William Seymour and Charles Parham

PRAYER FOR REVIVAL 🔥🔥🔥
Brother Parham was preaching in Texas. A black man by the name of Tom Seymour came into his meeting. Parham related his experience to Brother Tom and myself. There was a deep hunger in that black man’s soul. He worked as a waiter in a restaurant to support himself while preaching to a church of his own people. He knew God as his Saviour and Sanctifier. He knew the power of God to heal. But as he listened to Parham, he became convinced of a bigger thing””the baptism of the Holy Ghost. He went on to Los Angeles without receiving it, but he said he was determined to preach all of God he knew to the people.
He said, "Before I met Parham, such a hunger to have more of God was in my heart that I prayed for five hours a day for two and a half years. I got to Los Angeles, and there the hunger was not less but more. I prayed, ‘God, what can I do?’ The Spirit said, ‘Pray more. There are better things to be had in spiritual life, but they must be sought out with faith and prayer.’ ‘But Lord, I am praying five hours a day now.’ I increased my hours of prayer to seven, and prayed on for a year and a half more. I prayed to God to give me what Parham preached, the real Holy Ghost and fire with tongues and love and power of God like the apostles had.”
God had put such a hunger into that man’s heart that when the fire of God came it glorified him.

I do not believe any other man in modem times had a more wonderful deluge of God in his life than God gave to that dear fellow, and the glory and power of a real Pentecost swept the world.
That black man preached to my congregation of ten thousand people when the glory and power of God was upon his spirit, and men shook and trembled and cried to God. God was in him.
"Blessed are they which do hunger, for they shall be filled.”
I wonder what we are hungering for. Have we a real divine hunger, something our soul is asking for? If you have, God will answer; God will answer. By every law of the Spirit that men know, the answer is due to come. It will come! Bless God, it will come. It will come in more ways than you ever dreamed of. God is not confined to manifesting Himself in tongues and interpretations alone.

- John G Lake ( Spiritual Hunger )

I still feel there is something solid in this Azusa's Street Revival. But it is curious how he would go for so many years without the baptism of the Spirit? And at the same time be able to pray a prayer that shook a heaven borne revival down? Or did he confuse baptism with an in filling for a special occassion?

God still uses men and women that are not baptized in the Holy Spirit. If they are born again, the spirit of God is dwelling within them. The men and women that God used at the beginning of Azusa Street, were part of the holiness movement, and they believed in sanctification, cleansing by the blood, and they believed that there was a a second work of grace, And William Seymour came to realize that the second work of Grace was the Baptism of the Holy Spirit through Parham’s teachings .

God still uses men and women that are not baptized in the Holy Spirit. If they are born again, the spirit of God is dwelling within them. The men and women that God used at the beginning of Azusa Street, were part of the holiness movement, and they believed in sanctification, cleansing by the blood, and they believed that there was a a second work of grace, And William Seymour came to realize that the second work of Grace was the Baptism of the Holy Spirit through Parham’s teachings .

I recently discoursed with a sister on the topic and we came to the conclusion that this sanctification must happen at the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Ravenhill also believed that Wesley's Entire Sactification was the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

And currently, my believe has been that if a man is going without the baptism, something is missing. I can not think of this being so because of a delay on God's part? He sent Peter to Cornelius and just as Peter was preaching, the Spirit fell on the folks. So what can we provide as the explanation for this brother's baptism delay - amidst several years of protracted prayer?

And brother, I do not think we can say we are indwelled until the baptism of the Holy Spirit encounter. Until then, the Spirit stays with us more like the atmosphere does (yes it probably infuse through every cell of our body too) - the same work it way when we were first awaken to spiritual things. But at baptism, I understand it is the official start day for indwelling.

I think it's not as straight forward as we first think.

My first experience with God, was when after a said to God I was fed up being the way I was and that I wanted to change.

When I lay down on my bed a wind left me, the next thing that happen was that a wind came and blew into me. Then I sat up and spoke in a new language. At that point I asked what was that, then the thought came "Tounges"

It was many years later once I was in a period of sifting (testing), that I was made aware of the sinfulness that remained in me. At the same time the Spirit led me to the teaching of Holiness.

Which I have been reading and studying about since that time.

Recently I have become aware that God is calling me - this caused me to come a "crisis" that's what the holiness guys would call it. But you could say it was the cross at work in my bringing me to the point of utter helplessness, looking at the calling of God and then my condition, compared to a Holy God and what he represents.

If I should describe it would be "nothingness" where you have nothing which is of benefit to God. That you come to see you are nothing. Like Paul in 2 Cor 12:5 he says "I am nothing".

However since then the New Covenant has come to life and that was only a 2-3 weeks ago.

The need for the promised Spirit of God is what I am seeking, he must cleanse men, he must give me a new clean heart, he must remove my impurities, my idols, so that I can keep his laws.

But that the awesome thing is he has promised to do it!

That's what I mean that it's more complicated than we first think. It's not enough to be "born again" and be operating in the gifts of the Spirit, although I have seen such blessed things, there is more.

It reminds of when Paul spoke to the Corinthian church and said "the more excellent way" if you have not Love you are "nothing". There it goes again. "Nothing" Lol.

There is a deeper work of the Spirit, but it does require us to come to a "crisis" and that is the cross at work in your life, it will deal with Sin that remains, but it's also a dealing with you, because Sin and Self are intertwined to the very deepest parts of your being.

Christ said

Mark 7:21-23 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

We must have a new heart - what I mean by heart or what the bible means by heart is the Mind, Will and emotions it is the very seat of the Self life.

Rather than a heart with Sin, we need a heart that is intertwined with Christ. Out of that heart will come "Love", that's what Paul eludes to in the book of Corinthians "the more excellent way'.

Mind Blowing I understand - but God has promised it!

Paul describes it in Galatians - "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me".

So that is why I say "it's not as straight forward as we first think".

Oh that God would give His followers a pure heart instead of all the fluff we hear so much about. Thankfully more and more including Christian academics are seeing that the 'fluff' has not delivered and one more thing is needed.

We are not to climb in over the walls but by the appointed way of holiness.

Brother murrcolr, I feel I must agree with what you are presenting. I do understand that right after making a decision for Christ (see the case at Cornelius), you can receive the Holy Spirit baptism. And only to realise as you thus cross-walk that you still carry around 'self' for example - who must (amongst other?) must be put to death. Coming to muturity we might call it - so as to be able to eat strong meat and the likes?

However to come to Christ and beging to minister in some sort without the baptism seems very wrong. Jusus commanded the desciples to wait as he got ready to go back home. As much as he needed them to declare him in all the parts of the world he did not send them out as yet. So here I wonder how this brother can so pray prior to this baptism that to me seems more like a buckle-up stage prior to driving off.

@Sister brenda, it is a great practice to dismiss views with an attached note - so that all can judge and possibly see the fluff. The Devil is so crafty and will not always make his fluff easy to tell by any Jim or Jack (Jesus you shall know them by their fruits). So providing biblical arguments that supports your view could help a lot.

In order to discern what is 'fluff' one must do some studying to find out themselves where the difference is with the traditional holiness teachers and that cannot be done with a few bible verses. You could start with the link I posted by an ex tongue speaker regarding that gift so I already have done it. If one fellows through from that one will see what is not scriptural.

Dear sister, early Christians did not have the resource you linked to I believe. All they had was essentially what you referred to as few bible verses. The letter from Paul today, and then from Peter the other day, etc.

So it would seem like while you intend good, you do not 'always' seem to seek it in the best way. Or am I wrong?

Remark noted. They had the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth.

That is true and the Holy Spirit is here today to lead in the same way. So yes leaving him out in the equation would be to defraud him. Yes the aim is not to seem to dismiss on a dogmatic sense but to point out how something is not consistent with evangelical Christian teaching.

P.S: Also to remember that when some taught that circumcision and keeping to law were to persist, the matter was brought before the elders in Jerusalem and it was sifted through (doubless with the presence of the Holy Spirit) and they managed to reach a resolution. So putting a matter on the table for to be discussed must constitute a valid practice I understand.

"how something is not consistent with evangelical Christian teaching."

The starting point is the Filioque Clause, where western Christianity departed from the Orthodox creed which is scriptural and says:

"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me." (John 15:26)

"The essential matter in the filioque clause is a desire to protect the deity of the Holy Spirit. The Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). Those who oppose the filioque clause object because they believe the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son makes the Holy Spirit "subservient” to the Father and Son. Those who uphold the filioque clause believe that the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son does not impact the Spirit being equally God with the Father and the Son."

https://www.gotquestions.org/filioque-clause-controversy.html

The western church followed Augustine and said ;and the Spirit proceedeth'.

This was anaethamatized by the EO and declared heretical later at a council. From that heresy the whole of the western Christian world has gone astray and especially at he Reformation.

Unless if I got you wrong? Many Christians out there are the products of bibles they received distributed by one of the great many protestants out there. Now to be sound, must they call themselves Orthodoxians or just Christians is sufficient? Seeings they believed after hearing the Gospel as presented in the Scipture? Or shall we force-class them as Protestants because they received their bibles from a Protestant's hand?

The theological eyes they saw scripture through, and the translations, beyond the very first understanding of the gospel, was from the Reformation or from Aquinas. Both heresies according to the early years.

Apologies if I got you wrong. Suppose I find an atheist son of a witch in Malawi who has just graduated college and I hand a KJV bible to them. They read, believe and convert. Do we call him Orthodox, Protestant or just Christian after that.

He won't stay just a Christian long. He will soon be captured by one sect or another and indoctrinated. The devil will see to that.

And where is the guiding Holy Spirit when the devil is thus trying?

A new believer won't have the discernment needed and as he will still be sinning - the devil has his piece of flesh. Maybe the Lord will direct him hopefully but it all depends on how tender his heart is. He will have heard error during his schooling also. I don't like to stick around 'what ifs'.

Sister the bible starts a new convert out in the Gospels. And then shappens them up with Acts and tons of letters etc? Is all that coupled with guiding Holy Spirit (same one who lead them to Christ) not sufficient? Shall you rather reckon it woe unto those nations where bible distribution is one of their only hopes for salvation?

If he reads 'he that sinneth belongs to the devil' and believes it, seeking a pure heart then he will be sanctified completely. If error has entered his heart or satan is speaking to him and he does not believe this then he is not.

Yes sister the good hope is that he will read and and be tender enough to apprehend. Let us remeber that we still had those who heard the Gospel not only from Paul but Christ himself and still rejected it. And yes my argument now is that some folks a classed a protestants incorrectly as they set only at the feet of Christ (Bible) and learned from him. That said, I still do not believe Protestantism is all contaminated as you seem to (imply) to the point of needing to be mass-dumped.

There is plenty of truth amongst the error but why go to a polluted stream? That is Pentecostalism.

Sister if you say Orthodox eventually went south, then it aught to be altogether discarded the same way you mean to discard Protestantism which must have had many who meant & did good. Or not?

So that we only keep that which wistands the test always - which it seems is nothing?

Most of the whole church is in the throes of apostacy just like the scriptures says it would end up - would Christ find any faith when He returns? It says. Just looking at how the world outside of it is with its wokism, shows the truth of this statement.

Fleeting revivals based on much error from Pentecostalism is not the answer but maybe it will be ending this way with most not fit to meet Christ.

Sister do not get me wrong (in case you had), I am not here advocating that all Churches have got it right. I just do not want to submit to the notion that all Protestism is waste. Some of the men you celebrate are from the Protestants - is it not so? Why sweet waters from a bitter tree then? Some of the Orthodox folks are now off your list - why bitter water from a sweet tree then? This is because denominations are not a fountain. Neither Orthodox nor Protestantism. Both are capable of falling away.

There was something solid about Azusa Street. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit as distinct from salvation is also, I believe, solid. We can see it as clearly in scripture as we can see most any other doctrine of the church. Not only is it on the day of pentacost, but it is after the day of pentacost. Remember believers who said, "We have not heard of this Holy Ghost you tell us about.", and then they were baptized in the Holy Spirit.

I agree totally that the charismatic wing of the church, right now, is running off into the weeds. Crazy error is all over the place. New age and new thought practices, doctrines of demons, are being slipped into the practices of the charismatic church, and those who are claiming angelic visitations and trips to heaven to talk to Jesus, Paul, and others are either lying, or they are hearing from demonic, familiar spirits. It is bad. It needs to be exposed and called out. The body needs to be warned.

But this error does not mean that all things are false. We cannot throw out the true simply because there is a bastardization of it that is raising its ugly head.

A lot of negative things have been said about Parham. I cannot vouch for the historicity of some of these claims. I just knew the old timers that were only one generation removed from Parham. My great grandfather ministered all over my area with Lula and Claud Parham, Charles' son and daughter-in-law. Parham had some odd ideas at times. He was influenced, I think innocently and out of some naivety, by people like Sanford and others that led him to believe in British Israelism and some other odd ideas. But what he experienced in the Lord, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, was a real thing. My great grandfather once preached an entire sermon in perfect spanish while in Mexico. He did not know ANY spanish at all. It was the Holy Spirit. About 10 years back a similar experience happened in the Dominican Republic with a 14 year old daughter of a friend of mine. She prayed for a man on the street. She did not know spanish, nor did she know or understand what the man needed. She prayed in perfect spanish for the back pain he was having. It was the Holy Spirit working through her and it was a huge witness of God to the man she prayed for. It also lit a fire in her own life as she realized God did want to use her.

I am DEEPLY concerned with the craziness and error that I see in the charismatic movement right now. I long to see the church walking in truth and in the genuine move of God. There is a real baptism in the Holy Spirit. There are real gifts of the Spirit that God will still use through men today. But some of the stuff we are seeing right now could very will be the great end-time deception.

Travis,

I agree with you that Azusa St. Was a true outpouring of the Spirit upon saints that believed that the early experience of the church is for today. Isn’t it interesting that Seymour received the teaching from Parham, and during the Azusa St. Revival, Parham rejected the manifestations that were taking place?
So we can learn from the history of revivals that what began in the Spirit often ended because of either man putting his filthy hands on it through control, or through emotionalism, and making manifestations the main thing instead of Jesus. The book "Azusa Street” by Frank Bartleman is an excellent documentation of what happened at Azusa. Frank Bartleman was an intercessor who had direct communication with Evan Roberts.

You must admit brethren though, that things went badly wrong there. I must get my hands on the Bartleman book itself, but I understand from other historians, that it was the great clash between traditional holiness people and the new Pentecostalism.

The traditionals were saying that not all manifestations are godly. Have you read War on the Saints by Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis? and what did you think of it especially the chapter which has often been taken out written by a German pastor.

The book by Evan Roberts & Jessy was denounsed by Evan himself a year after so I read. So it is no longer endorsed by him - only by Jessy now.

P.S: Like I tried to say, it is not uncommon to find the devil labouring to put out any true fire. So yes not all manifestations are to be of God as the devil can mimic the light.

I cannot find anything on Evan Roberts denouncing WotS. Where is your evidence Kervin?

Unless this post is the reason?

Isaiah64
Member

Joined: 2006/9/27
Posts: 85

War on the Saints--help???\tReply To This Post |
Hello everyone,
I know this has been discussed before, but I've been reading and skimming through the book [i]War on the Saints[/i] by Jessie Penn-Lewis and Evan Roberts. I read some of it yesterday and to be honest it left me extremely confused, shocked, concerned, and discouraged. In some parts Evan Roberts seemed to be denouncing his own personal experiences in the Welsh revival as being demonic. It left me with so many questions. I was reading it again today and a few of my concerns were cleared up. But I'm still not sure about many things. The Christians being able to have demons aspect was not what worried me (I'm quite familiar with the teachings of Derek Prince), but what did concern me, among other things, was what was said about the true and false manifestations of revival and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. According to the book, ther can be a false conviction of sin, false heavy burdens laid on intercessors, a counterfeit presence of the Lord, telling people to "obey the Spirit" (As Evan Roberts did) is wrong, etc.
I'm curious what anyone here thinks about this book, about Jesse Penn-Lewis, and about what in the world happened to Evan Roberts after the Welsh Revival.
Thoughts????"

I don't see anything wrong with Evans having second thoughts at a later date about some of his experiences. I think that is commendable. Remember Penn-Lewis was a mature woman whereas Evans was very young.

Here is Dr Phineas Bresee from the Church of the Nazarenes ie the opposing holiness view on Azusa, and don't forget that Bresee believed in a second blessing as in Wesley:

"Locally it is of small account, being insignificant both in numbers and influence. Instead of being the greatest movement of the times, as represented”“in Los Angeles, at least”“it is of small moment. It has had, and has now upon the religious life of the city, about as much influence as a pebble thrown into the sea. . .

In the end, Bresee felt that the Azusa Street Pentecostal bordered on fanaticism and heresy by teaching that

Christians are sanctified before they receive the baptism with the Holy Ghost, this baptism being a gift of power upon the sanctified life, and that the essential and necessary evidence of the baptism is the gift of speaking with new tongues, [which he called] a jargon, a senseless mumble. . . a poor mess.

As to the Azusa Street worshipers, the Nazarene leader stated:

There are more or less people whose experience is unsatisfactory, who have never been sanctified wholly, or have lost the precious work out of their hearts, who will run after the hope of exceptional or marvelous things, to their own further undoing"

https://ourcog.org/azusa-street-and-frank-bartleman/

The best way to know what is counterfeit is to know what is true. when you recognize the true, you can easily spot wihat is false. The problem with heresy hunters and even war on the Saints is that when you’re constantly searching for the counterfeit and the false you have doubt as to what is actually True and what is real. I read war on the Saints, many of the things that Jesse Lewis wrote in this book are true, and many Christians have been deceived, but also she puts doubt in peoples mind’s as to the true gifts of the Spirit like the gifts of tongues, so you have to read War on the Saints with discernment .

"Within a year of its publication, Evan Roberts denounced it, telling friends that it had been a failed weapon which had confused and divided the Lord’s people."

https://www.revival-library.org/revival_heroes/20th_century/roberts_evan.shtml

The author does not give a reference for his claims therefore it cannot be taken seriously. I am sure that a great deal of gossip surrounded the events. It sounds to me that Evans was demonized with one which could not be cast out.

Jessie and her husband took Evan in and cared for him squashing most of the rumours. I would like to see a reliable source.

On reading further into Evans, I feel that he was certainly not demonstrating an entirely sanctified man and perhaps the story was true that the enemy wanted to destroy the testimony in the book about false manifestations.

Brenda,

I just wanted to say that I am glad to see you on the forums - the teachings of scriptural sanctification (entire sanctification as a second work) are easily the most neglected/hated teachings of this generation.

Ironically - their neglect could also be the reason the world is in the state it is in. Paul was adamant to teach it, Jesus taught it, but this generation hates it, or doesn't even know it exists.

Thank you Evan l am pleased you are here too a nd l agree with what you said. It is the lukewarm state of the church with no interest in entire sanctification that has allowed the enemy to take over for sure.

I'm not being argumentative on this topic with this question but I think it is legitimate.

When did Jesus become "perfect" ? Biblically.

"Brother Seymour generally sat behind two empty boxes, one on top of the other. He usually kept his head inside the top one during the meeting in prayer. There was no pride there. The service ran almost continuously, seeking souls could be found under the power almost any hour of the day or night. The place was never closed or empty. The people came to meet God. He was always there, hence a continuous meeting. The meeting did not depend on the human leader. God’s presence became more and more wonderful. In that old building with its low rafters and floors God broke strong men and women to pieces and put them together again for his glory. It was a tremendous overhauling process. Pride and self assertion, self importance and self-esteem could not survive there. The religious ego preached its own funeral sermon quickly. "

From "Azusa Street” by Frank Bartleman

@ESchaible, when does Entire Sanctification (ES) occur in your understanding? Sister brendaM sattled on it coming or perfected at Holy Spirit baptism. Is this where you are too? If not, then you two need to clear that out between yourselves first for Christ's sake (and then kindly share here once concluded).

If you both agree it comes at baptism, then why not preach the baptism of the Holy Spirit exclusively knowing very well that it will come along with ES anyways?

When sister brendaM asserted that the thief had ES (or Spirt baptism) on the cross during our private chat, I asked if we can email you (brother Evan) to ask if that was also your position and she refused - maintaining it was a matter of opinion.

So if you two do not trust each other or things are not clear to you either (despite being thus ESd), then who should you be trying to fool standing afar and jontly saying we reject ES?

The Rejected Blessing

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=40&topic_id=11554&post_id=129803&viewmode=thread&order=

Although the Baptism of the Holy Spirit” and speaking in tongues probably will be the focus of most eager readers of The Azusa Street Papers, I challenge them to do something special while reading. Look for every place where sanctification is mentioned. It may be in a teaching, or a doctrinal statement, or a testimony, or reports of what occurred in various meetings or in far-flung outreaches. (Those with a heart for missions will, perhaps, stand amazed at the reports from overseas – Africa, China, India, Scandinavia, to mention a few nations.) If my readers underline every mention of sanctification, they will discover what I did – they will have marked every page of every extant issue of The Apostolic Faith! The experience of receiving a pure heart from God as a second definite work of grace in the believer was an almost-universal experience for the tens of thousands touched by God’s move at Azusa Street.

Those early Pentecostal saints had a divine certainty in their hearts, based on clear Scripture teaching and their personal, heart-cleansing experience with the Holy God, that the Holy Spirit desired to fill clean vessels, that is, hearts purified by faith. Laying out the doctrinal statement of the church and the movement, the first issue of The Apostolic Faith, after making its declaration about justification, said:

That article was very useful thank you Colin. I have not studied the Pentecostal Movement in depth before so this has been a good start, and in understanding Durhamism, a new word for me.

I came out of Calvinism and thought that I would be training in this as an apologist, then was reading the ECF for the past number of years, but now see that ministering to Pentecostals is before me.

Yes the early Azusa Street believers were entrenched in holiness doctrine till the Durhamists took over and also rewrote history as they do. This can be clearly refuted by the early church beliefs, but I guess many people are progressives here who see no value in their teachings.

I do not know if I am missing your point but there can be nothing as early than NT scriptures, sister. ECF came after NT scriptures. The main issue is not disagreeing about modern day issues or ECF - a problem exist when we seem to disagree over NT scriptures. Does that not mean we can expect to disagree on any other extra-biblic writings done later than that? Is patience with each other then not required as we all humbly seek from God why we so disagree?

Your maintaining that the thief had the Spirit or ES is a huge problem atleast to me. Then I see how easy it may then to disagree over plenty more other matters, expecially extra-biblical writings, events and manifestations.

May God have mercy.

When we first started to communicate, you told me that you do not sin. You then stated that you had the Pentecostal baptism of the Spirit with evidence of tongues.

As I have found out recently, this theology would be classed as Durhamism or Finished Work theology. So if this is the case, then thinking that the thief on the cross could go straight heaven is correct in your view.

I don't understand your issue then when I say he went to heaven too but disagree about what the baptism of the Spirit entails and as there is no verse in the scripture that tells us whether he was baptized/ES or not I do not see the point of furthering this.

My point was that he could not have received the Spirit as it was not publicly given yet - not the signs thereof. I would like to here other brethren on this honestly.

P.S: I think you mantain this because your theological view purports that heaven is for the sanctified or Spirit batized (indwelled). But looking at OT I do not see how that may have been so as the Spirit was only given to those with special offices it seems. What do other brethren think?

P.S: If you remeber well, I told you I did not speak in tongues the day I was baptised (perhaps one or two weeks later) - but I could pray in groans that cannot be uttered from the same day of baptism onwards (and todate). The baptism account: https://likechristfellowship.church/2023/11/18/my-prayer-ministry-and-the-outpouring-of-the-holy-spirit-experience/

Robert asked:
"When did Jesus become "perfect" ? Biblically."

"The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.” (Luke 13:31-33; KJV)

To clarify, I am not using the term perfect - as I don't think perfection is the scriptural term for sanctification. The word perfect is often a distraction, and serves as a means for debate and an easy avenue for the rejection of the scriptural doctrines of holiness.

There are various usages of the word perfect in scripture, and not all of them are attributed to saints that are still living. Jesus spoke of a future "perfection" just as clearly as He commanded a present perfection, "Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect". But this commanded perfection is not the same as the perfection gained when we are physically glorified in the resurrection of the body at the last judgment. Jesus spoke of His future perfection as a conclusion of His course of obedience in earth. The ESV brings this out much better in this verse.

"And he said to them, "Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.” (Luke 13:32; ESV).

The "now, and not yet" of the saints life is something that has been pressed upon me very thoroughly by the Lord - and is present throughout scripture. The now of present perfection, and the not yet of future perfection in glorification. This is the meaning of Paul when he says, "Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.” (Philippians 3:12-15)

The KJV gives us this interesting view in translating this verse in this way, and I think the KJV is more accurate to the Greek: "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” (Philippians 3:15; KJV).

Now, and not yet; or to use the language of the beatitudes, "Are the", and "they shall".

That said, I do not hold to the Wesleyan terminology of "Christian perfection", as I don't believe it to be scriptural language when talking about sanctification, no matter your views of it.

The issue I take with this (the only reason I am posting this is because Robert asked the question, honestly), is that this is yet another red herring that leads right into the opinions and doctrines of men - the real question is, what is the scriptural view of sanctification.

"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:” (1 Corinthians 1:30)

"For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one. But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words.” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-18)

I was never led to the traditional views of entire sanctification by reading Wesley, Clark, Fletcher, Samuel Chadwick, Samuel Brengle, EM Bounds, or any of the early writers, as they built their theology around a reaction to culture - and consequently focused their doctrine on sin, or in this case, being sinless.

The focus on sin, in my view, is a distraction to true holiness - which is solidly being entirely separated to Jesus for His will, purpose and ends. Sin as a focus leads a man directly to Romans 7 again and again, as it keeps someone focused on themselves and always examining their conduct, rather than in single eyed and unconscious obedience to Jesus - with Him as the sole end of our lives. Nothing that He gives us.

I would say that if the focus of your life is being sinless, you are not sanctified.

The gifts of the Spirit of God have been vaulted to a place of importance that scripture does not give them, and I think this is telling of our times. The fruit of the Spirit is almost entirely neglected, and the love of God shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit as the result of being truly set apart (sanctified, holy) for Jesus is not taught, except in a sentimental way whenever someone dares to expose false teaching. Love is degraded into a form of overlooking all sin and error, rather than the motivation and all consuming animatory factor of the life of the saint. God is love, is turned around to say, love is God.

Wesley coined this phrase, "pure love alone, reigning in the heart and life, this is the whole of Christian perfection", but went on in glaring inconsistency to teach a form of sinless perfection that is foreign to scripture. The irony of this teaching is the only way one can live truly free from sin, sinless as it were, is to not focus on living sinless - because if the left hand knows what the right hand is doing, we are already in sin.

Entire sanctification is illustrated best in the setting apart of objects for use in the tabernacle. No one ever set apart a piece of anything, it was always the whole object of it was not sanctified. This translates perfectly into the new testament view of entire sanctification.

Another telling theme in scripture in the lack of any process regarding sanctification. We learn obedience, grow in knowledge and grace, receive greater revelation; but we are never exhorted to partial sanctification.

"And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles””to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’” (Acts 26:15-18)

We are sanctified by faith. We, in Jesus own words, ARE SANCTIFIED. Not entered into a process, but sanctified.

I would have to write an entire book to explain the practical outworkings of this in the life of a sanctified believer - and it is much more profound, and much deeper than a pedestrian focus on sin. As I stated before, if your sole focus is sinlessness, than I would exhort you to seek the Lord concerning your sanctification.

True sanctification leads to a life of freedom from sin, but this is a side issue and byproduct of much deeper truths.

Anyway, I hope this helps. I have read and studied practically every author to ever teach these doctrines, as the Lord has made it plain to me that the truth of entire sanctification, or as Paul states it, being "sanctified wholly, spirit, soul and body" are central to true faith in Jesus.

If I had to recommend 2 authors who I believe teach it correctly, I would recommend Oswald Chambers and Norman Grubb.

Jesus as our sanctification, and His all sufficiency for our every need is the foundation of true, scriptural sanctification. Anything less than "Christ in you" is bound to degrade into useless debate and doctrines of devils. Jesus is our sanctification, and He is made unto us everything, or He is nothing to us.

Kervin,
I was unaware of any conversation regarding this that may have mentioned seeking my thought on it, so to propose any trust issues between brethren based on that is a bit underhanded - but such is the case when these truths are being discussed.

Thank you for your input, brother. While you broke the subject down very well, you sadly did not mention exactly when entire sactification occurs it seems - well atleast not directly like I wished/expected.

I agree the trust issue was not a two-way flow - but it seems to have been from sister brendaM to you so the statement was only partially correct (or hard to structure?) - but I went on to say: "or things are not clear to you either" so as to give room for the former statement to be disqualified partially or entirely (please kindly judge that and advise - I did not say 'and' but 'or').

Until you advise on when this sanctification occurs, I reckon I should refrain from commenting further. Personally, sinlessness is not my focus indeed.

I am not clear about what Kervin has said here regarding a trust issue with Evan?

I don't have a trust issue with Evan, a brother I esteem and find myself in agreement often.

What took place was that Kervin wanted to involve you Evan to settle a disagreement about the thief on the cross, but I declined by saying I did not think it was worth bothering you with this as there is no verse anyway that says whether the thief was baptised in the Spirit or not.

I think brother Kervin is rather confused.

Sister brendaM, 'trust' may not have been the best word but what I mean is you did not think brother Evan would immediately see things like you. What do I call that - doubt maybe? So things are not clear even between ESd folks but you speak about those you consider un-ESd as thought they are failing to see the obvious?

P.S Yes you will remember that the reason why I suggested brother Evan was indeed because I came to know that you esteemed him or his Christian-person. But you refused andd yet you wanted us to build further on an uncertain notion :(

Kervin,

The timing of sanctification is up to God, honestly. Just like salvation, sanctification is a sovereign work of grace through the many avenues God has ordained - the work of The Holy Spirit, the preaching of the gospel and full salvation of Jesus, etc. - and can happen at ones initial new birth, or for most of us, later as a subsequent work of the Holy Spirit when light is given on the fullness of redemption purchased for us by Jesus on the cross and through His resurrection and ascension.

To try and fit each experience into a specific timeline, even those in scripture, is to fail to see the truth of redemption and the fullness of the work of Jesus. The church in acts lived through a time that will never be repeated - as the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Jesus is glorified now, and has been for 2 millennia. The principles we find in scripture however are the baseline for these things.

Some receive the full salvation of Jesus at their new birth - perhaps the Holy Spirit dealt with them more deeply and they were told of the insufficiency of self effort, works, and the sinfulness of sin against God by a faithful steward of the scriptures right away, and they entered into identification with the full work of Jesus for them right then and there.

Sadly, most preachers these days are not faithful stewards, and consequently the church suffers. Even more tragically is when believers lower scripture to their standard of living and experience, rather than seek the Lord to elevate their level of experience and life to the place of scripture.

So to answer directly, sanctification happens when the Lord sees fit - and the pride of man will not like this answer, but scripture is very plain.

It was immaterial to me whether Evan would agree with me or not, I thought it was a wasting his time for him to get involved.

Can this sanctification occur prior to HS baptism?

I am assuming you are already asserting/implying to ES occuring after HS baptism.

Kervin,

What you are doing currently is definitively sowing discord among brethren. May the Lord reveal this to you.

Brenda,
It is important to remember that we are never perfect in knowledge, but this holds no bearing on our sanctification, or standing with the Lord. All we can do is remain faithful to the light we are given, and be ready to change any and all opinions we may have the second the Lord reveals to us we are wrong. We have an anointing from God, the Holy Spirit, to teach us all things - and He is faithful to lead us into all truth if we will but allow Him.

I did not think it was wasting time for two reasons:

1. It made me fail to fully qualify your interpretation of scriptures as I thought this was one of the obvious looking aspects - especially to someone who considered themselve as a theology student.

2. It seemed it would break your systematic theology greatly and you did not seem ready for that? But yes I may have been incorrect about this one but you may remember me mentioning this to you.

"It is important to remember that we are never perfect in knowledge, but this holds no bearing on our sanctification, or standing with the Lord. All we can do is remain faithful to the light we are given, and be ready to change any and all opinions we may have the second the Lord reveals to us we are wrong. We have an anointing from God, the Holy Spirit, to teach us all things - and He is faithful to lead us into all truth of we will not allow Him."

I agree with this especially to remain faithful to the light we are given which I first heard from O. Chambers and often thought about it. I have changed my views often during internet discussions.

Kervin

Nothing was stopping you from contacting Evan as you had his email address. I had not banned you from doing that! I only expressed an opinion that I thought it would waste his time.

It seemed to me as though you are 'making a mountain out of a molehill' instead of just accepting that I did not agree with you.

Kervin said:
"It seemed it would break your systematic theology"

Would to God He would break all of our systematic theologies - Jesus is the most anti systematic person to ever walk the earth - and if you truly follow our great God and Savior, you will soon find He will purposefully destroy any system you try to set up, Babel must fall, and the human self sufficiency that systems of theology represent are intrinsically sinful.

When you truly follow Jesus, you quickly realize that unknowing is the truest form of knowledge. Abraham went out in faith, not knowing where he was going.

Dear brother, I do not mean to sow discord but feel compelled to sharply censor our sister's way of doing things. I had an extended talk with her via email.

Brother I would like to assure you that you would do the same had you have had a chance to speak to her like I did. I have read your version of sanctification and according to it I believe I am sanctified wholly (ESd) but this she seemed to reject entirely - providing several reasons I could not always find qualified. And that in a rather harsh spirit - despite my assuring her that I am ready to make corrections where I may be convinced to be in error.

And now I fear she might end up doing the same thing to others unless the Lord bring her to see this :(

Sister the issue with you is that you tend to present something as a fact (I do not know how it happens) and if proven wrong later you are ready to discard it like it was an opinion. I already mentioned and you commented. But on the other thread about bible churches needing revival you seemed to be repeating the same.

P.S: It's as though you believe all that comes to your mind is straight from God but when you later realise you are wrong you want your audience to excuse you as it must then have been a misconception. This cannot be proper at it hurts your audience (at least it did for me and I told you) badly.

The grounds for our disagreement to my recollection were, that the Pentecostal baptism of the Spirit is not the same one as understood by the traditional holiness preachers, some of whom Evan has named.

Their view was that it entirely sanctified one, brought full union with God when the temple within us had been cleansed because the HS cannot dwell where there is sin, not the power and gifts one of Pentecostalism and it seems that you have taken it all too personally. My intentions were to help you with the problems you admitted you are having in your life and hopefully would lead you to seek the true blessing of ES. I am sorry you are offended.

"Would to God He would break all of our systematic theologies..."

I agree to this approach and remember presenting the same about my own but still felt it was not being considered.

My last words for now (after evaluating especially your last comment, sister) are, let everyone be on a looking for what I have presented as my grieivances about sister brendaM. If she is never found repeating the same, it will either mean I was lying or she has finally taken heed (only God will be able to judge between this). If she is found repeating however, then you shall be my witnesses that I raised the concern.

As pertaining my family problems I prosted here on SI (before my email talk with my sister) stating that I am reminded of Job when I look at them. And when they finally seemed to retreat, I do not recall repeanting of a sin in that sense. Unfortunately, all I could say to her was that I found her piecing words as Job found his friends' words.

Going back to the thread topic, my concern was how God could let a Christian go for years (praying for extended hours) without the Spirit. I may have gone for few days to weeks myself prior to baptism - but I rember I was already hungering after prayer and had already had a prayer meeting held in my campus room (with friends perhaps daily - excluding Sundays) amongst others I attended when I felt my lack of power to pray longer (running out of utterance and so asked for tongues). But after baptism I got groans which could already be protracted - no tongues until later.

So perhaps years of praying are also possible or this brother may have had the Spirit without being aware? Or it takes that long for God to prepare a mighty baptism?

Kervin
I believe you focus too much on this belief of ES. This could lead you away from Christ !
Read what the Apostle Paul wrote in all his letters.
About the Gospel, the finished work of Christ and His Kingdom.
May you discover more of Him and grow in Him and understand more what "Amazing Grace " means.
May He guide you and give you understanding
Blessings

Markus

"Going back to the thread topic, my concern was how God could let a Christian go for years (praying for extended hours) without the Spirit."

Brother Seymour was a born again believer, out of the holiness movement, who was seeking the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that the 120 experienced in the Upper room.

Brother, you do realize that there are many born again believers that are indwelt by the Holy Spirit that have never experienced the Acts 2 Baptism of the Holy Spirit!

From what brother Evan presented, it seems scripturally supported I would say - and the effects thereof proves relatable.

1 Thessalonians 5:23

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

@brother Mike, I should comment shortly

1 Thessalonians 5:23

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Amen ! This is progressive sanctification.

The Word also teaches instantaneous sanctification when one ic born again.

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6: 9-11).

@brother Mike, my theoology was like: the Spirit stays with us outwardly from the day we place our faith in Christ onwards. But only comes to indwell us at baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). And that until indwelt, we cannot perform specific tasks that requires indwelling?

Could it be that you guys have already talked about this ES with brother Evan but could not reach common grounds? What you said seems plausible brother, Mike. But I will need to take a closer look as your Cor. verses as they may indicate a stage later than the day one came to Christ. Especially the way 'sanctified' is mentioned.

Brother, remember when Jesus breathed on his disciples and said receive ye, the Holy Spirit, the disciples had the Holy Spirit dwelling within them on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit fell with tongues of fire, the Holy Spirit came upon them.

The indwelling Holy Spirit produces the fruit of the spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is power for Ministry and witness.

Okay brother Mike - let me look at that.

You must admit brethren though, that things went badly wrong there. I must get my hands on the Bartleman book itself, but I understand from other historians, that it was the great clash between traditional holiness people and the new Pentecostalism.

Brenda: There were several divisions as I understand it. One was the "finished work doctrine". It was held by a man named Durham. Parham was very much a holiness preacher and believed in entire sanctification. Finished work adherents rejected this doctrine. In my youth, I remember the old timers preaching that the Assembly of God has compromised on sanctification, and were not right in their doctrine. They had strayed from the truth. It all went back to sanctification and the divide that happened over the finished work doctrine and a more traditional pentacostal view of entire sanctification.

I recall a meeting one time in which I said that I did not agree with everything Parham taught. My great uncle said, "Well which one is it? It's sanctification isn't it?" The default mode was to assume I did not believe in sanctification, although I had said nothing even relating to the topic. It just shows how deep that difference cut in the pentacostal world.

"Locally it is of small account, being insignificant both in numbers and influence. Instead of being the greatest movement of the times, as represented”“in Los Angeles, at least”“it is of small moment. It has had, and has now upon the religious life of the city, about as much influence as a pebble thrown into the sea. . .

In the end, Bresee felt that the Azusa Street Pentecostal bordered on fanaticism and heresy by teaching that

Christians are sanctified before they receive the baptism with the Holy Ghost, this baptism being a gift of power upon the sanctified life, and that the essential and necessary evidence of the baptism is the gift of speaking with new tongues, [which he called] a jargon, a senseless mumble. . . a poor mess.

The Apostolic Faith Movement that Parham started still holds this view. Parham came from Methodism and believed in the second blessing, a work of sanctification and holiness in a person's life. He just tacked the Baptism of the Holy Spirit onto that teaching as a third definite work. I have another great uncle who lamented one time about not being able to be baptized in the Holy Spirit because he had never truly prayed through to entire sanctification and this because he still saw sinfulness in his life.

I was taught from my youth that entire sanctification was the second definite work of God's grace, the baptism of the Holy Spirit being the third. I was never able to see it Biblically though. Interestingly enough, I have known of people in my area who fellowship both with the church of the Nazarene and the Apostolic Faith people.

@brother Mike

John 14:17 King James Version (KJV)

"even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."

Admittedly I did not know how to best clash Jesus breathing to them but I thought the tenor of the rest of baptism related scriptures suggested: with you and shall be in you.

That was very helpful thank you Travis. I am wondering now whether there were three divisions.

1) Durhamism aka Finished work with tongues as a second blessing.

2) Parhamists Pentecostals that believed in entire sanctification along with tongues as a second work or even third with ES coming last.

3) Traditional holiness who followed John Wesley's entire sanctification and previous teachers like ECF's with no tongues as a second work of grace.

Does this sound right?

The palatable teaching that tickles mens ears, and fits their present experience will always be the most accepted one.

It is pride to bring scripture down to our experience - it is a man standing in judgment of the written word of God, saying that just because we haven't experienced it means it must be interpreted differently and can't mean what it clearly says.

This is the crying sin of our modern age, reinterpreting the faith until it fits our understanding and experience.

To try and say the scripture from 1 Thessalonians 5 is progressive is to do exactly that. The Greek tense and context flies in the face of the progressive view - as does every type and shadow of sanctification from Genesis to The Revelation. That is clear from the very same verse - unless something can be preserved blameless that is only partially sanctified... Preservation seems to indicate a state that should be kept, rather than moved on from.

But, the progressive view does make men feel better, pacifies their consciences and allows them to justify whatever it is in their life that the Lord has put His finger on.

I will leave all of my previous posts stand as they are, because like normal others will enter into the discussion with views that are unscriptural, and never address my posts anyway - likely because they would only have to concede (accuse me of pride like usual, but my view is in fact the Lords view of this matter, and it was gained from Him).

Perhaps though, I am to proud to realize my error now, but I trust the Lord to reveal that to me.

I have tried to line up the three blessings with the ECF's teaching on three stages.

1) Purification - when the believer is convicted of his sins when he finds he is unable to keep the commandments of Jesus.

2) Illumination if the believer does not quench the Spirit and comes to a crisis of submission whereby God can reveal to the person the 'higher' life whereby the man is able to walk in the Spirit without the flesh interfering though has not the ability to obey entirely..

3)Theosis or entire sanctification whereby the Holy Spirit dwells entirely and has taken up residence.

These comply with the walk of the disciples:

1) As disciples failing often.

2) Breathed on by Jesus with the Holy Spirit, which did not indwell but Illuminated them revealing truth so that hey could be of one accord.

3) Pentecost.

The problem with heresy hunters and even war on the Saints is that when you’re constantly searching for the counterfeit and the false you have doubt as to what is actually True and what is real.

If you had talked to me three years ago, I would have honestly said that I had never listened to, and would not listen to, some of the people that are labeled as "heresy hunters". Events in my life such as leaving a church that was running hard core into the NAR, caused me to seek out what I had been a part of. My eyes had been kept closed, so to speak, by those who painted these people as "heresy hunters", as if their only motivation was to paint everyone but them as heretics. I was under the impression that they were modern day Don Quixotis on a quest for witches that were in reality very useful windmills.

As I heard what some of these "heresy hunters" were saying, I was driven to the word and I was driven to seriously consider whether what I was hearing, and believing, was truly Biblical. I found that much of it was not. It was not only unbiblical, but in a lot of cases patently anti-biblical.

I also found that some of these "heresy hunters" had been heavily involved in NAR influenced churches and had been spiritually harmed. As a result, many of them adopted a reformed theology and a cessationist perspective. Cessationism, I found out, was not at all accurately represented at all by the charismatic church at large. It was misrepresented and demonized. I say that with myself being a full fledged, card carrying continuationist who believes in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as an experience separate from salvation and in the gifts of the Spirit in full operation in the church. I disagree with them in many areas, but I will not call them "heresy hunters." I used to say that, but I have learned that is just not true. Their heart is to identify and call out what is unBiblical so that others are not led astray like they were. Do they get it wrong simetimes? Sure! But so do the ones who label them heresy hunters.

As a pentacostal, I will call out what I see is false. I am not a heresy hunter, but Paul told the church at Rome, and as as result all of us, to mark (call out and identify) and then avoid (do not fellowship with) those who preach another gospel.

"To try and say the scripture from 1 Thessalonians 5 is progressive is to do exactly that. The Greek tense and context flies in the face of the progressive view - as does every type and shadow of sanctification from Genesis to The Revelation. That is clear from the very same verse - unless something can be preserved blameless that is only partially sanctified... Preservation seems to indicate a state that should be kept, rather than moved on from.

But, the progressive view does make men feel better, pacifies their consciences and allows them to justify whatever it is in their life that the Lord has put His finger on."

Amen.

I personally do not feel I need progressive sactification either but let me take a personal look at this.

Brother Evan, I just do not see how a man who honestly seeks to be true to Christ can purposefully reject the truth and choose to believe a lie.

Have you ever looked at it in that way? What then could cause this in your understanding - to not see what you are seeing?

@Travis

Seems well said

lthough the Baptism of the Holy Spirit” and speaking in tongues probably will be the focus of most eager readers of The Azusa Street Papers, I challenge them to do something special while reading. Look for every place where sanctification is mentioned. It may be in a teaching, or a doctrinal statement, or a testimony, or reports of what occurred in various meetings or in far-flung outreaches. (Those with a heart for missions will, perhaps, stand amazed at the reports from overseas – Africa, China, India, Scandinavia, to mention a few nations.) If my readers underline every mention of sanctification, they will discover what I did – they will have marked every page of every extant issue of The Apostolic Faith! The experience of receiving a pure heart from God as a second definite work of grace in the believer was an almost-universal experience for the tens of thousands touched by God’s move at Azusa Street.

Those early Pentecostal saints had a divine certainty in their hearts, based on clear Scripture teaching and their personal, heart-cleansing experience with the Holy God, that the Holy Spirit desired to fill clean vessels, that is, hearts purified by faith. Laying out the doctrinal statement of the church and the movement, the first issue of The Apostolic Faith, after making its declaration about justification, said

This would be 100% true. I heard hundreds of sermons on sanctification. It was usually coupled with physical dos and don'ts. I will give you an example. I attended and later served on the board of the Apostolic Faith Youth Camp in Baxter Springs, KS. Growing up, I remember that girls wore dresses all day long, and it was a really big deal when they were allowed to change into pants for three hours in the afternoon to play softball, etc.. I was an adult before I every was on the inside of a movie theater or in a skating rink. I was told those places were evil and that a sanctified Christian should not go there.

My point is that the understanding of sanctification was mixed with outward actions and was accompanied by a degree of pride. The church where I grew up in Joplin, MO was called the "Original Apostolic Faith Church". My great grandfather built it and was its first pastor. The word "original" was a distinctive because the people at our church thought that many of the other Apostolic Faith churches has compromised in some areas of sanctification.

I struggled with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit for years as a young man. I wanted to be baptized in the Spirit, but I also identified areas of my life where I was not totally sinless, and struggled from time to time. As a result, I felt like I was not a clean vessel to be filled. Never mind the fact that I could never make myself clean and that it was God's grace and the blood of Jesus that imputed righteousness to me. It was not until I realized that I needed the power of the Holy Spirit to help me walk in holiness that I was Baptized in the Holy Spirit.

There are different ways that people view entire sanctification. So that term can mean different things to different people. To be honest, I probably fall somewhere between traditional pentacostalism and the Assemblies of God on my view of how to define sanctification.

Robert asked:
"When did Jesus become "perfect" ? Biblically."

Business kept me from the discussion for a while, so I am catching up. I appreciate this post on page 5 of the thread. I would say you have come very close to summing up my perspective on sanctification.

The timing of sanctification is up to God, honestly. Just like salvation, sanctification is a sovereign work of grace through the many avenues God has ordained - the work of The Holy Spirit, the preaching of the gospel and full salvation of Jesus, etc. - and can happen at ones initial new birth, or for most of us, later as a subsequent work of the Holy Spirit when light is given on the fullness of redemption purchased for us by Jesus on the cross and through His resurrection and ascension.

I guess this is the detail I would disagree with. I see sanctification more as a process. There is the initial consecrating of myself to God, surrendering to Him and making the decision that He is going to be Lord of my life, no matter what. That, I believe, is the decision made at salvation. If you are not willing to surrender, you will not be saved. Repentance is a must. But the process of God working out in you His holiness is life-long. Sanctification, then as I see it, has both a moment when it occurs and a lifetime of its being worked out.

The grounds for our disagreement to my recollection were, that the Pentecostal baptism of the Spirit is not the same one as understood by the traditional holiness preachers, some of whom Evan has named.

Their view was that it entirely sanctified one, brought full union with God when the temple within us had been cleansed because the HS cannot dwell where there is sin, not the power and gifts one of Pentecostalism and it seems that you have taken it all too personally. My intentions were to help you with the problems you admitted you are having in your life and hopefully would lead you to seek the true blessing of ES. I am sorry you are offended.

This is more how sanctification was presented to me as I grew up in the Apostolic Faith movement. Parham was a methodist originally. He did not lay that aside. He believed that the outpouring in Topeka in 1901 was "the latter rain", and that the experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit would be something that would spread among churches of all denominations. He could not perceive that anyone would not want more of the power of God as he has experienced it. There was, I have come to realize, some naivite in him.

He never left the methodist roots. He still taught that the second definite work, sanctification, was what the old time methodists called the second blessing. This blessing was seen to bring one into union with God and, pretty much, render one to be in a state of sinlessness and make him a vessel fit for the Holy Spirit.

Travis said:
"I guess...that, I believe...then as I see it..."

This is the exact issue I addressed in my directly previous post - ibid.

"Going back to the thread topic, my concern was how God could let a Christian go for years (praying for extended hours) without the Spirit."

Brother Seymour was a born again believer, out of the holiness movement, who was seeking the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that the 120 experienced in the Upper room.

Brother, you do realize that there are many born again believers that are indwelt by the Holy Spirit that have never experienced the Acts 2 Baptism of the Holy Spirit!

Mike: I agree. There has never been a day since pentacost that people have not been filled with the Spirit and operated in the gifts. It continues. It has not ceased and been revived. And I agree specifically with the last statement. Tongues and manifestations are not necessary to be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

The indwelling Holy Spirit produces the fruit of the spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is power for Ministry and witness.

AMEN

Brenda: It sounds right. Not sure that there might not be even more divisions, but that sounds like the three big ones.

Travis said:
"I guess...that, I believe...then as I see it..."

This is the exact issue I addressed in my directly previous post - ibid.

I am sorry brother, but I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to say here.

Jason,

"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification” (1 Thessalonians 4:3)

And on that massive self contradiction of a post - I will bow out. Much of what you said there is in literal and direct opposition to Jesus own words - while you claim to represent the true Jesus.

Nothing good will come of this thread now -

"If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will display at the proper time””he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you.” (1 Timothy 6:3-21)

@bother Jason (edited),

I chat with sister Brenda from November 26th there until early or mid January almost daily. You can imagine how much we must have gone through in that period.

But when I came back to update on SI on her withdrawal from LCF, I did not disclose names or seek to add much details: https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=66153&forum=35 (page 2)

Otherwise, please see this thread and judge: https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=66474&forum=35

It was only when I felt a need to voice my grievances that I did. Particularly after the talk on the above thread (coupled with our extended email talk).

P.S: But I reckon it is all well now

Please brothers, do not allow the enemy of our souls to come in and cause disruption to this fellowship of followers of Christ.

Whenever the truth is broadcast, he is there in a flash to destroy the works that disarm him but instead of arguments be pleased that the truth is being spoken amongst it all and pray that each will not miss this opportunity to access it.

Please allow me to put the record straight, there is no relationship between Kervin and l. He is a married man with three young children and l am a 73 year old woman living a long way away and we only made contact when l was interested in his online church and gave him some financial help.

I decided not to persue membership but we continued with discussions on doctrine on which we disagreed. He wanted to call Evan in seemingly with the hope that Evan would persuade me to agree with him as he seems not to like being disagreed with.

I ended our discussions. It looked to me as if he had stopped posting so l was surprised to see him here again. l might also add that l had some chat with his wife. That's it.

And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified. -- Romans 8:30 (CSB)

Does anyone think it strange that sanctification isn't mentioned in this text which is obviously intended by God to be a description of God's ultimate work by the Holy Spirit in those who love God as He moves from Romans 3-8 ? Paul obviously deals with sanctification in Romans 6, the former life of God's people in the flesh in Romans 7, followed by the indwelling Spirit as His solution and yet leaves sanctification out in Romans 8 and only mentions justification and glorification.

Why?

The only plausible answer that occurs to me ( I hope it is of the Spirit) is that glorification is actually the work of the Spirit, internally first in this life and then in the flesh lastly at resurrection. That's also why I think the sanctification of the saints is a progressive path worked through knowing Jesus, obedience, training in righteousness, more sustained and complete bearing the fruit of the Spirit and endurance and growth in all these things through suffering That is a Biblical list in the maturation of the believer, all the believers, and the apostolic gifts to the church are given to equip the saints unto the "saints work of ministry" so that they can then build each other up unto the fullness of Christ and maturity through speaking the truth (of Christ and from Christ) in love to one another. All the saints being equipped unto building one another up unto maturity.

That is the level I've attained to in my understanding of sanctification.........growing unto maturity and the fullness of Christ. Perhaps I am wrong or haven't attained to others' level of understanding or experience. Nonetheless, I have been baptized in the Spirit and experience the power (transformational and ministerial) of this age and am growing in Christlikeness but have not already attained to it but I forget what lies behind, pressing on to the upward calling of God and the prize that awaits me. I discipline my body daily and its appetites so that having taught others, I myself might not be disqualified.

It seemed to me that onlookers need a bit more Scripture in this conversation that was lacking. in my humble opinion.

Robert said:
"The only plausible answer that occurs to me ( I hope it is of the Spirit) is that glorification is actually the work of the Spirit, internally first in this life and then in the flesh lastly at resurrection."

This is actually the thought process that led Rees Howells to his experience of sanctification. He saw the glorification of Jesus, and that we are identified with that and seated in the heavenly places with Him, and this is what led to his experience of the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

Growth in knowledge, righteousness, revelation, obedience, and all of these things are completely consistent with the scriptural understanding of entire sanctification - being wholly sanctified, spirit, soul and body.

As I said in my initial post in this thread, sanctification from a scriptural standpoint is far removed from what man usually teaches - as man usually teaches a convoluted form of sinless perfection, an eradication of some ethereal sinful nature, and some have even taught perfection in knowledge and insight (gnosticism for example).

Scriptural holiness is being perfectly set aside for Jesus and His use, no matter what the outcome is.

My goal is God Himself, not joy, nor peace,
Nor even blessing, but Himself, my God;
’Tis His to lead me there””not mine, but His””
At any cost, dear Lord, by any road.

A pure heart is a purity of intention -

"For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts, and intentions of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12)

Notice I added a comma to that verse that changes everything - and I think is more what the Holy Spirit means to communicate. Thoughts and intentions of the heart are usually grouped, but the Lord has led me to believe that "intentions of the heart" is not the same as thoughts, thoughts are a different subject.

A pure heart is therefore purity of intention, blamelessness.

My daughter may, in her ignorance, place a pair of leather shoes upon a heater vent to dry, not knowing this will destroy them. She meant no harm, but the consequences of her pure actions, thinking she was merely helping dry the shoes faster, led to them being deformed and unwearable.

She was pure in heart, yet her actions may have led to something she didn't intend.

Jesus blesses the pure in heart, saying they shall see God.

Many claim this is license, but purity of intention and motive is the childlike quality that defines a sanctified disciple of Jesus, and is a deeper work than even refraining from outward sins. This inner change of disposition, this inner purity, is only accomplished by Jesus being formed in a person.

"My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.” (Galatians 4:19-20, KJV)

Inward purity is Christ in us, formed in us, and our resignation to allow Him to be our sanctification. Purity means to be unmixed, single eyed, full of light. The Galatians were seeking perfection, not sin. They were aiming for legalistic and fleshly perfection, and quickly finding that this legalism leads to overt sin -

"Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.” (Romans 7:4-9; ESV)

When we are filled with the Spirit of Jesus, we become "one spirit" with Him, united with Him in all the work He accomplished for us, from earthly cross to heavenly crown. He works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. The Galatians were born again, but had not experienced Christ being formed in them by the Spirit - and sought the spiritual baptism of Jesus via legalism and law, not the hearing of faith.

This is why John in his first epistle spends very little time addressing the "if any man sin" question, because it's not main issue - and if it becomes the main issue, then the issue is actually that the person inquiring about it still has some inner desire to commit sin, and likely has not even experienced the new birth, let alone sanctification.

Your view and mine are more similar than they seem on the surface, as the process of glorification is ongoing until it becomes physical - a resurrected body.

Sanctification is the setting aside of a vessel for holy use, and cannot be anything other than entire. The names which men give it are inconsequential, and I believe it is left out of that text in Romans because Paul spends most of his ministry preaching it, in every epistle - and his desire in that text is to show the glorious and overall purpose of God in election.

When someone is sanctified, Jesus becomes the all consuming factor of their lives, not in word, but in deed. The felt presence of Jesus becomes a living reality, in which we live, and we no longer seek these mountain top experiences of the presence of God in meetings and conferences, we live in it minute by minute - revival becomes a non issue and a distraction to the will of God - our sanctification and daily abiding in Jesus for all things - not all Christian things or religious things, but ALL things in every aspect of life (I am preaching to the choir here with you brother, I know).

Interestingly this looks nothing like men teach it these days, and you will find VERY FEW writers or preachers outside of scripture that get it right.

Any further clarification brother Robert, please feel free to ask. I'm not going to post unless its response to you - the rest of this thread is grievous to the Holy Spirit.

Dear Jason you have not caused me any discomfort at all and my explanation was for the sake of others as much as you. I was very touched that someone came to my defence as you did as l don't know why Kervin is so angry with me. He has misunderstood me quite a bit because you can't always put spiritual matters into words easily.

regards Brenda

thanks Evan,

Then, with what you've said, my remaining issue ( not with you or ES ) is, in your view that you've arrived at, the pure heart then only happens at a second blessing ?

From my reading of Scripture, the pure heart, the new heart, the circumcised heart, the flesh separated heart, happens at new birth for the new believer (parable of the 4 soils). As such, there is only one kind of saint, not two as the ES viewpoint would naturally take one. We have been freed from the power of sin with our joinder to the Lord in death and in resurrection life at new birth. That is how we can be one spirit with the Lord from the beginning and not as a second experience.

The battle of life is as Paul says, is to not let the flesh through sin rule and reign in our hearts and members again.

Dying to self daily and being cleansed of all taint of sin through confession and cleansing is the battle and solution for all Christians so that we can sew to the Spirit and not the flesh, walk in the Spirit, fulfill the desires of the Spirit, etc. daily.

I would be confused if the battle between the flesh and the Spirit were not dealt with as real, fierce and full of risk and reward.

As for our desires, I believe that Scripture teaches that God's solution for the heart that could not obey God in righteousness and holiness of life was to put the love of Him and the fear of Him in us at new birth and to cleanse us of all heart idols at new birth, and to cause us to love righteousness and hate sin as a matter of new nature. I recognize that this will obviously put a lot of professors of faith into a spiritual quandary of whether they are in fact actually born again as opposed to whether they have had a second blessing.

Robert said:
"Then, with what you've said, my remaining issue ( not with you or ES ) is, in your view that you've arrived at, the pure heart then only happens at a second blessing ?"

Yes, but also, No. Scripturally we see both - and this leads to Paul's various dealings with the church, and his different exhortations to different believers even within the different localities. Jude even made it a point to address his epistle: "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.” (Jude 1:1-2, KJV) - this echoes Paul's exhortation to Thessalonians.

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24)

This exhortation makes it plain they were not in fact, "sanctified wholly" - or set aside perfectly and entirely for Jesus and His purposes.

With that said I'll repost what I said earlier in the thread in case you missed it - as this topic is large and takes up the majority of the new testament, if we are honest with the scriptures.

Again, let me know if this helps.

The timing of sanctification is up to God, honestly. Just like salvation, sanctification is a sovereign work of grace through the many avenues God has ordained - the work of The Holy Spirit, the preaching of the gospel and full salvation of Jesus, etc. - and can happen at ones initial new birth, or for most of us, later as a subsequent work of the Holy Spirit when light is given on the fullness of redemption purchased for us by Jesus on the cross and through His resurrection and ascension.

To try and fit each experience into a specific timeline, even those in scripture, is to fail to see the truth of redemption and the fullness of the work of Jesus. The church in acts lived through a time that will never be repeated - as the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Jesus is glorified now, and has been for 2 millennia. The principles we find in scripture however are the baseline for these things.

Some receive the full salvation of Jesus at their new birth - perhaps the Holy Spirit dealt with them more deeply and they were told of the insufficiency of self effort, works, and the sinfulness of sin against God by a faithful steward of the scriptures right away, and they entered into identification with the full work of Jesus for them right then and there.

Sadly, most preachers these days are not faithful stewards, and consequently the church suffers. Even more tragically is when believers lower scripture to their standard of living and experience, rather than seek the Lord to elevate their level of experience and life to the place of scripture.

So to answer directly, sanctification happens when the Lord sees fit - and the pride of man will not like this answer, but scripture is very plain.

Thanks again :).

So, are we in agreement or disagreement, that at new birth we are given a new spirit which is wholly sanctified but our soul needs to become wholly sanctified yet. Can wholly sanctification of soul occur over time and only be consummated or made complete at death because of the ever present danger of falling away to the flesh and the things of the world. My concern about timing is that we can be wholly consecrated in soul today but tomorrow is a new day thus the command to die and keep being filled. So death is the final time for whole consecration that is "complete". I do struggle that the soul is fully sanctified, ie., glorification of soul prior to death as then the war of flesh and Spirit would be complete at some point during life and the battle to finish the race would be unnecessary as the race was already over. Perhaps my definition is different on what wholly sanctified means. I'm not trying to be obtuse or difficult or unteachable on this. Maybe we are saying the same thing and just arriving at it from different directions. Again, this kind of back and forth with Scripture over experience interpreting Scripture is really more helpful for me in growing in understanding of the truth and of the source of others' viewpoints.

Evan, I should also add so that you can know where I'm coming from that "sanctification" or glorification of soul in this life would mean that we can no longer sin as this is the condition that we will be in when we are in heaven and fully glorified. That is, we will be so glorified that we will be unwilling and unable to sin at all. That is why John would say in 1 John that a born again believer or one who is born of God is unable to "practice" sin in this life as God's
seed abides in him as opposed to one who is unable to sin at all in this life because they have been wholly glorified of spirit and soul in this life.

Add:

Isn't glorification from Romans 8 ( predestined to conformity to Christ.... glorification and 1 John 2 ( our bodies will be glorified unto likeness with His) defined to be conformity to the soul and body of Christ ? Thus, glorification of soul is the transformation or conformity into His image which is progressive over time. If sanctification is glorification unto the soul of Christ, isn't that a life process ?

I'm just trying to make consistent the notion of sanctification being glorification in the temporal and that being conformity to His image. Hope that makes sense.

I am having some difficulty in answering these most recent questions as I don't see sanctification and glorification as the same thing - and I don't see that in scripture either.

You would have to show me any scripture that equates final glorification with sanctification (or honestly glorification in general with sanctification), as I don't think the absence of sanctification in that Romans text is proof of this.

I will have to give your most recent posts some thought, but I don't think I can answer them, as our presuppositions regarding sanctification and glorification are different - and consequently, until that is resolved we may be at an impasse.

Ok, i thought we were probably not on the same page on the sanctification and glorification equivalency that I was understanding. I knew we had a definitional difference on the meaning of sanctification. You made a comment in a post on being a vessel prepared for usefulness to Him or words like that. Is that your general idea for "sanctification" ? I'm just trying to understand your definition as well as trying to define mine in a helpful way as that is how conversations can stay on track or become divergent. I totally agree with you that many people who are truly born again take time to arrive at a place where they die daily and it is not longer they who live but Christ who lives in them. Is that closer to your definition ? If it is we are in total agreement on that but I probably wouldn't call that sanctification which would never take away from the critical truth spoken in that passage. Again, I may be wrong in my definition of sanctification, but before I can feel comfortable embracing a new understanding by the Spirit I would look for a Scriptural wording or perhaps context to go after.

I am obviously in total agreement that the Thessalonians passage on being wholly sanctified is critical truth. I am not totally convinced that this would be a definitional passage though. Wholly sanctified of body (conformity to Christ's image) happens in an instance at death. If that is so, then sanctification in this Thessalonians passage refers to conformity to the image of Christ. Wholly sanctified in my spirit happens at new birth. Is the idea that wholly sanctified in soul which is not conformity to Christ as you said would then axiomatically happen in an instant at some point in this life as we pursue it daily and, if that is true, which I won't preclude as the right answer, then I would just like to know what the thing is that happens instantly with the soul that is different than the sanctification of the body. I think you might say that sanctification of body, soul and spirit is a setting apart unto God of our self life so that His life can be lived out of us. I can totally agree with that idea. It's biblical in Romans 6 and Romans 12, John 12:24-25, etc. Perhaps John 12:24-25 is the operating concept in your understanding of sanctified "wholly" in spirit soul and body.

Sorry for the headache or frustration I might be causing.

Robert,
No headache brother, none at all. Here is some original languages and their definitions, if that helps.

I still need to see scripture that equates sanctification with glorification. I don't think that view is scriptural, but I could be wrong.

Greek:

Sanctified
ἁγιάζω

hagiazō

hag-ee-ad'-zo

to make holy, that is, (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate: - hallow, be holy, sanctify.

Hebrew:

Sanctified
קָדַשׁ

qâdash

kaw-dash'

A primitive root; to be (causatively make, pronounce or observe as) clean (ceremonially or morally): - appoint, bid, consecrate, dedicate, defile, hallow, (be, keep) holy (-er, place), keep, prepare, proclaim, purify, sanctify (-ied one, self), X wholly.

Glorified:

Greek:
δοξάζω

doxazō

dox-ad'-zo

to render (or esteem) glorious (in a wide application): - (make) glorify (-ious), full of (have) glory, honour, magnify.

Hebrew -

kâbad kâbêd

kaw-bad, kaw-bade'

A primitive root; to be heavy, that is, in a bad sense (burdensome, severe, dull) or in a good sense (numerous, rich, honorable); causatively to make weighty (in the same two senses): - abounding with, more grievously afflict, boast, be chargeable, X be dim, glorify, be (make) glorious (things), glory, (very) great, be grievous, harden, be (make) heavy, be heavier, lay heavily, (bring to, come to, do, get, be had in) honour (self), (be) honourable (man), lade, X more be laid, make self many, nobles, prevail, promote (to honour), be rich, be (go) sore, stop.

Thanks for those. I’m a little unclear then on this ……. if one definition of hagiazo includes to "make holy” or to "be holy”, doesn’t that definition at least lean in the direction of God making us holy or helping us become holy (in nature and character) as He is holy. God is holy not in the sense of being set apart for ministry or transformation or becoming something. I know I’m not telling you something you don’t already know, but the word "faith” or "pistus” has two distinct meanings. First trusting in God and second being trustworthy towards God. Not trying to make that a proof though. Just now confused by what holiness means if the singular definition of sanctification includes "to make holy” or "be holy” and that doesn’t mean to be like God.

May our eyes be opened so that we would see and Know Christ as our sanctification.

"But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God””and righteousness and SANCTIFICATION and redemption.”(1 Corinthians 1: 30)

"Christ imputed is my righteousness. Christ imparted is my sanctification. One day I will be perfectly conformed to God in Christ. That will be my glorification.”

Will Pounds

Robert et.al.

Sanctification, as I understand it.

As Mike quoted. Jesus is made unto us sanctification. Sanctification is impossible apart from Him. He does the sanctifying work. I cannot wash myself or make myself holy. Yet I have the power of choice to choose to allow God to cleanse me, or to choose to fight against that cleansing work.

To be sanctified is to be set apart as holy unto the Lord and this requires a transformation, a cleansing. This will obviously not take place all at one moment. It is a process that never ends. Yet to begin the process I must yield to it, and I must yield to the process each day. God will say, "I want to do this or that in your life to fashion you into My image and to use you for My glory in a greater way.?"
We must say yes in order for this to happen.

Sanctification has a starting point. I believe it to be the point of salvation, when I repent and surrender to Christ. Sanctification has an ending point, when Jesus returns and the work is made complete when I am glorified with Him. In the mean time, the work goes on and on in my life.

But, in the process, I can say that I am sanctified in that I am surrendered to Him and to His work. I have set myself apart for Him, consecrated myself to Him if that makes sense. I can say that I am being sanctified as well as He is working in me to bring me more and more into His image and likeness.

My understanding, put in as simple terms as I can think of so there is not ambiguity in what I say. Robert and others, I am not sure if that is a statement that you would agree with or not. We can split hairs, but this would be the basic framework that I see in scripture.

moved

"But, in the process, I can say that I am sanctified in that I am surrendered to Him and to His work. I have set myself apart for Him, consecrated myself to Him if that makes sense. I can say that I am being sanctified as well as He is working in me to bring me more and more into His image and likeness."

Amen! We were sanctified at the new birth, but sanctification is also a process.
Our prayer is that God would sanctify us wholly- spirit, soul, and body. Our spirit is born of God, our soul is being transformed, and our bodies will be made new in the future.

"And we ask you, brethren, to know those labouring among you, and leading you in the Lord, and admonishing you, and to esteem them very abundantly in love, because of their work; be at peace among yourselves; and we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the infirm, be patient unto all; see no one evil for evil may render to any one, but always that which is good pursue, both to one another and to all; always rejoice; continually pray; in every thing give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus in regard to you. The Spirit quench not; prophesyings despise not; all things prove; that which is good hold fast; from all appearance of evil abstain; and the God of the peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved unblameably in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; stedfast is He who is calling you, who also will do it . Brethren, pray for us;” (1 Thessalonians 5:12-25; Greek transliteration)

The mindset that sanctification is a process is foreign to scripture, from beginning to end.

If sanctification is a process, than none of the types and shadows in the Old testament make any sense at all - as the sanctified vessels in the temple and other things that typify it for us must than also undergo a process of being sanctified, and this makes absolutely no sense unless parts of objects were sanctified, and than other parts, until one day the whole was sanctified.

"I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:15-21; ESV)

Jesus prayed us to be sanctified, not entered into a process, but sanctified. The tense is finished - not ongoing.

Jesus went on to pray:
"The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”” (John 17:22-26; ESV)

Jesus separates glory and sanctification very clearly here, albeit I will concede that a certain amount of the glory Jesus receives from the Father is also to be ours, here on earth and in this life - with the sole purpose being the love of God shed abroad in our hearts and unity in Jesus becoming obvious.

Sanctification is, again, the setting aside of something to make it holy unto the Lord. Men have added all sorts of dogma and inserted their own thoughts into this because... Well... They are men, and men are attracted to novel ideas and new things - the best way to attract a crowd and get more meetings is to make others think you have some new idea or revelation - even if it means adding to or taking from the written word.

No one will argue that Jesus was not entirely sanctified to the Father - this would be absurd. His sanctification is, by His own words, ours as well. To postulate that Jesus prayed for anything other than a perfect and entire setting aside of His followers for the will of God is blasphemy, just like it is blasphemous to inculcate that Jesus prayer goes unanswered today - since He prayed for those whonwoukd believe on Him through the words of his apostles - you and I.

We are sanctified in truth, and the Word is truth. Jesus is our sanctification, the Word made flesh. Sanctification is completed when we are in Christ AND Christ is formed in us. It's clear throughout the new testament that some believes do not have both experiences - and the result of this is seen throughout history as error, false teaching, false prophets, cults in Jesus name, and every religious evil under sun abounds and prospers in the world.

Jesus connected sanctification with being separated from the world - and this is crucial to truly understanding the scriptural truth - and what it means to be in the kingdom of God. I believe this truth to be of ultimate importance in these last days because the gospel of the kingdom will be preached to the world, or so says the Revelation. We have hundreds of years of forgiveness being peddled to men as redemption, but the truth of the kingdom of God, being completely and totally separated from the world system as a vessel for Jesus, is preached nowhere - and not only is it not preached, but bastardized by charismatics as taking over ans renovating satans politics and system in the name of God.

This is the message of the kingdom:
"And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles””to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’” (Acts 26:15-18)

Forgiveness AND sanctification.

Again, we have had generations of thieves and robbers tossing sheep over the fence and working to avoid the door - Jesus Himself.

The bride will be made ready when she comes out from the world, and her cry is "holiness unto the Lord".

This post needs to be taken in the context of, and in conjunction with all I have written in this thread concerning the topic, because to say much else will be repetitive - and the charismatic leanings of most of those on this forum will rest in their partial obedience anyway, and ignore the fact the partial obedience is disobedience - partial sanctification is to be unsanctified - partial holiness is unholy - to be mixed is to be impure, as purity requires perfection and totality.

My standard is my Lords standard - "Be ye therefore perfect" - and a process is constant imperfection.

"the partial obedience is disobedience - partial sanctification is to be unsanctified - partial holiness is unholy - to be mixed is to be impure, as purity requires perfection and totality."

Amen Evan.

My standard is my Lords standard - "Be ye therefore perfect" - and a process is constant imperfection.

By ye therefore perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect was in the context of Jesus teaching in the sermon on the mount. I don't think it refers to sanctification at all.

Paraphrase, "If you would get into heaven on your own, then your righteousness has to exceed the righteousness of even the scribes and Pharisees. They have always told you one standard, but the true standard of God is so much higher." Well, for the people listening to the sermon this is impossible. They viewed the scribes and Pharisees as so much more holy than they were. Again, paraphrase, "If you expect to make it on your own righteousness, you have to be perfect just like God is perfect." Important to put it into its context.

That being said, it can be that we have slightly different definitions that cause us to see it from different perspectives.

Would you agree that it is God that sanctifies, not us. That Jesus is made unto us sanctification?

Would you agree that to sanctify means to set apart for His purposes, that we are not our own, but we belong to Him?

Would you agree that God wants to work in us an ever increasing level of holiness and likeness of Him?

If you agree with these three statements as written, then I think we are talking about the same thing. I call all three of these sanctification. You might not call all three sanctification. You might have different terms that you apply.

Travis,

You're asking questions I have answered numerous times in many ways - in multiple posts. I'll have a discussion when you actually read what I've previously written.

Also, you lost me when you said the sermon on the mount is not to be obeyed, but to prove we never will. You fall into the error Jesus warned against in that very sermon, teaching others to relax His commands and to not worry about obedience.

I have had the mentality of defining things for myself, the way I see it, I think, if I agree, and all the rest, completely obliterated from my life - Jesus defines all and all that matters is the way He sees it.

Jesse Penn-Lewis defined truth this way - "Everything as God sees it"

Here is nail in the coffin to the progressive view, and where I will again bow out unless the Lord leads me back in -

"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.” (2 Timothy 2:19-21; KJV)

"You must be born again." This inner experience is a must! This is where the new life in Christ starts. Afterwards we begin being transformed by the renewing of our minds through Christ by Eating His flesh, God's Word. As this is accruing, we learn to listen more clearly to the Holy Spirit within us as we go through varies sufferings, trials, and testing's of all sorts designed to tune us into the frequency of Christs' Spirit within us, so we learn to hear and walk with Him as He leads us, until one day we are being literally led by Him, minute by minute, as we minutely seek His direction, wanting God the Father to receive all glory and all around us to come to Christ Jesus our Savoir.

I've noticed three stages within my own life experiences so far. Number One: The new birth, everything changed! Number Two: The Spirit's outward visitation, empowering. Number three: His Presence with me at all times and a glow on my face. These are my experiences of His Word being worked out experientially within me. This is where He has me at right now. Father's will be done!

"The mindset that sanctification is a process is foreign to scripture, from beginning to end.”

" sanctification is done through absolute surrender to the Holy Spirit, a consistent prayer life, and being transformed by the Holy Spirit into the image of God. Then through this process, Christ will be a reflection in and through the life of the believer.”

Andrew Murray

"sanctification includes two steps: regeneration and reproduction. The former is the salvation of the spirit and signifies the new birth in which one's spirit is quickened while the latter refers to the process of realizing holiness whereby one manifests the salvation of the soul.”
Watchman Nee

Two Sides of the Process of Sanctification - Derek Prince

https://www.derekprince.com/devotionals/c-b052-048

@brother Jason, I did not have time to go through this yesteday but I for one felt your saying one can only admit to have been wrong when it has been their consideration first means Peter could not be expected to admit when Paul rebuked him for withdrawing from the Gentiles in fear of the Jewish brethren.

I purpose to go through the thread and should make any necessary changes to this post should any prove warranted.

@sister brendaM, you said:

"He wanted to call Evan in seemingly with the hope that Evan would persuade me to agree with him as he seems not to like being disagreed with."

This was not the case - I just strongly doubted he would agree that the thief had the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Else I would continue to be surprised that he too thinks the same.

You also said it seems I do not like to be disagreed with but I remeber saying to you twice (and envited you to be of the same mind) that I was ready to make ameds where I may be proved wrong. How can this imply I do not like to be disagreed with, sister?

@brother Evan, as I read one of your replying posts, you mentioned you would not reply on this thread unless it is in response to brother Robert (as you believed the thread grieves the Holy Spirit). But some posts later I find you replying to others brethren's remarks without first mentioning that you are now taking back your words and aim to resume replying - and that you perhaps no longer feel the thread grieves the Holy Spirit (for by this you condemned all that continues on/with the thread). Or did I miss where you did this? Yes it will cancel all of what I said if I missed it.

brother, I agree that you did say you would change your mind if you were proven wrong, more than once I think. However, I had said that we would have to agree to disagree over the thief, when it could not be proven by any scripture whether he was baptized in the Spirit or not.

You wanted to continue though and bring in someone else which seemed to me at the time that you would not let it drop and wanted someone whom you thought would disagree with me but whom I generally agreed with, to put on pressure to change my mind which you seemed determined to do and from this I got the impression that you wanted me to agree with you by putting on pressure. I thought that we had much more important things to bring into the discussion.

It is not something which is done during a disagreement where I come from so maybe a cultural thing? Thanks for trying to put it straight though.

Sister the thief was just an example as you will remember that you actually held that all that enters heaven needed to be Spirit baptised (including OT folks which I did not see in the same way) - you even hoped that maybe Christ visited the OT folks after his death. Or that maybe God gives all man a chance to be Spirit baptised at their death beds.

So my hope was for you to see that you too are susceptible to miss-apprehensions as ES'd as you believe you are. This was necessarily because your tenor of discussion often suggested that you believe you all that comes to your mind is straight from though you say otherwise when confronted.

Brother Evan mentioned a believe where one thinks that their thoughts get perfected (Gnosticism I think he said). Often this is how I felt you seem to think of your positions.

So the thief and the James healing the 'sick' verse were amongst my attempts to show that you too are susceptible to miss-apprehensions - which I then hoped could help you to restructure your overall approach to delivering the holiness truth you are clearly about.

Brother my heart is pure when I am 'in the Spirit' but my mind will never be perfected this side of heaven and I review things when I hear something that God confirms is the truth.

However I do not regard the views of those who are not ESed on that subject.

I may be missing your point but that is why, sister, I wished we bring in brother Evan into the subject. A brother I knew you esteemed. So that we can see if I am just speaking things or not. In fact I wished we consult folks from an ECF forum you esteem if there is one. Then I remembered brother Evan.

The first time I mentioned him you said you were NOT in contact with him. Then I told you I had his email and was willing to share it for the purpose but you still refused?

I saw Evans' email address on here and sent him one to which he did not reply but found later someone saying the same thing so obviously not received. I wanted to ask him where he stood as we were in agreement about certain things but I still did not know if he agreed with me on ES.

I had a good idea he would not see the thief as I did. I was also thinking of the book I mentioned called The Royal Invitation and writings from the ECF on the subject that one must be cleansed form sin before and not at death although I cannot be sure of this for every case. It is not worth taking the chance though.

So sorry sister, that was a typo and is corrected now. Please kindly rephrase you respond accodingly.

Done.

There then, sister. Unless if you would reject brother Evan's claims of ES, we officially have a case of two ESd folks who do not see other scriptures in the same way. Obviously the two views cannot be both correct - but one must be wrong.

This means we do not always get all facts (views) right despite being ESd. And we therefore always need to be cautious of that especially when delivering Gospel truths before our audiences. Just because it came in this way to my mind does not necessarily mean it is accurate - but should be evaluated with considerations of other existings facts or something.

Because the big question is, if I may be wrong in 1 view, then where else might I have had a wrong view on unawares?

Edited

Sorry if anything is not presented in the best way on my post. I still meant to read and edit where necessary. But the department social development just came today and collected our 3 boys. On account of them being home schooled unregistered. Well we applied but got no reply from the Department of Basic Education despite a clause that states they should respond within 30 days (whether rejection or approval). Well they also bring issues such as them not being social. So while we have membership with Pesta Lozzi who offers home education defense, we are not sure if they shall cover the not being social allegations. But it all here and we need to face it so I may be essentially absent until all is hopefully resolved.

P.S: Oh, prayers please

You are correct. If we differ on the main issue and not just on details, then one of us is not ES. This is a huge issue as it concerns how we are saved.

I have laid out my testimony and who has been of influence, and the joint influence of the Keswick movement is one, but I think Evan will support them whereas I see them as being in error in that their view is not in keeping with the ECF, as I have said, on the amount of stages. Man has a bad habit of thinking that he has reached the zenith of spiritual achievement whatever stage he is in and he will confirm it by scriptures that often have more than one meaning.

It might basically come down to - who is right? the ECF's who were considered to be the pillars of the church and ES themselves, or a much later development? If someone says - there is more - do we just dismiss that?

Oh no. We must all join in prayer that the children will be returned SOON Lord please.

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.” (1 Corinthians 3:1-9; KJV)

Oh yes prayers please

Evan, please explain your position, when ES occurs and and how you reached it for clarity thanks.

OK I found the following from Evan:

"When a man is born again he desires to do good, to keep law, to live holy, but quickly realizes he can't. The harder he tries the further he falls. The more he tries to pray the more brass like become the heavens. The more he studies his Bible the drier it becomes, until finally he feels all is lost. Men teach push through it and try harder and do more, but God says stop it and rest.

It's a paradox to be sure. But what we do stems directly from who we are, and never from what we try to become. When a defeated believer finally rests and with patience and faith looks to the one who justifies, he will also sanctify.

The rest of God waits for those who "do" one thing, cease doing. Romans 8 is ready to be lived in by the person who simply waits on the Holy Spirit to fill them, after they have had the horrid experience of living out the reality of Romans 7.

Doing is the enemy of being. The rest of God is the only place where true fruit can ever be borne. It is Jesus who lives and moves and Has His being in the believer by faith, apart from works." 2023/8/2 3:28 Devotions.

Yes this is exactly the 'highway to holiness' that I found. Evan is just a better writer than me. Terms are not so important. I am just happy to see the proper instructions even if I would go farther.

Sorry sister but do you by 'terms' mean timing? If yes, then it must matter because those who believe ES comes at baptism will say the folks at Conelius got it when they were baptised in the HS. The 12 folks at Ephesus got it when Paul layed his hands and they received the Spirit. And on the list goes.

No I don't mean timing. Evan uses the term born-again at a different event than me but the basic structure is acceptable to me.

I think the disciples were born again at Pentecost and were already followers of Christ. But there was the incident of the breathing on of the Spirit.

These details however are not to be dissected. The main thing is the sinning question and whether one is quenching the Spirit.

The Spirit will not lead those who are just curious.

OK I hear you and await to hear brother Evan eventually as well. Another point I wish to raise is that Paul somewhere prayed that God would give his flock understanding (just not calm enough to search it now). A good minister should do this too or they may teach and not get heard and then possible take offense that their teaching is being rejected.

Yes but there is a thin dividing line between those who are seekers and those like the Pharisees that question in order to find some discrepancies so that they can use them to discredit.

Edited

Noted and I have no sympathy for Pharisee-like for Christ's sake (either than in intercession prayer). But yes I get concerned that seekers should not be thrown out in the manner of the 'baby with the bathing water' saying. When Paul prayed for understanding for his flock, he could tell his audience have seekers too if not exclusively. So may God let us be able to see that.

P.S: Same as when he prayed and wished for their entire sanctification on that 1 Theselonian verse.

Somewhere on page 10 of this thread, I jumped in with a bit of a rebuke to Kervin. As I look back on that post, it makes me feel a bit ashamed of myself. I had not business butting into this thread with my two cents about things. I did not delete the post, but I did add this edit to it at the beginning. Sorry to all for my intrusion.

I was not involved in it, but I appreciate the heart of this post.

@brother Travis, I also received a personal email from the same poster containing the same. In my reply, I amongst others sought to show how I also felt such an action was consistent with one seeking to be Christ-like.

@brother Evan, I believe there must be but a thin line between strife and an attempt to publicly, and that sharply, censor what one may believe to be a mal-practice. Or we might say Christ was in strife almost as often as he would engage the Pharisees or Sadducees. Or when Peter was rebuked by Paul?