Hello. My name is Gerhard Milkey.
My friends call me Jerry.
And my topic today is Christian perfection.
From Wesley to Phoebe Palmer.
Most of the denominations which come out of the Holiness movement were familiar
with the term Christian perfection at the beginning of the 20th century.
It was also referred to as Entire
Sanctification, the Second Blessing, the second work of grace, Perfect Love.
And at the beginning of the 20th century,
some form of this doctrine was upheld not only by the Holiness denominations, but by
many Christians belonging to other groups as well.
Today there is a wide spectrum of opinion, and this doctrine has been neglected by
many of the churches that once zealously embraced it.
And today we want to look at the development of the doctrine of Christian
perfection, starting with Wesley and ending with Phoebe Palmer.
Those who teach entire Sanctification, or Christian perfection as it is sometimes
called, usually trace the modern roots of this doctrine back to John Wesley.
Therefore, it's important to understand what Wesley taught regarding this concept.
Now, John Fletcher was also vital in refining Wesley's understanding, and we
are fortunate because both Wesley and Fletcher's writings are still extant.
John Wesley noted that whoever preached
about perfection or used the word perfect was unpopular.
And yet he was convinced he could not
avoid using such expressions because they were found in Scripture.
John Wesley wrote that he and his brother
Charles agreed on the following that Christian perfection is that love of
God and our neighbor, which implies deliverance from all sin.
That it is received merely by faith,
that it is given instantaneously in one moment.
That we are to expect that not a death, but every moment.
That now is the accepted time.
Now is the day of salvation.
When a Christian was so devoted to God that he or she always portrayed the
attitude of Christ loving God above all else and one's neighbor as oneself,
that state of maturity was Christian perfection.
Charles Edwin Jones states that John
Wesley thought of salvation as a journey from willful rebellion to perfect love,
which is the state of Christian perfection.
Now, how did John Wesley come to his understanding of that doctrine?
There were many influences his early upbringing, the influence of his mother
reading the Church fathers, Arminianism and classics such as The Imitation of
Christ, written by Thomas A Campus Rule and Exercises of Holy Living and
Dying by Jeremy Taylor and Treatise on Christian Perfection and
Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life by William Law.
Those all had significant impact.
Yet the impact that the Moravians had on John Wesley must be highlighted.
In particular, it was overwhelming and all encompassing.
It was through the help of Meridian PETA
Bula that Wesley gained assurance of his faith.
Now, after Wesley attained this so called
conversion experience, he decided to visit the Meridian settlement at Ham Hoot.
The visit of Wesley to Hannon Hoot was critical in the formation of his views
that were later published as Christian Perfection.
Although many scholars, including Harold
Lindstrom, maintain that the notion that entire sanctification can be attained in
this life is found to be peculiar to Wesley, this is not entirely correct.
At Ham Hoot, Wesley was greatly impressed
and influenced by sermons given by Moravian Christian David.
They were critical.
The following comments are from a journal entry from August 1738 that Wesley made
with regards to these sermons that he heard at Ham Hood.
Wesley writes thrice he described a state
of those who are weak in faith, who are justified but have not yet a new clean
heart, who have received forgiveness through the blood of Christ but have not
received a constant indwelling of the Holy Ghost.
Then he yet again explained from the Scriptures which described the state the
Apostles were in from our Lord's death and indeed for some time before till the
descent of the Holy Ghost at the day of Pentecost.
They were then clean, as Christ himself was born of witness yet they had not in
the full sense new hearts neither had they received the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Later in his journal for August 1738,
wesley relates the testimony of Arvid Grabin.
Grabben was led to petition God incessantly to give him the witness of the
Spirit and God heard his prayer and he granted him.
Wesley writes repose in the blood of Christ, affirm confidence in God and the
persuasion of his favor, serene peace and steadfast tranquillity of mind with a
deliverance from every fleshly desire, from every outward and inward sin.
In a word, my heart, which was before
tossed like a troubled sea, was still in quiet and in sweet calm.
Now it's not difficult to see that
Wesley's mature understanding of Christian perfection and sanctification are not at
odds with his journal entries while he was among the Arabians at Halhoot.
Especially helpful for Wesley was Christian David's own testimony, in which
he said that once his sins had been forgiven, though sin still stirred in him,
though it still remained, it did not reign.
Wesley also had some unreasonable
expectations for himself, but he now realized that even if he was tempted by
his desires, whereas before they reigned over him, now he reigned over them.
Much of what Wesley later ascribed to entire sanctification he had previously
expected from justification and the new birth that ever accompanies it.
So although the doctrine of Christian
perfection was popularized and promoted by Wesley, his visit to the Moravians in
August 1738 was vital in solidifying and clarifying the subject for him.
Whereas Moravian PETA Burla was instrumental in Wesley experiencing his so
called Aldergate conversion experience, the teaching that helped him understand
the prosefus sanctification was that of Christian David.
Christian David had considerable influence at Hound Hoots.
As one of its founding elders.
He had persuaded the German Moravians to
acknowledge that there's a difference between a babe in Christ
like the apostles during Jesus'earthly ministry and one who had received the full
assurance of faith, a clean heart and the destruction of the body of sin through the
indwelling of the Spirit, like the apostles after Pentecost.
That was a quote from Wood in his essay The Origin.
Now, it's also important to note that this was not the official doctrine of the
Moravians because later Wesley warned his followers against the Moravian, claiming
six of their propositions to be utterly false.
And the fifth of these propositions states that we are sanctified wholly the moment
we are justified and are neither more nor less holy to the day of our death.
At Hanhoot, Christian David repeatedly emphasized the distinction between
justifying faith and full assurance which accompanies being cleansed from all sin.
This is the view that Wesley agreed with.
He found Moravian practice and doctrine to be contrary at times.
And although Wesley warned against the Moravian teaching, he noted that among
them were some of the best Christians in the world.
Thus, Wesley understood justification to
be wholly distinct from sanctification and necessarily antecedent to it.
For Wesley justification, an entire
sanctification were counted as two instantaneous events.
However, this did not rule out a progressive element in sanctification,
since a person can grow in holiness as long as he or she lives.
Now, where does John Fletcher come in?
John Fletcher helped Wesley clarify his
views both on salvation and on sanctification.
At one time, Wesley equated his aldersgate experience with his conversion.
Through Fletcher's influence, Wesley agreed that he had the faith of a servant.
Prior to that, although he did not have the assurance of salvation.
It was Fletcher who came to identify
entire sanctification with the experience of pentecost.
He equated Christian perfection with
receiving the Holy Spirit or being baptized by the Holy Ghost and fire.
As Wesley was correcting fletcher's major treatise on Christian perfection
when it was still in manuscript form in 1775, he reported to Fletcher only one
correction that needed to be made, noting that their respective views were a little
different on the meaning of the phrase receiving the Spirit.
Wesley interpreted this phrase to apply to
justified believers as well as fully sanctified believers, whereas Fletcher
interpreted the phrase to mean receiving the fullness of the Spirit.
Fletcher made this adjustment and he resent the manuscript to Wesley.
And then Wesley wrote to him again and he
said now there's no difference between them.
Now, how did Fletcher reconcile the
difference in emphasis between himself and John Wesley?
He explained that while receiving the Holy
Spirit is what justifies a Christian, another glorious baptism or capital
outpouring of the Spirit is what sanctifies the believer.
With this modification, Wesley affirmed
that there is now no difference between him and Fletcher's view.
Fletcher did not think that he was merely describing Wesley's idea of holiness.
He understood that the Wesleyan theology of holiness need to be made consistent.
Like Wesley, John Fletcher understood the
nature of Christian perfection to be a cleansing, a cleansing from all sin, from
the guilt and defilement of both actual and original corruption.
Fletcher was convinced that this entire
sanctification, this renewal, could be instantaneously received, and his
testimony verifies that this is the way his own experience was as well.
Yet in his writings, the idea of maturity
rather than crisis is what is most often stressed.
Fletcher believed that a strictly
categorical answer could not be given as to whether Christian perfection is to be
regarded as attained instantaneously or gradually.
Since Wesley affirmed that his view agreed with Fletcher's view of sanctification,
many in the holiness tradition assume that the two views are identical.
However, there's a subtle yet important difference.
Wesley's emphasis was crystaentric.
It was Fletcher that set the foundation for a pneumatological emphasis for
holiness, which was later further developed in America.
In England, even among the Methodists, it was at times difficult for Wesley to
convince people to fully embrace the doctrine of Christian perfection.
One reason was that preachers like Thomas Maxfield and George Bell brought this
doctrine into disrepute by taking the teaching to such extremes that even John
Wesley needed to disassociate himself from them.
Another reason was that Wesley himself was sometimes unclear and needed time to come
to an understanding of exactly what this doctrine entailed.
In America, the doctrine of Christian perfection fared better.
Early leaders of Methodism in America not
only preached the doctrine, but claimed to have experienced entire sanctification.
For example, William Waters, the first American born Methodist.
Itinerant preacher.
He reported his own attainment of the experience and his success in getting
others to embrace the doctrine within his circus.
In a letter to Thomas Rankin in America, john Wesley counseled that when believers
were newly converted, it was advisable to teach them to go on to perfection, because
at that stage they could attain it more easily, being fervent for God.
So here Wesley stressed the instantaneous over the gradual.
Francis, Asbury, one of the first bishops
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, who had a monumental influence on American
methodism, was also a strong advocate of entire sanctification.
Thus, the theology of holiness in America
was consistent with what Wesley taught, but also evolved beyond it.
Because of the controversy Wesley had
encountered in England, he acknowledged allowances to his normative view.
These exceptions that Wesley allowed did not need to be dealt with in America
because the opposition and the challenges were different.
Now, after 1812, for various reasons, the teaching of the doctrine of perfection
declined in importance among the Methodists in America.
In 1845, Ll Hamlin feared that the
doctrine of perfect love had become mere speculation to 49 out of 50 Methodists.
Yet, despite being widely neglected, the
theology and practice of Wesleyan holiness did not die out in America.
Before I highlight Phoebe Palmer's role in the furtherance of holiness, the
contribution of Timothy Merritt, her predecessor needs to be told.
In 1825, Merritt produced a booklet called
the Christian's Manual, a treatise on Christian perfection.
Sarah Lankford, the sister of Phoebe Palmer, read Timothy Merritt's writing, as
well as Wesley's a plain account of Christian perfection.
In 1835, while she read The Life of Hester
and Rogers, sarah fell on her knees and consecrated her life fully to God.
From that moment on, she trusted that God had cleansed her and made her holy.
During a conversation with Timothy Merritt seven days later, she testified, I have
dared to reckon myself dead indeed to all sin.
And then she felt the fullness of the Spirit come upon her.
In 1837, Merritt started publishing the Guide to Christian Perfection, a journal
that later changed its name to the Guide to Holiness.
Now, according to Melbourne editor,
merit's publishing venture represented a particular sense of purpose and logical
procedure in the pursuit of Christian holiness.
Unparalleled in the history of the tradition which preceded it,
it marked the wedding of the American mind prevailing revivalism and Wesley
imperfectionism in his widespread a popular quest for this vision.
As the world had known
in the tradition of Jonathan Edwards, the immediacy of repentance became the revival
appeal that was a trademark of evangelism in America.
Dider claimed that this call to repent now was not limited to repentance alone, but
also applied to entire sanctification by the holiness advocates.
Entire sanctification was seen as vital
for the spiritual well being of those who had responded to salvation.
Now, Phoebe Palmer, a key figure of the
American holiness movement, was significantly influenced by Merit.
It was through the promotion and example of her sister Sarah Langford that Phoebe
Palmer sought and found entire sanctification.
Palmer is called the most powerful and
influential Christian woman of the 19th century in New York City.
She led a Tuesday meeting for the promotion of holiness for 35 years.
Not only laypeople, but a great number of
clergymen from various denominations attended her meetings over the years.
In addition, Palmer spoke at camp meetings
and traveled widely to promote holiness in the United States, Canada and Britain.
She also wrote numerous books.
Due to her efforts, the doctrine of entire sanctification influenced a large spectrum
of Christians, both outside of and within the Methodist circles.
In 1858, Phoebe Palmer became the editor
to the Guide to Holiness, a periodical that at one time had 30,000 subscribers,
and it served as a unifying publication for those dedicated to holiness.
Phoebe Palmer taught sanctification as a three step process.
The three steps can be called entire
sanctification, faith and confession, although the third step can be considered
to be a means of retaining holiness, not acquiring it.
In her book Entire Devotion to God, she
explains how she attained a second blessing.
Notice how all three steps are present in her testimony.
This is what Phoebe Palmer writes
at last I ventured to call upon a dear sister who, by her writings, prayer and
effort had been the instrument of leading many into the way of holiness.
She showed me that the blessing was
received through faith that after I had made an entire consecration of myself for
the Lord, I was bound to believe that he, faithful to his promise, accepted the
sacrifice and sanctified it for his service.
Praise the Lord. I was enabled to believe with the heart
unto righteousness and with the mouth to make confession unto salvation.
I received the blessing on the condition that I would profess it, and I dare not
withhold my testimony to the power of Jesus to save his people from their sins.
Bless the Lord o my soul.
End of quote.
Phoebe Palmer struggled a long time to
attain the experience of entire sanctification.
Finally, she realized that since she had
consecrated all to God, she could now receive this blessing simply by faith.
In order to help others to obtain entire sanctification and not struggle as long as
she did, she wrote a book called The Way to Holiness.
She shared her experience with others.
She maintained that the insurance need not
come in the form of overwhelming emotions, but could be claimed simply by believing
God and the evidence would show itself in the works that follow.
She resolved no longer to expect signs and wonders attending the work of divine grace
within her, but exercised faith by taking God as his word.
While it is true that in the same way as John Wesley, phoebe Palmer taught that
sanctification of the second work of grace, in which God cleanses the
believer's heart of sin and fills it holy with his love, she is criticized
for stressing the instantaneous attainment exclusively.
But stressing the instantaneous aspect of sanctification
is not an innovation of Phoebe Palmers, because it's significant that John Wesley
advised Thomas Rankin in America that newly converted believers should be taught
to go on to perfection, because at that stage they can most easily attain it.
Also, Adam Clark, the famous Methodist Bible commentator, a
man for whom John Wesley had great admiration, he stressed the
instantaneously exclusively, claiming that if Christians had not experienced his
blessing, it was because they had not sought it in the right way.
Now, there's a broad range of opinions
regarding the way that Phoebe Palmer taught entire sanctification.
While Phoebe Palmer thought that she
taught the doctrine in the way that John Wesley and John Fletcher did, some accuse
her of a supposed lack of fidelity to the theology of John Wesley.
There's various opinions.
Harold Razzer argues that Palmer created
something new by her specific interpretations of Wesley's teaching.
Likewise, Ivan Howard says that Palmer's teaching was obviously contrary to Wesley,
because though Wesley held that the experience was obtainable immediately on
the condition of complete concentration, he never said that one should claim its
possession on the basis of faith in the Word alone.
According to Charles Edward White, palmer's main theological contribution was
to modify and popularize Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification.
Yet White does not consider her to have created anything new, but he rather
insists that she only took John Wesley's doctrine to their natural conclusion.
Contrary to Razor, and in agreement with
White, Kevin Lowry contends that Palmer's teaching is best described as a variation
of the doctrine, rather than a different doctrine.
Yet, contrary to White, Lowry also insists
that Palmer introduced a theological shift which altered Wesley's doctrine.
It is the opinion of Melvin Editor, and I quote, that although each of Mrs.
Palmer's assumptions and statements can be
documented with almost identical statements to Wesley himself,
at the very least, there has been a shifting of the focus for understanding
the tension between the Wesley and polarities of growth and crisis in
relation to the coming to perfection and love.
So whether or not TV Palmer's teaching was something new, according to Razor, or just
a natural culmination of Wesley's teaching, according to White, or whether
it was a variance according to Lowry, or whether it was a shift in focus according
to Dieter, the fact is that something has changed, something was different.
Now our time is up.
So we cannot investigate to see what the difference was, or if the difference was
subtle, or if the difference was significant.
That will have to be left to another occasion.
But it was the aim of both John Wesley and Phoebe Palmer to lead their listeners or
readers into a deeper relationship with God.
So whether or not we agree with their
respective understanding of the doctrine of Christian perfection,
our goal as followers of Christ should nevertheless remain consistent with their
goals, which was to love God above all else, and our neighbors and ourselves.
We should and we must strive for holiness.