By Ken RowWhile reading through Fire on the Earth: Eyewitness Reports from the Azusa Street Revival
(Thanks, PCG, for giving these books to general convention registrants), I came across this small report:In the City of Oakland, during the five weeks that the band from Los Angeles was there, Brother and Sister Evans and Sister Florence Crawford, 65 souls received the baptism with the Holy Ghost, 30 were sanctified, and 19 converted. [pg. 24]I had always thought of sanctification as an ongoing work that begins with conversion, yet these early Pentecostals counted sanctifications separately from conversions. How could they do that?
If I could time-travel to these early Pentecostal meetings, I'd watch how the alter calls for sanctification were conducted. I'd like to see how the preachers knew who had received sanctification and who still needed to pray some more.
I wonder if any of you might know:
- What used to distinguish conversion from sanctification?
- How did old-time preachers know when sanctification had occurred?
Posts
Now we are on a topic that holds great interest for me...
ReplyDeleteI grew up in and ministered in a branch of Pentecostalism that, until fairly recently (20 yrs. or so), considered sanctification as the "second, definite and instantaneous work of grace" - the first being salvation, and the third being baptism in the Holy Spirit. A person was not even considered a candidtae for sanctification until after salvation, and a person would not/could not be baptized in the Holy Spirit until after a sanctifying experience. This doctrine was not isolated to a few fringe early pentecostal groups, but actually was seen as mainstream pentecostal theology. The idea of progressive sanctification was not a part of the thinking of many of the early Pentecostal groups.
One way to know if a person had been "sanctified" centered around the idea that only those who were sanctified could be baptized in the Holy Spirit, thus if 20 new converts were baptized in the Holy Spirit, you would know that somewhere along the way, those 20 had also been sanctified.
Another way of counting sanctification experiences was by the testimony of the participants. If and when an individual would testify publically that God had taken away their "want to" for sin, they would have been considered sanctified. These public testimonies were considered as a part of the tally for reports of what God was doing in various places. Therefore, it would not have been unusual (and in some circles it is still not unusual today)to hear testimonies such as... "I thank God that I'm saved, sanctified, and now I'm just waiting for my pentecostal blessing" or some such wording.
Some really good resources for gaining insight into the theologies and practices of the early pentecostals...
"Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture" - Grant Wacker
"Old Time Power: A Centennial History of the International Pentecostal Holiness Church" - Vinson Synan
"Fire From Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the 21st Century" - Harvey Cox
Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement" - Douglas Jacobsen
Ron, if my history is correct, the 20th century Pentecostal outpouring had it's roots in the Weslyan/Holiness movement of the 18th and 19th centuries. Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification became a cornerstone doctrine of the Methodists and that carried over into early Pentecostalism. The doctrine is scripturally founded in 1 Thess. 5:23-24 with the belief that the regenerate believer can obtain sanctification by a definite act of being delivered from the power of sin.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong on this but I think that's where the idea of instant sanctification came from. It is an interesting topic because I still hear "Saved, sanctified and Holy Ghost filled" in some churches I visit. Thanks for bringing it up Ken. I'm feeling strangely warmed right now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, this synopsis of history is exactly correct. (My previous post had some mis-spellings so I deleted it.)
ReplyDeleteHow did old-time preachers know when sanctification had occurred?
ReplyDeleteIt is important to stop and point out that it was not until Billy Sunday that the idea of a minister referring to a person that in some way responded to God after hearing a message that they were referred to as 'saved.' Before that- all throughout the 1800's the term 'hopefully converted' was used. This demonstrates an overall attitude of caution towards making any kind of real declaration about a persons spiritual state.
Although it was used by one man before Charles G. Finney, he popularized the idea of 'responding' to a message. It is hard for us to realize that the modern day altar call is only about 180 years old or so. It was considered a 'new measure' by Finney's contemporaries and was greatly resisted. Before this time a person's profession and life had to show signs of matching. If a person prayed through and appeared to be really changed they were said to be 'hopefully converted.' In a 39 year span of Billy Sunday's ministry this changed to 'X' number of people got saved. I have written extensively about this here in a 10+ part series called 'The Betrayal of the Ages.' http://tiny.cc/rJhH3
Sanctification pedantically speaking has to be instant and complete. Something is either set apart to God or it is not. I think what we need to think of is that glorification is progressive. If mom cuts out a piece of meatloaf for dad and puts it in the refridge until he gets home we can say it is 'sanctified' unto dad. In this sense we that are truly born again are sanctified unto God because we are 'in' Christ. (I Cor. 1:2) One cannot be partly in Christ and one cannot be partly sanctified.
Now if were referring to Christian Perfection in a Wesleyan sense that would take a little more time to develop. But Wesley did believe in second blessing holiness and that a person could walk before God in a state of no-conscious sin. His idea of perfection was pure love. But my point is that these old time preachers like Finney and Wesley had a view of new birth that would sound like Christian perfection in our ears. Wesley's 'marks of the new birth' is case in point. George Whitfield had similar writings.
We have a very sloppy version of salvation today because of the need to process people quickly in mass evangelistic crusades beginning with Moody, Sunday and then Billy Graham. The real old timers like George Fox, Whitefield, Finney, Wesley, Spurgeon, and even Moody would be horrified by 'decisional' salvation. AW Tozer wrote extensively about it as did Paris Reidhead. The late Leonard Ravenhill worked very hard to get us back to genuine salvation and praying through unto new birth. It is normal to us, but I have no doubt they would turn over in their graves over it. If you have not seen this check this out sometime:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-408382027340287084
or listen to this audio
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2609149243719622443
I would be interested to hear about any 'ah ha' experiences from these resources.
Kind Regards,
Robert
Good insight. I think it is important to remember that all of the elements of the blessings we receive through Christ have a "past, present and future" element to them. We were "saved", we are being "saved", we shall be "saved". We were sanctified (theoretically and legally, once and for all in the mind of God at the point of conversion), we are being sanctified (practically and experientially as we live for Him daily and become more and more "set-apart" for Him) and we shall be sanctified (in the perfection of the age to come). Good discussion gentlemen!
ReplyDelete