk that can reasonably be called “second,” perhaps one even more definite than the adjective “subsequent” implies. This is a decisive and faith moment or decision when the foundation for all subsequent Christian life is clearly and decisively laid that determines once for all the direction, motivation and source of our spiritual living. This is a stake driven down in heart, mind, and will as our final appeal. As to how the Holy Spirit leads us to and through this point is an open question, but we will know its reality when we have arrived. To this quality of relation and life the apostolic ambassador of Christ called the Corinthians, and to this the true minister of the gospel, the spiritual father of a people, will faithfully call his children. This is the apostolic, indeed the divine, call to holiness that is at the heart of the Wesleyan heritage.
References
Carver, Frank G. “Biblical Foundations for the ‘Secondness’ of Entire Sanctification,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22.2 (Fall 1987), 7-23. Carver, Frank G. The Cross and the Spirit: Peter and the Way of the Holy. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 2nd ed., 1987. Carver, Frank G. “Preparing to Preach from Acts 15:6-11,” The Preacher’s Magazine. September, October, November, 1978, 30ff. Dunning, H, Ray. “Introduction,” in H. Ray Dunning and Neil B. Wiseman, eds., Biblical Resources for Holiness Preaching: From Text to Sermon (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1990), 17-18. Elaine A. Heath, “The Via Negativa in the Life and Writing of Phoebe Palmer,” Wesleyan Theological Journal Volume 411, Number 2, Fall, 2006, 87-111. Howard, Richard E. “The Epistle to the Galatians,’ Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1965, 23, 90, 93, 111. Howard, Richard E.“Some Modern Interpretations of the Pauline Indicative and Imperative,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, Volume 11, Spring 1976, 34-48. Manual, Church of the Nazarene. Kansas City, Missouri: Nazarene Publishing House, 2005. Oden, Thomas C., ed., Phoebe Palmer: Selected Writings, Sources of American Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1988. Outler, Albert E., ed., The Works of John Wesley, Volume 2: Sermons II, 34-70. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985, 160. Raser, Harold E. Phoebe Palmer: Her Life and Thought. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1987. Sing to the Lord (Kansas City, Missouri: Lillenas Publishing Company, 1993. Staples, Rob L. “Sanctification and Selfhood: A Phenomenological Analysis of the Wesleyan Message,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, Volume 7, Spring, 1972, 4-8. Williams, Rowan. Teresa of Avila. New York: Continuum, 1991. Should I document all the exegetical studies? What about using my John of the Cross study in the Tower?
Don’t forget Denys Turner, The Darkness of God: Negativity in Christian Mysticism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
2 Corinthians 7:1. An Apostolic Introduction, 1:1-11 The Apostolic Ministry, 1:12—7:16: A. Paul Reveals His Intentions, 1:12—2:17 Paul Characterizes His Ministry, 3:1—6:10 Paul Has Confidence in the Church, 6:11-7:16 The Grace of Christian Giving, 8:1—9:1 Vindication of Paul’s Authority, 10:1—13:14
Manual, Church of the Nazarene (Kansas City, Missouri: Nazarene Publishing House, 2005), 34. These concerns could be discussed as well in relation to initial conversion for many of us were not fortunate enough to have a neat unmistakable crisis in which to ground even our first coming to Christ. In class my co-teacher, Herbert Prince, gave a more detailed sketch of the the 19th century holiness movement. In relation to a “work of grace” accomplished in the heart of the believer the formula is to consecrate, believe, and to testify that it is done, often called “altar theology” in reference to Phoebe Palmer. My observations come in part from testimonies given as recently as February 2007 from those who were nurtured in the holiness movement as 19th century emphases continued throughout the 20th century. I had Greahouse’s and Benefiel’s papers in mind here. See H. Ray Dunning, “Introduction,” in H. Ray Dunning and Neil B. Wiseman, eds., Biblical Resources for Holiness Preaching: From Text to Sermon (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1990), 17-18. See also Rob L. Staples, “Sanctification and Selfhood: A Phenomenological Analysis of the Wesleyan Message,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, Volume 7 (Spring, 1972), 4-8. The Hymn “Glorious Freedom,” Sing to the Lord (Kansas City, Missouri: Lillenas Publishing Company1993), 505, sang in church today, breathes the expectations of the 19th century holiness ethos, as do most of Lillenas’ hymns.. Manual,16, 18. Simply put, apophatic is “the negative way” in contrast to kataphatic, “the positive way,” that is, the absence or presence of feeling and/or intellectual perception in the progress of spiritual life. In theology the constrast is between describing God in negative terms or in positive language, that is, “what God is not” over against “what God is.” Elaine A. Heath, “The Via Negativa in the Life and Writing of Phoebe Palmer,” Wesleyan Theological Journal Volume 411, Number 2 (Fall, 2006), 87-111. See also Harold E. Raser, Phoebe Palmer: Her Life and Thought (Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1987), 227-287. Instructive here would be the religious experience of Teresa of Avila (1515-1582) particularly as analyzed in Rowan Williams, Teresa of Avila (New York: Continuum, 1991), 55-101. Teresa was prone to ecstatic experiences (often embarrassing to her), but discounted them as evidence of her spiritual state or condition. Ibid, 88-91, 97-98, 106. See Raser, Phoebe Palmer, 44-48. For the primary sources see Thomas C. Oden, ed., Phoebe Palmer: Selected Writings, Sources of American Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1988), 107-130. Heath concludes: “Rather than ‘distorting’ John Wesley’s hallowed theology of sanctification, Palmer provided a much needed corrective with her experience and articulation of a distinctly Wesleyan apophatic spirituality.” 111. Ironic is that for the most part, the holiness movement as it moved into the 20th century took on more of the characteristics of the kataphatic rather than the apophatic. By “hermeneutic” we mean an interpretive principle, or interpretive approach. See Frank G. Carver, “Biblical Foundations for the ‘Secondness’ of Entire Sanctification,“ Wesleyan Theological Journal 22.2 (Fall 1987), 7-23. Most of what follows is drawn and “accommodated” from this essay. On John Wesley see Staples, “Sanctification and Selfhood: A Phenomenological Analysis of the Wesleyan Message,” 4-8. Albert E. Outler, ed., The Works of John Wesley, Volume 2: Sermons II, 34-70 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), 160. Staples, 12-12a, in dependence on the work of Richard E. Howard, “The Epistle to the Galatians,’ Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1965), 23, 90, 93, 111. But see Howard’s “Some Modern Interpretations of the Pauline Indicative and Imperative,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, Volume 11 (Spring 1976), 34-48, where he interprets Paul’s indicative and imperative, as best as I can read him, in a way that appears consistent with the approach taken here. Whatever it meant precisely to the individual experience of any one disciple that unique day, the Day of Pentecost was the inauguration or “send-off” day of the New Testament Church, and carried with it the potential of the full meaning of life in the Spirit, the full significance of the transformation of life as understood in the Wesleyan Holiness heritage. The traditional interpretive alternatives in our heritage have been either the “conversion” of the disciples in the full New Testament sense or their “sanctification” as disciples as already converted during the incarnate ministry of Jesus. These limiting alternatives, I believe, obscure the primary point of a defining event for a new era in the history of salvation. Refer to or document WTJ discussions? A similarly functioning account is Mark 10:46-52. A fuller exegetical study of this text can be found in my “Preparing to Preach from Acts 15:6-11,” The Preacher’s Magazine (September, October, November, 1978), 30ff.
Missing from the chart are an upward arrow from “Spirit,” arrows downward arrows from “flesh,” and a Cross drawn around “Galatians 2:20.
PAGE 11 5.2.10 (XII) DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy" 8/1/2007 TIME \@ "h:mm:ss am/pm" 3:19:01 PM
June 10, 2007 fgc sdfc c&g