The Wesleyan Doctrine In The Light Of General Bible Truth

"Not handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4:2).

"A workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Tim. 2: 15).

Already we have considered the Wesleyan message against the background of its own century. We are now to approach this teaching as it relates itself to the broad background of the Word of God.

The Wesleyan message claims to be scriptural in its content, professing to find its final authority, not in the teaching of man, but in the revealed Word of God himself.

The mere fact of such a claim, however, by no means establishes the truth of its teaching. The Bible, of all books, is the most maligned in the world. Some of the most irresponsible faddists have brought the wildest notions to its pages, therein claiming support. This all the world knows full well. Any teaching, therefore, which would command the respect of thoughtful minds must be based, not merely on an isolated passage here and there, but on the broad teaching of the entire Book.

That the Wesleyan emphasis has its own 'well-known proof texts which it can glibly quote is generally agreed. This, however, is far from being enough.

Dr. W. E. Sangster in his book The Path to Perfection finds thirty scripture passages in Wesley's writings which he calls: "The thirty passages on which Wesley chiefly relies for this doctrine."

At first sight, such an expression is apt to antagonize the student of Wesley, suggesting that he was shallow in his thinking, lacking in thoroughness of investigation, and therefore not wholly competent as a leader and spiritual guide. Who, it may be asked, with any conception as to the serious nature of his task would be so foolish as to build so vital a doctrine on so flimsy a foundation?

Dr. Sangster, however, offsets this with a twofold qualifying statement, reminding his readers that in the eighteenth century the general approach to Biblical theology invariably proceeded on the basis of proof texts, and also making it plain that Wesley had the firm conviction that his teaching was in conformity with the whole tenor of the New Testament.

It is this general tenor of Scripture which needs to be stressed, a background so sure that with it we can not only defend our position, but we can also take the attitude of positive aggression, challenging our critics to bring any contrary passage, rightly interpreted, to offset our teaching.

That many supposedly contrary passages have been so used is well known to all, but in every case the arguments built upon them wilt and wither when honestly faced.

At some point these contrary passages, as they are called, are given a twist in their interpretation. This is not necessarily with malicious intent; sometimes there is a theological coloring by reason of the interpreter's training or background. Frequently it is a thoughtless repetition of what others have said.

There is one indisputable position where well-informed advocates of the Wesleyan doctrine of scriptural holiness can unhesitatingly take their stand: There is no passage of scripture, viewed in relation to its historic background, examined in the light of its widest context, and read and interpreted in accord with the general teaching of the writer, which does not teach either the need, possibility, or possession of the experience for which the Wesleyan doctrine so uncompromisingly stands.

Before the effort is made to build up an argument of proof texts as a basis for the Wesleyan doctrine the would-be teacher should know something about the Bible in general; and it is on the basis of this general knowledge that the holiness question should be approached.

I. The General Background, so essential to a clear understanding of the truth we teach.

While Wesley's teaching was in no sense inferior to the best thought of his day, his real strength was not so much in the clarity of his thinking as in the scriptural soundness of his message.

For all who would successfully propagate this truth, the same principle holds true today. Our danger here is twofold: first, the fact of our aspiration; and further, the possibility of our deterioration.

The fact of our aspiration lies in the desire to be scholarly. There is a growing tendency in this our day to approach the doctrine of holiness from a philosophic point of view. There can be no question that the teaching of holiness has its philosophic angle of approach. We ought to thank our God for every sign of consecrated scholarship wherever we find it, especially when applied to this important truth for which we unhesitatingly stand. The fact must be recognized, however, that it is possible to become so engrossed in the philosophic aspect as almost unwittingly to neglect its deeper side and thus lose the sense of its freshness and power.

Analysis of the experience of holiness is almost like trying to analyze a rose. As it stands in its completeness, its beauty, fragrance, and form are apparent to all. Take it apart, and these very things which make it what it is immediately elude you. There is a very real sense in which it offers itself in its completeness, yet defies analysis of its parts.

Within recent years several scholarly works have appeared in which a philosophic evaluation of the experience of holiness has been attempted. We have no disposition to east reflection on their writers nor to question their sincerity; in almost every case, however, it has seemed to us that the same essential factor has been missing -- that note of certainty born of an assured personal experience.

The possibility of our deterioration comes in the danger of our becoming slovenly.

We are not thinking now of slovenliness in dress or in demeanor, but in thought and in mental labor; of picking up snippets from others and, without giving them serious consideration, handing them out as one's own thought; of posing as an experienced exponent of the doctrine of holiness when in reality one is just a spiritual and mental cheap-Jack.

True holiness preaching is highly specialized preaching. The holiness preacher stands before men as a specialist in two fields:

a. In the field of experience, where this of which he speaks is personally known.

b. In the field of exegesis, where, as a basis and authority for the experience, the Bible is laboriously studied.

It is a recognized law among men that every would-be specialist must seek the fullest possible information and equipment in the field in which he desires to work.

Imagine this, if you can. Here is a young man at the doors of the Medical Association asking to be registered as an eye, ear, nose, and throat specialist. Asked for his qualifications, he replies:

"I myself have just been cured of a very serious ailment. In addition to this, I have a book on this subject; and, since I have my own cure, I have read a little piece from it every morning and evening. I am now ready to remove anybody's tonsils, take cataracts from the eyes, obstructions from the nose, to operate on the ear, or to deal with anything else that may be wrong."

That young man would immediately be told two things: first, he must give himself to a general medical training; and further, he must pursue more advanced studies of his specialized work.

One of the dangers with the would-be holiness preacher is the tendency to imagine that all he needs to fit him for the work is a conscious experience of personal recovery from the virus of sin and a general knowledge of Bible proof texts on the subject of holiness. We shall certainly not seek to minimize the value of all this, for that is where most of us got our start and that is as far as many sincere, believing souls will ever go. God will certainly bless them in their life and their witness. With the one who claims to stand out as an advocate and expounder of this experience, however, the case is very different. Here, much more is demanded. There must be a well-rounded knowledge of the Word of God as a background for further specialization.

In these days when Bible colleges and study courses abound, guidance here is not difficult to obtain. Among other things, the following studies should not be neglected:

A good course in the subject of Biblical introduction.

A careful study of Bible content book by book, taking the books in the chronological sequence. It is necessary to know something about a book's content in general before presuming to expound its verses in particular.

There should be a study in Bible biographies -- and that in the light of the respective ages in which they lived.

Something should be known about the dispensations, and their related covenants.

There should be a study of the foundational doctrines of Scripture, each as related to the other.

All these are but general hints and are, of course, by no means exhaustive.

We must remember, whenever we preach, that this great truth of holiness must be intelligently related to the Bible's comprehensive background, and every text expounded must be so treated as not to clash with any other revealed truth in the Word of God. If the doctrine we preach will not bear a rigid examination in the light of all else which the Bible teaches, that doctrine has no place in the Christian economy, and our insistence on it makes us false witnesses of God.

II. The Message We Emphasize, as seen against this background of general truth

As we have already seen, thirty passages have been set forth by a contemporary writer as the Bible basis on which Wesley chiefly builds his doctrine.

All this is good so far as it goes. But, while accepting the general fact with regard to these passages, rather than saying "on which Wesley chiefly relies" we would prefer to put it, which Wesley quotes in support of. As we have already seen, Wesley's firm conviction was that this teaching of full salvation was in conformity with the whole tenor of the Sacred Book. Yet, it would not help either an inquirer or a critic just to hand him the Book; neither would it prove to be good sense to multiply proof texts beyond reasonable limits. Would it not be better to put it in a manner such as this? While Wesley had a Bible background of which he was fully confident, and taught a divinely revealed doctrine which he knew to pervade the entire Book, he took convenient passages which he had wisely selected, and used them as well-chosen weapons from the Armory of Truth. This, we are convinced, is what Dr. Sangster means when he quotes Wesley as saying: "I tell you, as plain as I can speak, where and when I found this. I found it in the Oracles of God, in the Old and New Testament; when I read them with no other view or desire but to save my own soul" (Plain Account of Christian Perfection).

Here, then, as would-be exponents of holiness we begin our serious Bible study of this magnificent doctrine; not as novices seeking a few proof texts to bolster a preconceived idea, but as those informed and alert concerning the recognized principles of sound Bible exegesis. We have no personal axes to grind and no denominational positions to defend.

With the general Bible content as a background reasonably mastered, and the teaching of full salvation intelligently related to it, the selection and presentation of reasonable proof texts is not only permissible but really effective. The presentation here must not be the recital of a mere parrot-like memorization, but a dignified declaration of what God hath said.