|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2013 16:26:58 GMT -5
The effects of the Holiness Movement on the workers' doctrine have been mentioned by a number of commentators but the influence is poorly understood and not even widely accepted. Certainly, the historical traces are there. Here is a paragraph from wikipedia on the history of the Holiness Movement. In the 1870s, the holiness movement spread to Great Britain, where it was sometimes called the higher life movement after the title of William Boardman’s book The Higher Life. Higher life conferences were held at Broadlands and Oxford in 1874 and in Brighton and Keswick in 1875. The Keswick Convention soon became the British headquarters for the movement. The Faith Mission in Scotland was one consequence of the British holiness movement. Another was a flow of influence from Britain back to the United States. In 1874, Albert Benjamin Simpson read Boardman’s Higher Christian Life and felt the need for such a life himself. He went on to found the Christian and Missionary Alliance. As we know, William Irvine and Govan, the founder of the Faith Mission, both attended the Keswick Convention. And George Grubb a speaker from Keswick spoke at one of Irvine's early conventions. It has been noted that William Irvine was a Presbyterian, and yet I would say that the Holiness Movement had an effect on worker doctrine, while Presbyterianism did not. And of course, the Holiness Movement influence would be denied by those friends who would like to think their movement has had no influences but internal ones, that is, by whatever preceded the f&w movement in their imagination. I found only one mention of the Holiness Movement specifically on trutharchive.net and that was a derogatory one by George Walker. He didn't say anything specific against the doctrine; it was only a passing reference to a "Holiness man". And many of those who dislike the f&w doctrine would like to think that the entire doctrine and teaching of the workers came out of the mind of William Irvine, so do not expect to find ready support there. And even when you read what the Holiness doctrine is, you will wonder if there is anything to what I am saying. Here is a summary of the beliefs from wikipedia. The key beliefs of the holiness movement are (1) regeneration by grace through faith, with the assurance of salvation by the witness of the Holy Spirit; (2) entire sanctification as a second definite work of grace, received by faith, through grace, and accomplished by the baptism and power of the Holy Spirit, by which one is enabled to live a holy life. Let's look at the breakdown, again from wiki, to see what this all means. In the context of the holiness movement, the first work of grace is salvation from sin. Adherents believe that without it, no amount of human effort can achieve holiness. The movement's teaching on salvation is conventionally Protestant - God's people are saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ who made atonement for human sins. Well, every Christian church teaches this, and that includes Catholics, Calvinists, Methodists, the Holiness Movement ... and the friends. Some of the ex-friends will state that salvation through grace is not taught by the friends, but that is not correct, and any friend will quickly correct this. But they are hearing a difference in the new church that they attend, and it is in the second part of the Holiness doctrine. Holiness adherents believe that the "second work of grace" refers to a personal experience subsequent to regeneration, in which the believer is cleansed of the tendency to commit sin. This experience of sanctification enables the believer to live a holy life, and ideally, to live entirely without wilful sin, though it is generally accepted that a sanctified individual is still capable of committing sin. There are variants on this "second work of grace", and in fact, I've never heard a worker use this particular expression. However, much of worker teaching is on this "second work of grace", the lifelong process of becoming perfected in God through Christ. Most Protestant churches, especially the Calvinist denominations, do not teach this. They teach that you are saved once through grace, and that nothing else needs to be done. They don't ignore works however. The difference is somewhat subtle. Works are the natural result of being saved, and the product of faith. There is no attainment for holiness or sanctification or cleansing, any more than has already been obtained at the moment of belief. The difference is mainly one of emphasis. Worker preaching will speak very concretely of continuing to be perfected in Christ; Calvinist preaching will not. There is a further difference between the friends and Calvinist preaching but it is something that the friends share with the Methodists and other Arminian denominations. Remember that Holiness was promulgated in the first case by a Methodist, John Wesley. (He wasn't the first either, but that's a digression I won't pursue here.) Anyway, the friends, the Methodists and all Arminian denominations believe that you can lose your salvation. Calvinists do not believe this. Although they will readily admit some Calvinists are lapsed Christians. However, the point is that Calvinist preachers don't preach about "losing your salvation", or "losing your hope". I mention this because people have wondered about the fact Irvine was a Presbyterian. Well, Presbyterians mostly believe in predestination, and this is why I don't see think Presbyterian doctrine had much influence on the early friends and workers. Okay, let's continue with the last paragraph in the wikipedia explanation. Holiness groups believe the moral aspects of the law of God are pertinent for today, and so expect their adherents to obey behavioural rules - for example prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, participation in any form of gambling, and entertainments such as dancing and movie-going.[1] This position does attract opposition from some evangelicals, who charge that such an attitude refutes or slights Reformation (particularly Calvinist) teachings that believers are justified by grace through faith and not through any efforts or states of mind on their part, that the effects of original sin remain even in the most faithful of souls. Okay, everyone should see how the shoe fits in the first sentence. And the last sentence just restates what I wrote above. The basic difference is that friends and the Holiness Movement believe in a continuous process of spiritual growth after you have been saved. Not only that this occurs, but that it is necessary. For example, after someone has professed, workers will look for some evidence of that growth. Other non-Holiness churches do not. And quite importantly, friends will believe that they could still lose out, or even that they have not been "finally" saved. This all fits with John Wesley's idea of Christian Perfection. This again is not a term used by the friends but the idea is that you are not finally saved until you die, and faith and grace have done their perfect work. A central verse is Jesus words, "Be ye perfect ..." More ... |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 18, 2013 16:46:57 GMT -5
Simple way to put it.
If the seed is not growing, then its dieing.
Thanks for the effort and time you have put into this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2013 16:47:05 GMT -5
I've been thinking along these lines myself, noticing that the 'we have been' sanctified, the positional sanctification that comes from being in Christ Jesus, in addition to the 'we are being' sanctified, the progressive sanctification of God's work in our lives--is not something taught by the workers (as least as far as I have heard). I agree with your forgoing summary...MORE MORE!
|
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 18, 2013 16:48:54 GMT -5
What
Are you a Historian?
If not, you missed your calling...
|
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2013 16:50:22 GMT -5
The problem with identifying the influence of the Holiness movement among the friends is that workers and friends are reluctant to use theological terms like "sanctification", although the word does appear within the Bible. Also, as the decades go by, many workers are not as sharp on the doctrines of other denominations as they once were. They tend to misrepresent what is taught and believed in other churches. And yet, in searching trutharchive.net I have found examples of the Holiness Movement influence. The most obvious one is this one, from a letter Willie Hughes wrote in 1931 to answer questions put by the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Australia. 13. In what relationship stands Sanctification to Justification?
Answer: Sanctification follows Justification This is the central feature of the Holiness Movement. The wikipedia article quoted above indicates that sanctification is an experience "subsequent to regeneration". Regeneration or being reborn,and "justification" both refer to the initial conversion experience; there is no difference on that point. So, "sanctification follows justification" is the same as "sanctification subsequent to regeneration". More quotes. Jack Carroll. Do you believe in being wholly sanctified? "Oh," you say "I don't believe in sanctification at all." If you don't believe in sanctification you are not in the Kingdom, are not yet a child in the Kingdom, and if you don't believe in being wholly sanctified it is doubtful whether you have entered at all. Willie Pollock, 1994. Righteousness is not enough. It has to be Godliness. Without holiness, we will never see God. We could be right in so many ways. We heard about sanctification, and that is what holiness is. That man of God had access because he was a holy man of God. When her child died, she didn't put the child on her bed, she didn't put it on the child's bed. Where did she put it? It was on the bed of the holy man of God. She felt, "This room is the most worthy room in our home, because of the influence of a man of God," who was using that room. Make a little sandwich of that Godliness, holiness. It's not just enough to be right. There has to be sanctification.
Sam Jones. God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." Although no man can shut this door, some have been so very foolish, as to shut it with their own hands. The subtle foes which attack this door are to be found inside. The love of self, ease, comfort, selfish motives, and worldly honour, shrinking from the offence of the cross and shame to bear His reproach. There is also an evil of the greatest magnitude which has closed this door against many for ever. We are admonished by the Holy Ghost to take heed and "beware lest there should be in any of us an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God." This sin has overtaken many and hindered them from entering in to their rightful inheritance. Hebrews 3:7-8, "Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith,) To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness," and 4:1-11 "Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it, etc." This is the "sin which doth so easily beset" all pilgrims on their heaven- ward journey. It is mentioned in Hebrews 12:1, "Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us."
The above is very Biblical preaching but you won't hear preaching like this in a Calvinist denomination. At least, I did not. Howard Mooney injects a note of caution concerning the idea of being sanctified. I thought of my parents in this respect. My father and mother were just as religious before they got saved as they were afterwards. My father was a deacon of the church and my mother was a deaconess and neither of them had smoked, drank or played cards. They had never danced and never gone in for any of the activities of those days. Not only were they living a sanctified life but also a dedicated life.
In spite of this sanctification, they were still not getting that living, wonderful something that they read of in the scripture. The only satisfaction they got was from the fact that they were doing the best that they could and they asked the minister, "Why is it that we do not get that life that the scripture speaks about, the same as the New Testament Christians?" They got this answer, "Well, times have changed and customs have changed and you cannot expect to have the same thing that the New Testament Christians had." Clearly sanctification is only a part of the story. Ann and Bram (not sure who that is.) The three areas we have been given an opportunity in is as follows. Firstly in ministering to the growth of our spiritual life by sanctification, being filled with grace, by being diligent in reading, meditation, and praying we develop our pound. Secondly, in self sacrifice, in enlightening others by influencing them for good, and in our service in his cause, being a help to others in being a blessing to them. Thirdly in how much we are magnifying the name of the one who is our King in this world. All is to be done for Him, and for His sake, doing all as unto the Lord. There are lots more, and you can try searching the trutharchive.net site on "sanctification" and also on "holiness". You'll need to also use the find command once you get to the sermon page. |
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Feb 18, 2013 17:11:57 GMT -5
What
Thanks for your study. Awesome Job
ken
|
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Feb 18, 2013 18:38:07 GMT -5
It has been noted that William Irvine was a Presbyterian, and yet I would say that the Holiness Movement had an effect on worker doctrine, while Presbyterianism did not. How about the practice of closed communion? We don't have communion tokens like the Presbyterians did, but the idea that someone must pass muster (with workers or elders) to be granted baptism and communion definitely exists. The Holiness influence seems pretty obvious, even though the theology terms may not be familiar to people in meetings. The strong Pietist influence (personal faith and good, clean living) might have come through the Holiness connection. |
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 18, 2013 18:56:40 GMT -5
John Long said in January 1898: A Revival was in the air...William Irvine took a special interest in circulating Andrew Murray's books, such as "Abide in Christ, The New Life, The Ministry of Intercession, etc.
Andrew Murray was a holiness author.The Gospel Mystery Of Sanctification was written by Walter Marshall, and was first published in 1692. Among others, John Wesley read it and was greatly impacted by it. The original and book is quite long and, for today’s reader, it may be somewhat difficult to read. Close to 200 years later, another great holiness author, Andrew Murray shortened the book. He used only the words of the original book, but left out what he felt was not necessary to carry the message. The result is considered to be one of the best holiness books of all times: Sanctification or The Highway Of Holiness. It was published in 1884. Contents 1 Of The Knowledge Of The True Way Of Holiness 2 The Qualifications Needed For A Holy Life 3 Holiness In Christ, And Union With Him 4 Faith As The Means Of Union With Christ 5 No Holiness Possible In The Natural State 6 No Holiness Needed To Give A Title To Christ 7 No Holiness Needed As A Preparation For Believing In Christ 8 No Holiness But In Union With Christ 9 No Holiness Without First Accepting The Comforts Of The Gospel 10 No Holiness Without Some Measure Of Assurance 11 The Duty Of Believing At Once And Believing Always 12 Holiness Through Faith 13 The Means Of Holiness To Be Used Only In Faith 14 The Excellence Of This Way Of Holiness Each numbered chapter above can be read on line at: www.holinessandperfection.org/the-highway-of-holiness.html |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2013 20:21:28 GMT -5
It has been noted that William Irvine was a Presbyterian, and yet I would say that the Holiness Movement had an effect on worker doctrine, while Presbyterianism did not. How about the practice of closed communion? We don't have communion tokens like the Presbyterians did, but the idea that someone must pass muster (with workers or elders) to be granted baptism and communion definitely exists. The Holiness influence seems pretty obvious, even though the theology terms may not be familiar to people in meetings. The strong Pietist influence (personal faith and good, clean living) might have come through the Holiness connection. Well, except like most non-Anabaptists the Presbyterians have infant baptism. So I think you mean, pass muster for communion. I know in the Reformed Church you had to take classes and make a "Profession of Faith" before you could take communion. I was a disappointment to my parents when I came "of age" as I wasn't interested in the process. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2013 20:36:47 GMT -5
John Long said in January 1898: A Revival was in the air...William Irvine took a special interest in circulating Andrew Murray's books, such as "Abide in Christ, The New Life, The Ministry of Intercession, etc.
Andrew Murray was a holiness author.The Gospel Mystery Of Sanctification was written by Walter Marshall, and was first published in 1692. Among others, John Wesley read it and was greatly impacted by it. The original and book is quite long and, for today’s reader, it may be somewhat difficult to read. Close to 200 years later, another great holiness author, Andrew Murray shortened the book. He used only the words of the original book, but left out what he felt was not necessary to carry the message. The result in my opinion is one of the best holiness books of all times: Sanctification or The Highway Of Holiness. It was published in 1884. Contents 1 Of The Knowledge Of The True Way Of Holiness 2 The Qualifications Needed For A Holy Life 3 Holiness In Christ, And Union With Him 4 Faith As The Means Of Union With Christ 5 No Holiness Possible In The Natural State 6 No Holiness Needed To Give A Title To Christ 7 No Holiness Needed As A Preparation For Believing In Christ 8 No Holiness But In Union With Christ 9 No Holiness Without First Accepting The Comforts Of The Gospel 10 No Holiness Without Some Measure Of Assurance 11 The Duty Of Believing At Once And Believing Always 12 Holiness Through Faith 13 The Means Of Holiness To Be Used Only In Faith 14 The Excellence Of This Way Of Holiness Each numbered chapter above can be read on line at: www.holinessandperfection.org/the-highway-of-holiness.htmlThat's quite interesting. Apparently, Marshall was a Puritan. I was drawn to the chapter, "No Holiness but in union with Christ" and found this interesting quote, Holiness in this life is absolutely necessary to salvation, not only as a means to the end, but by a nobler kind of necessity, as part of the end itself. Though we are not saved by good works as procuring causes, yet we are saved to good works, as fruits and effects of saving grace, “which God has prepared that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).
Holiness of heart and life is to be sought for earnestly by faith as a very necessary part of our salvation. Great multitudes of ignorant people that live under the gospel harden their hearts in sin, and ruin their souls for ever, by trusting in Christ for such an imaginary salvation, that consists not at all in holiness, but only in forgiveness of sin and deliverance from everlasting torments. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2013 20:43:13 GMT -5
It has been noted that William Irvine was a Presbyterian, and yet I would say that the Holiness Movement had an effect on worker doctrine, while Presbyterianism did not. How about the practice of closed communion? We don't have communion tokens like the Presbyterians did, but the idea that someone must pass muster (with workers or elders) to be granted baptism and communion definitely exists. The Holiness influence seems pretty obvious, even though the theology terms may not be familiar to people in meetings. The strong Pietist influence (personal faith and good, clean living) might have come through the Holiness connection. You also mention Pietism which is similar to Puritanism. These are similar strands of thought to Holiness but backed up another century or two. The other influence I find interesting is that of the Moravian church, who seemed to predate Protestantism entirely. They were also considered Pietist, from the wiki article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism although I'm not that well steeped in Reformation history. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 18, 2013 21:30:17 GMT -5
I don't believe you are getting this analysis quite correct what.
Yes, you are correct that the friends will quickly tell you that we are indeed saved by grace, however it is their understanding of what this means that is different. When you drill down a little you will find that there are conditions which are to be met before this 'saving grace ' can be effectual, in effect moving the teaching into the realm of 'saved by works'. Of course they deny this.
These conditions vary from place to place, but some will be :
- true salvation can only come through the workers
- saved people will (only) be found in the fellowship system and meeting in homes.
- acknowledging the above is a sign of salvation
- non-concompliance with the rules and codes is a sign that salvation has not yet been obtained.
This probably doesn't alter the thrust of your proposition but I felt worth commenting on.
|
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 19, 2013 20:41:48 GMT -5
I don't believe you are getting this analysis quite correct what. Yes, you are correct that the friends will quickly tell you that we are indeed saved by grace, however it is their understanding of what this means that is different. When you drill down a little you will find that there are conditions which are to be met before this 'saving grace ' can be effectual, in effect moving the teaching into the realm of 'saved by works'. Of course they deny this. These conditions vary from place to place, but some will be : - true salvation can only come through the workers - saved people will (only) be found in the fellowship system and meeting in homes. - acknowledging the above is a sign of salvation - non-concompliance with the rules and codes is a sign that salvation has not yet been obtained. This probably doesn't alter the thrust of your proposition but I felt worth commenting on. I've never heard a worker actually say any of the four things that you mention. Now, I'm not trying to be coy, but you are making an inference based on the attitudes you see on display. Attitude and exclusivism are not a doctrine. In fact, to get to exclusivism you need quite a bit of cognitive dissonance. You actually have to ignore half the things you might say otherwise. Anyway, there are plenty of worker explanations of the term "saved" on trutharchive.net, and they're quite conventional for the most part. Here is one. Ron Thomke. Durban 2007. When we repent we are saved, not because we are so good but because God is so good. That’s what being saved by grace means. We’re not saved because we’re so good but we’re saved because He’s so good. There is nothing we can do to earn it or deserve it. We are saved by the grace of God but when we have been saved, we still have to go on living. We’re saved by the grace of God, forgiven, set free, but we still have to live. We have to go to work, earn a living and relate to each other. These four things are telling you about how your life should be lived AFTER you’ve been saved. It’s more like what Paul said when he said that we should walk in good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them and here it just sums it up in four statements - four principles of how to relate to people. In another place Paul says to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. A lot of people would puzzle about what he would mean when in one place he says we’re not saved by works and then in another place he says to work out your own salvation. How does that all go together? That is just what I’m trying to say that you’re saved but then you have to work it out. Like in the morning when you get up you have to decide whether you are going to pray or not. You’re saved but you still have to decide whether you are going to pray or not. You have to decide how long you’re going to pray and you’re going to have to decide if you’re going to pray in the morning or in the evening or both. There’s a lot of things there that you have to work out and this is a little bit about working it out. This really fits the justification/ sanctification theme we have been discussing. The "justified through faith/ repentance/ conversion" is there, but then added to that is the idea of being sanctified, although admittedly Thomke does not use this word. Perhaps I could restate your points in a slightly different way, if we're going to be inferring doctrine. - true salvation can only come through the workers, if you've heard the workers. - saved people will (only) be found encounter the sustaining power of the Spirit in the fellowship system and meeting in homes. They may think they are saved in one of the Pharisee churches, but those churches don't provide the staying power of the Spirit. - acknowledging the above is a sign of salvation sanctification - non-compliance with the rules and codes is a sign that salvationsanctification has not yet been obtained. If you continue to live in sin, you may even lose the salvation you once had. I'm not saying this is how I think, but perhaps a little closer to how the workers and friends think, at least the more exclusive ones. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 19, 2013 21:19:50 GMT -5
Any time "saved by grace" has been mentioned before a worker of my acquaintance, the worker has been quick to say that we are NOT saved by grace but by being in the "only true way" which is the workers' church....that maybe in the end of our lives after having worked out our own salvation we might just BE saved by the grace of God...for certainly any of our righteous deeds would not warrant salvation, but God might grant us His favor and grace...which IS the unmerited favor of God.
It seems even in Ron Thomke's sermon you've posted that though he is pretty explicit about saved by grace, he does not clue us into the fact that this "saved by grace" comes to us through Jesus.....there is cognitive dissonance, IMO on that and I've witnessed this lack of putting all of the right factors together by most all workers EXCEPT for one or two....Evan Jones could bring it all together in such a manner as to edit the whole bible down into a 45 min. sermon with maybe some clarifications offered when he was up for another 45 mins. on the platform at convs. Leslie White has also preached some pretty insightful sermons along the same lines. And I know some are going to want to discredit LW for that because of his propensity of getting himself in deep hot water.....
I know though that when Evan had preached these things, that it went right over the heads of a majority of conv. sitters....but I was privileged to hear Evan at several convs. and he pretty well preached the same kind of sermon covering pretty much of the same content.
I'm not certain, but I suspect that William Irvine ONLY came to be a Christian under the Presbyterian minister, but how much he got out of that time in which was Pres. beliefs etc is questionable....simply because he was quick to condemn Wesley to an unsaved future. I do also believe that WI was very much impressed with the "holiness movement" and I think we can say that with surety because of him becoming a Pilgrim for the Faith Mission. And we've said on TMB many times that many of the aspects of the 2x2 fellowship are very much evident of being based on what WI learned and experience while in the Faith Mission...mtgs. and conv. nearly much the same....the MAJOR difference between FM and WI and the workers' church is the single fact that FM didn't keep their converts, but sent them to whatever church they so well pleased to go to.....
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 19, 2013 21:42:17 GMT -5
I must say that I am pleased to read that part of Ron's sermon, as I have never heard any worker try to be specific about the salvation process.
Just recently, I did hear a sort of attempt along these lines and this is how it went :
we are redeemed by the blood of Christ and then we attempt to live a life that will win us salvation at the end - we won't know whether or not we have salvation till the judgement. Many will miss out because they haven't done enough.
We don't hear doctrine expounded as explicity as was the case to the older generation (45-50 +) so it is hard to say what the doctrine is by listening, but I believe much is passed down from parents. The best way is to discuss it with folks in a comfortable setting, then you get a sense of what is truly believed. A common thread is that we will not know about our salvation till the judgement day.
edited to add : I don't know if this a regional thing, but it is certainly true for my state.
|
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 19, 2013 21:55:07 GMT -5
I must say that I am pleased to read that part of Ron's sermon, as I have never heard any worker try to be specific about the salvation process. Just recently, I did hear a sort of attempt along these lines and this is how it went : we are redeemed by the blood of Christ and then we attempt to live a life that will win us salvation at the end - we won't know whether or not we have salvation till the judgement. Many will miss out because they haven't done enough. We don't hear doctrine expounded as explicity as was the case to the older generation (45-50 +) so it is hard to say what the doctrine is by listening, but I believe much is passed down from parents. The best way is to discuss it with folks in a comfortable setting, then you get a sense of what is truly believed. A common thread is that we will not know about our salvation till the judgement day. edited to add : I don't know if this a regional thing, but it is certainly true for my state. I definitely agree with your last statement, that it's commonly thought we will not know about our salvation, for certain, until the judgement day. But all of that fits with the idea of "the second work of grace" which is where those ideas began. Over time, I think the f&w doctrine has become somewhat fuzzier over time, as they rely excessively on an oral tradition. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 19, 2013 22:01:18 GMT -5
Any time "saved by grace" has been mentioned before a worker of my acquaintance, the worker has been quick to say that we are NOT saved by grace but by being in the "only true way" which is the workers' church. Howard Mooney. Pukekohe, NZ - 1980 What we have received is too good to be true. Wonderful though it is, it is just the beginning of something that will take all of Eternity for us to appreciate the full content of it, and that is not my talking. That is mentioned in the 2nd chapter of this letter. It will take all the ages for us to show the exceeding greatness of His grace and all that has been provided for us. What we have today is the riches of His grace. It will take all the ages to cone, to show to us all the exceeding riches of His grace. It is something that we begin to measure in this life. It will take all the ages to come to show us or to enjoy the fullest breadth of it.
There are three exceeding things mentioned in this letter that I may mention right now in passing. Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 19, 2013 22:50:20 GMT -5
The only person I ever heard preach "salvation by grace through faith and not of works" was Harry Brownlee, and I'd been professing for nearly 30 years at that time.
Dellas Linaman
Heb 11 is the faith chapter. This tells us what these people did through faith. It was what they DID about their faith that saved them. Faith without works is dead. It is through our works by which we are saved.
[Gilroy CA 1981]
Garth Cook
Reconciled by His death, saved by His life.
[Ronan MT Conv 6/73]
Tharold Sylvester
God wants faith, not facts. We aren't saved by what we believe, we are saved by having the right SPIRIT.
Carson Cowan
We get saved by getting in; we keep saved by fitting in.
[Saginaw OR 1969]
Ed Cornock
We aren't saved only by Christ's redemption. There is one thing we must do. We must present our own bodies as a sacrifice. Some of us may leave a big question mark in God's eyes.
[Hayden Lake ID 1949]
|
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 20, 2013 8:25:37 GMT -5
The only person I ever heard preach "salvation by grace through faith and not of works" was Harry Brownlee, and I'd been professing for nearly 30 years at that time. Dellas Linaman Heb 11 is the faith chapter. This tells us what these people did through faith. It was what they DID about their faith that saved them. Faith without works is dead. It is through our works by which we are saved.[Gilroy CA 1981] Garth Cook Reconciled by His death, saved by His life. [Ronan MT Conv 6/73] Tharold Sylvester God wants faith, not facts. We aren't saved by what we believe, we are saved by having the right SPIRIT. Carson Cowan We get saved by getting in; we keep saved by fitting in. [Saginaw OR 1969] Ed Cornock We aren't saved only by Christ's redemption. There is one thing we must do. We must present our own bodies as a sacrifice. Some of us may leave a big question mark in God's eyes. [Hayden Lake ID 1949] These quotes clearly fit in with the holiness doctrine. "Salvation by grace and not of works" is something that doesn't fit well with holiness doctrine. The idea of sanctification is that works do matter, but your works are not sufficient to "earn" salvation, so grace is still required. Thus it is "salvation through doing your best with grace making up the rest". The grace comes through the sacrifice of Jesus. It stands against the ideas of "elect by grace", "once saved always saved" and even "salvation by grace and not of works". The idea appeals to people because (1) it's Scriptural, and (2) it focuses on personal and spiritual growth, more than ritual worship. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2013 9:05:08 GMT -5
There is a certain sound logic behind a works-necessity (sanctification) philosophy. The age-old argument against grace-only is the absence of necessary works. Grace-only argues that you will be so happy with your saved status that you will automatically do the works and no saved person will do otherwise. Regardless, if you argue that it is grace-only, then works really aren't necessary.....it's difficult to see how you can have it both ways.
The idea of doing your all (which is not enough) and leaving the rest up to grace is clearly a concept I understood to be common among F&Ws when I was growing up, and I still hear the idea expressed from time to time in fellowship testimonies. It's easy to see though how the point of salvation could get muddied up in that concept.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2013 10:41:01 GMT -5
I definitely agree with your last statement, that it's commonly thought we will not know about our salvation, for certain, until the judgement day. But all of that fits with the idea of "the second work of grace" which is where those ideas began. Over time, I think the f&w doctrine has become somewhat fuzzier over time, as they rely excessively on an oral tradition. Having listened to the workers for over 50 years, I would say that what we hear in this area has grown increasingly fuzzy--and I think you are right about 'oral tradition' being the cause. No one attending our gospel meetings over the last few years would have a clue about how one is saved--the topic hasn't come up. We recently did hear how we aren't saved, however. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 20, 2013 10:41:29 GMT -5
There is a certain sound logic behind a works-necessity (sanctification) philosophy. The age-old argument against grace-only is the absence of necessary works. Grace-only argues that you will be so happy with your saved status that you will automatically do the works and no saved person will do otherwise. Regardless, if you argue that it is grace-only, then works really aren't necessary.....it's difficult to see how you can have it both ways. The idea of doing your all (which is not enough) and leaving the rest up to grace is clearly a concept I understood to be common among F&Ws when I was growing up, and I still hear the idea expressed from time to time in fellowship testimonies. It's easy to see though how the point of salvation could get muddied up in that concept. What isn't clear to me is how you are judged under the Holiness doctrine. I'm not sure it is clear to anyone, although I might look through Wesley's book later if I think of it. Holiness has been criticized as placing too much emphasis on works and on cleansing. That's a valid criticism. But to say that Holiness doctrine, or the similar workers' teaching, is "salvation by works" is not really correct. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2013 10:48:17 GMT -5
There is a certain sound logic behind a works-necessity (sanctification) philosophy. The age-old argument against grace-only is the absence of necessary works. Grace-only argues that you will be so happy with your saved status that you will automatically do the works and no saved person will do otherwise. Regardless, if you argue that it is grace-only, then works really aren't necessary.....it's difficult to see how you can have it both ways. The idea of doing your all (which is not enough) and leaving the rest up to grace is clearly a concept I understood to be common among F&Ws when I was growing up, and I still hear the idea expressed from time to time in fellowship testimonies. It's easy to see though how the point of salvation could get muddied up in that concept. What isn't clear to me is how you are judged under the Holiness doctrine. I'm not sure it is clear to anyone, although I might look through Wesley's book later if I think of it. Holiness has been criticized as placing too much emphasis on works and on cleansing. That's a valid criticism. But to say that Holiness doctrine, or the similar workers' teaching, is "salvation by works" is not really correct. There is certainly a lot of fear associated with a more works-oriented concept. I suspect that most of the fear is due to exactly that: lack of clarity about the judgment. The problem with "give your all" is not practical as few, if any, can actually achieve that.....leaving uncertainty in the judgment. Those folks have to cross their fingers and hope for the best. I had an old professing person say to me last year "when the end comes, I sure hope I have done enough to get in". That's not a healthy concept to live under. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2013 10:51:03 GMT -5
I definitely agree with your last statement, that it's commonly thought we will not know about our salvation, for certain, until the judgement day. But all of that fits with the idea of "the second work of grace" which is where those ideas began. Over time, I think the f&w doctrine has become somewhat fuzzier over time, as they rely excessively on an oral tradition. Having listened to the workers for over 50 years, I would say that what we hear in this area has grown increasingly fuzzy--and I think you are right about 'oral tradition' being the cause. No one attending our gospel meetings over the last few years would have a clue about how one is saved--the topic hasn't come up. We recently did hear how we aren't saved, however. Yes, I have seen the same thing. The fuzzification has been greatly muddified over the last decade or so. I listen to gospel meetings sometimes as though I was an outsider...... to try to imagine how the outsiders would be processing the message. Similar to you, I have no idea how they would figure out what it takes for salvation, or even why they should be sitting in that chair! |
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Feb 20, 2013 10:55:18 GMT -5
In other words, the Holiness doctrine digresses from santification from being an ongoing process in our lives to reaching a certain, defined, religious life-style plateau? In other words, we are assured of our salvation not by a continuing relationship with God but rather by adhering to a group-preferred lifestyle?
Am I correct?
Also, I keep hearing the 2x2isms that, by offering for the work, we have reached the "second state of grace." I believe that this concept is what allows the 2x2s to think that workers are "perfect" and are "closer to God."
Am I vearing off from your investigation, what?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2013 10:57:17 GMT -5
There is a certain sound logic behind a works-necessity (sanctification) philosophy. The age-old argument against grace-only is the absence of necessary works. Grace-only argues that you will be so happy with your saved status that you will automatically do the works and no saved person will do otherwise. Regardless, if you argue that it is grace-only, then works really aren't necessary.....it's difficult to see how you can have it both ways. The idea of doing your all (which is not enough) and leaving the rest up to grace is clearly a concept I understood to be common among F&Ws when I was growing up, and I still hear the idea expressed from time to time in fellowship testimonies. It's easy to see though how the point of salvation could get muddied up in that concept. What isn't clear to me is how you are judged under the Holiness doctrine. I'm not sure it is clear to anyone, although I might look through Wesley's book later if I think of it. Holiness has been criticized as placing too much emphasis on works and on cleansing. That's a valid criticism. But to say that Holiness doctrine, or the similar workers' teaching, is "salvation by works" is not really correct. My understanding of Wesley's teaching (at least in the" Plain Account of Christian Perfection") is that we are both instantly sanctified in Christ when we receive the Spirit and progressively sanctified as we allow the Spirit to change us. From what I read, he stressed living a life of love and being filled with the fullness of God, but that all shortcomings would be covered by the blood of Christ. Not sure that answers your question though. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 20, 2013 11:02:07 GMT -5
What isn't clear to me is how you are judged under the Holiness doctrine. I'm not sure it is clear to anyone, although I might look through Wesley's book later if I think of it. Holiness has been criticized as placing too much emphasis on works and on cleansing. That's a valid criticism. But to say that Holiness doctrine, or the similar workers' teaching, is "salvation by works" is not really correct. There is certainly a lot of fear associated with a more works-oriented concept. I suspect that most of the fear is due to exactly that: lack of clarity about the judgment. The problem with "give your all" is not practical as few, if any, can actually achieve that.....leaving uncertainty in the judgment. Those folks have to cross their fingers and hope for the best. I had an old professing person say to me last year "when the end comes, I sure hope I have done enough to get in". That's not a healthy concept to live under. One of the foremost exponents of the Holiness movement was Hannah Whitall Smith who wrote The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life. Later in life she moved to Christian universalism, and I see that as a natural progression from the Holiness concept. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 20, 2013 11:12:12 GMT -5
In other words, the Holiness doctrine digresses from santification from being an ongoing process in our lives to reaching a certain, defined, religious life-style plateau? In other words, we are assured of our salvation not by a continuing relationship with God but rather by adhering to a group-preferred lifestyle? Am I correct? Also, I keep hearing the 2x2isms that, by offering for the work, we have reached the "second state of grace." I believe that this concept is what allows the 2x2s to think that workers are "perfect" and are "closer to God." Am I vearing off from your investigation, what? I haven't heard that "second state of grace" comment but it sure fits. According to John Wesley, the plateau that you mention is "Christian perfection" which means a state of not sinning. Of course, Wesley goes to pains to indicate that at this point you might still "fail", but you no longer "sin". (I forget his exact wording; it's interesting to read.) It's not really a rules or lifestyle issue, exactly. I suppose you could say that once you were sanctified, it would no longer be possible for you to murder, steal, or evade paying taxes. I think it's fair to say that what began as a well thought out doctrine has gradually become just a fuzzy concept. |
|
