06.04. The Terminology of Salvation

The Terminology of Holiness By J. B. Chapman

Chapter 4 The Terminology of Salvation

Salvation is the great word of the gospel, being in a sense a summing up of all the acts and processes involved in that glorious message of good news. Having come to this section by way of the terminology of sin and the terminology of redemption, we shall take for granted a knowledge of the things presented in those sections, and shall avoid repetition as much as the clarity of the present thesis will permit.

There is at the present time a strong sentiment in favor of blotting out any and all lines that separate Christians from one another in order to "present a united front to the non-Christian world." From certain approaches this sentiment has merit, for divisions which are not based on fundamental differences are indefensible. But we must avoid laying emphasis on numbers, since this ignores the principal basis of strength in the Christian movement. Likewise we must beware lest in calling for union we ask those of higher attainments to concede to those of lower possession, and insist that the orthodox compromise with those who hold to mixed creeds.

It does not avail anything for bankrupts to form partnerships, for if the parties are insolvent separately, their liabilities will still outweigh their assets when they come together. There is therefore always the call to "Christianize Christianity," as Dr. Bresee used to call the work of preaching holiness to God’s people.

Quoting from the Olin’s Lectures, Bishop Foster says: The actual state of education, morals and happiness in a community may be regarded as the true expression of the power of the moral and intellectual forces engaged for its improvement. The efficiency and usefulness of a church, for instance, are precisely what the zeal, purity, and intelligence of its members make it. We may conclude, therefore, that the Christian enterprises of the present time must remain stationary, without some new accession of moral resources. If the rising generation shall come forward with only the same degree of piety and intelligence that belonged to their fathers, then the utmost that can be expected is, that the cause of religion and humanity shall not retrograde. Progress, under the circumstances supposed, is wholly out of the question. The Church is now barely able to hold its ground against the opposing forces of sin and error, or to advance with tardy steps to future triumphs; and if it is to be recruited and reinforced by such members and ministers only as already wield its destinies, it must remain in essentially the same condition, while the accession of even a few persons of deeper piety, and stronger faith, and larger views, might sweep away the obstacles that retard its progress, and open a career of unexampled success. A single individual of enlarged conceptions of duty and burning zeal for Christ, is sometimes able to communicate new spirit to a whole church which has for years scarcely given a sign of vitality. It had just enough power to maintain a bare existence, and resist the pressure from without; and now the additional impetus given by one true man of God puts everything in motion and triumphs over obstacles. What victories then might we anticipate, what enlargement for Zion, could the whole Christian host be induced to gird themselves with strength, and enter upon the whitening field to which they are called with something like the spirit of primitive Christianity? It would be as a new life from the dead. It would be as the birth of a new dispensation. They who are ready to perish would revive again, and all the islands of the sea will re-rejoice. [1] In a previous paragraph, Bishop Foster says:

There may have been, and doubtless has been, on the part of most Christians, a vague and indefinite idea of the greater blessings, not yet included in their experience, and a general outgoing of heart after them; but there has been so much indefiniteness and vagueness on the subject of privilege and duty as to awaken neither hope nor concern; and if in some instances aspirations, and even great and distressing convictions, have been awakened for a time, they have too often perished for want of guidance and support. No earnest Christian, I am persuaded, will dissent from these lamentable statements. They are not morbid. They are not made in a carping or fault-finding spirit. They are simply the record of a sad fact which has filled the heart of Christ and of His Church with sorrow through all the ages of Christian history. [2] John Wesley said: From long experience and observation, I am inclined to think that whoever finds redemption in the blood of Jesus-whoever is justified-has then the choice of walking in the higher or lower path. I believe the Holy Spirit at that time sets before him "the more excellent way," and incites him to walk therein-to choose the narrowest path in the narrow way-to aspire after the heights and depths of holiness-after the entire image of God. [3]

Charles H. Spurgeon once wrote: "There is a point of grace as much above the ordinary Christian as the ordinary Christian is above the world." Commenting on this statement, Thomas Cook, in New Testament Holiness, says: The experience to which Mr. Spurgeon refers has been described as the higher life, entire sanctification, Christian perfection, perfect love, the rest of faith, and by numerous other names or terms. Modes of expression have been selected by various Christians which have best coincided with their theological views. There may be shades of difference in their import, but, generally speaking, the terms mean one and the same thing. We do not contend for names. It is immaterial which expressions are employed; the main point is, do we possess the experience designated by these terms, and which is recognized and professed by Christians representing all our churches? [4] Evidencing early preference for the term holiness, Thomas Cook says: When used in a general sense, the word "holiness" includes whatever is connected with Christian life and character. Thus Interpreted, it may be applied to any and all stages of religious life and development. But the term is used in a more definite sense to describe an experience distinct from justification-a sort of supplemental conversion, in which there is eliminated from the soul all the sinful elements which do not belong to it, everything antagonistic to the elements of holiness implanted in regeneration. It includes the full cleansing of the soul from inbred sin, so that it becomes pure or free from sinful tendency. Says Thomas Carlyle: "Holy in the German language -- heilig -- also means healthy; our English word whole -- all in one piece, without any hole in it-is the same word. You could not get any better definition of what holy really is than healthy, completely healthy." We do not say that this definition embraces all that we mean by holiness -- it does not. The experience includes also the gracious endowment of perfect love, and the abiding fullness of the Holy Spirit. To explain more in detail in what sense the Scriptures teach this to be a present duty and privilege and to meet the difficulties of those who really and honestly desire to understand the doctrine, is our purpose in these pages. To hit a mark we must know where it is. We walk faster when we see plain, definite steps. We must know what we want and seek that. Unless we can separate the experience from its accidental surroundings, confusion is sure to follow. We may not be able to understand the doctrine in all its relations and bearings, but we need to have before our minds some distinct point of attainment. Just as the pressing of men to an immediate and definite point of conversion produces immediate and definite results, so it is with Christians. When a definite point is presented as immediately attainable, distinct and definite experiences follow. Prayer is no more at random. The blind man cried for "mercy," but "mercy" was too general a prayer. Jesus wanted to know what special kind of mercy the man desired. When he asked for mercy that took the form of the gift of sight, that special bestowal was granted." [5] The Wesleyan View

It is not within the scope of this series of lectures to present the evidences which we believe amply support that view of Bible holiness which has been called the Wesleyan view, and which is the view of that group of ministers and people who constitute what is known as the holiness movement. This movement includes within its scope a number of denominations like the Free Methodists, the Wesleyan Methodists, the Pilgrim Holiness church, and the Church of the Nazarene, and many ministers and members of churches which as a whole are not committed to the interpretation mentioned. Our purpose is to inquire as to the terminology used by this group, to determine from their literature and history what sense they give to these terms when they use them. We do not give large place to the terminology used by others than the holiness people. It may be that their terminology is adequate to express what they have to say on the subject, and they may be able to make the message plain by the use of their own vocabulary. But as "one of them" myself, I am free to say that we need a large and forceful terminology to serve us in making our message effective. If some claim that they mean the same things as our terminology expresses, then we suggest that, seeing our terminology is older and better established, they just adopt it as theirs also. A new and unknown terminology demands much effort and patience for its establishment, and all concerned with the message of full salvation should be thankful for the instrument of expression which the fathers have wrought out for our use.

It is no accident that all holiness lexicographers go, sooner or later, to John Wesley for the testing of their terminology. For John Wesley was, under the guidance of the providences and Spirit of God, a father to the holiness movement. He disclaimed any credit as an inventor, but consistently contended that he and his Coadjutors preached, and designed to preach, nothing that had not been known and preached in the Church in all its generations, beginning with its Founder, the Lord Jesus Christ. He thought that he and his people might at times serve as discoverers, and that they might do good service in breaking away the incrustations which had gathered about certain of the apostolic doctrines and restore these doctrines to the Church and to the world. But always his thought was that the primitive Church held the full content of the gospel, and that there was no need at any time for either changing or adding thereto.

Commenting on John Wesley as a theologian, someone has remarked that John Wesley said more that is fundamentally true and less that had to be corrected than any who have spoken in the Church since the days of the inspired apostles. However, we do not quote Wesley as final authority. For this there is no appeal except "to the law and to the testimony" -- to the Bible, the true Word of God. Wesley’s work is useful to assist us in expressing what we know in our hearts and have found taught in the blessed Book.

Wesley himself used a wide variety of terms to express his conception of Bible holiness, and he spent more time on some which he preferred least. This he did because his opposers misinterpreted, and he had either to defend or abandon these terms; and in abandoning them, he felt that he would be understood to be leaving the meaning as he, not as his opposers, understood it. Wesley wrote and declared before Oxford University his sermon on "The Circumcision of the Heart" when he was thirty years of age. He wrote his tract on The Character of a Methodist, his first tract on Christian perfection, when he was thirty-six years of age. When he was thirty-seven years of age, he had an interview with Dr. Gibson, the bishop of London, who is reported to have found no fault in Wesley’s definition of Christian perfection, and on the basis of that interview Wesley wrote his sermon on "Christian Perfection." And because his opposers continued to misinterpret, Wesley continued to explain, so that Christian perfection became almost the outstanding word in his preaching and writing. There is evidence, however, that he never originally intended that it should be that way, and that he personally preferred other terms to this one. Wesley’s second sermon on perfection was written when he was eighty-two, just six years before his death. And during this long period, covering fifty-two active years and fourteen years of a little lessened activity-sixty-six years in all -- he used many expressions in describing his central thesis. But his biographers have found that the term "perfect love" was probably the term which he actually preferred.

Dr. A. M. Hills, in Scriptural Holiness, says:

Wesley wrote, "Both my brother Charles and I maintain that Christian perfection is that love of God and our neighbor which implies deliverance from all sin. It is the loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. This implies that no wrong temper, none contrary to love, remain in the soul." "Certainly sanctification (in the proper sense) is an instantaneous deliverance from all sin. [6] Dr. Hills continues:

Notice, during the different years of Wesley’s life, what terms he used to express it. 1739, "Renewal of our heart after the image of God." "The mind that was in Christ." 1741, "Deliverance from inward and outward sin." "The evil nature, the body of sin destroyed." 1742, "Cleansed from all the filth of self and pride." "To perfect health restored." "To sin entirely dead." 1757, "Having received the first fruits of the Spirit, patiently and earnestly wait for the great change whereby every root of bitterness may be torn up." 1758, "A heart entirely pure." "Perfected in love and saved from all sin." 1761, "Delivered from the root of bitterness." "Cleansed from all unrighteousness." "After being convinced of inbred sin, in a moment they feel all faith and love, no pride, self-will, or anger." 1762, "Full renewal in the image of God." "In an instant emptied of all sin and filled with God." "An instantaneous deliverance from all sin." "Cleansed from sin, meaning all sinful tempers." 1762, "The second blessing." "Destruction of the roots of sin in one moment" "Pure love." 1765, "Love taking up the whole heart, and filling it with all holiness." "The soul pure from every spot, clean from all unrighteousness." "Sin destroyed in a moment." 1768, "The image of God stamped on the heart." "The mind that was in Christ, enabling us to walk as Christ walked." "The perfection I have taught these forty years." "I mean loving God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves. I pin down all opposers to this definition; no evasion; no shifting the question." 1770, "An entire deliverance from sin and recovery of the whole image of God." "A second change, whereby we shall be saved from all sin and perfected in love." 1774, "The second blessing, properly so called, deliverance from the root of bitterness, from inbred as well as actual sin." 1781, "Christ in a pure and sinless heart, reigning the Lord of every motion." 1785, "A full deliverance from all sin and a renewal in the whole image of God." "Full salvation now by simple faith." 1789, "The whole image of God wherein you were created." "O be satisfied with nothing less and you will surely secure it by simple faith." [7] Other Holiness Leaders But no history of the Wesleyan terminology is complete without the inclusion of Adam Clarke, who said: "What, then, is this complete sanctification? It is the cleansing by the blood of that which has not been cleansed; it is washing the soul of a true believer from the remains of sin." Nor should we omit John Fletcher, who said: "It is the pure love of God and man shed abroad in a faithful believer’s heart by the Holy Ghost given unto him, to cleanse him and to keep him clean from all the filthiness of the flesh and spirit."

Joseph Benson, who came a little later, said: "To sanctify you wholly is to complete the work of purification and renovation begun in your regeneration." Binney, of yet a later period, said: "Entire sanctification is that act of the Holy Spirit whereby the justified soul is made holy."

Summing up the idea expressed by the full, early Methodist terminology, Dr. A. M. Hills suggests as a definition of sanctification or scriptural holiness this statement:

Entire sanctification is a second definite work of grace wrought by the baptism with the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer subsequently to regeneration, received instantaneously by faith, by which the heart is cleansed from all inward corruption and filled with the perfect love of God. [8]

Rev. J. A. Wood, who lived and wrought during the last half of the nineteenth century, and who left a lasting heritage in his books, Perfect Love and Purity and Maturity, was one of the clearest exponents of Bible holiness that we have had. In Section I of Perfect Love, he says: The Scripture terms [for expressing full salvation] are, "perfect love," "perfection," "sanctification," and "holiness." These terms are synonymous, all pointing to the same precious state of grace. While they denote the same religious state, each one of them indicates some essential characteristic, and hence these terms are significantly expressive of full salvation.. The word "sanctify" and its derivatives occur in the Scriptures, with reference to men and things, over one hundred times. The term "perfection" signifies completeness of Christian character; its freedom from sin, and the possession of all the graces of the Spirit, complete in kind. "Let us go on unto perfection." The word "perfection" and its relatives occur one hundred and one times in the Scriptures. In over fifty of these instances it is predicated of human character under the operation of grace. The term "holiness" is more generic and comprehensive than the others, including salvation from sin, and the possession of the image and Spirit of God. To be holy is to be whole, entire, or perfect in a moral sense, and in ordinary use is synonymous with purity and godliness. "Follow peace with all men, and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord." The word "holy" and its derivatives occur not less than one hundred and twenty times in their application to men and things. [9] In contrast with these many occurrences of words expressing full salvation, Wood observes: The word "justify" and its derivatives occur seventy-four times in regard to men; and the word "pardon" with its derivatives, in their application to penitent sinners, occurs only seventeen times." [10] On the phrase "perfect love," Wood says:

It is expressive of the spirit and temper, or moral atmosphere in which the wholly sanctified and perfect Christian lives. "He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him," and "Herein is our love made perfect." [11] In all matters religious, men respect the ancient, and no man who is compelled to say that his concepts are new can hope for much regard. The maxim, "Nothing is new in theology," is well-established in both the intelligence and the sentiments of men. "What is new is not true, and what is true is not new" is but another putting of the same idea. In this particular, revelation differs from invention. In invention the last and latest is better then the first and former; but in revelation the stream is purest where it breaks forth from the fountain’s head.

We have endeavored to keep close to the Bible in all we have presented herein. Our inner challenge has been, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." It is only Bible holiness that concerns us. What others may call holiness is of no interest to us. But the holiness of the Bible is of utmost concern, for we have it on highest authority that, without the holiness which the Bible teaches, none of us shall see God and be happy in His presence.

Far from being confined to a few proof texts, the doctrine of holiness is the meat and core of the Bible of both the Old and the New Testaments. The moral requirements of this thesis were emphasized by the law given at Sinai, but four hundred years before that God called on Abraham to walk before Him and be perfect.

J. A. Wood, tracing the history of holiness, says: That the Apostolic Fathers, Martyrs, and primitive Christians believed in, and walked in the light of this grace, is very evident. They lived and died abiding in Christ, under the cleansing blood of the atonement. It was this grace that gave them their great success, and afforded them sustaining power in the jaws of death. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was given to the wild beasts at Rome when one hundred and seven years of age, said: "I thank Thee, O Lord, that Thou hast vouch-safed to honor me with a perfect love towards Thee." . . . When threatenings were sent to Chrysostom from the hand of the Empress, he replied, "Go tell Eudoxia that I fear nothing but sin." Irenaeus taught that those were perfect "who present soul, body, and spirit faultless to the Lord. Therefore those were perfect who have the spirit and perseverance of God, and have preserved their souls and bodies without fault. Clement, in his Epistle to the Ephesians says: "Ye see, then, beloved, how great and wonderful a thing love is, and that no words can declare its perfection. Let us beseech Christ that we may live in love unblameable." Macarius taught the doctrine more clearly than any of the Fathers. Of our duty and privilege, he says: "It is perfect purity from sin, freedom from all shameful lusts and passions, and the assumption of perfect virtue; that is, the purification of the heart by the plenary and experimental communion of the perfect and divine Spirit." [12]

There were witnesses of this doctrine and experience down through the Middle Ages and on up to Wesley’s day. Among those who lived and preached and suffered, some of them even unto death for the faith, were Molinos and the Quietists of France; Archbishop Fenelon; Madame Guyon, who spent four years in the French Bastille for her piety; and George Fox, the sanctified Quaker. More than two hundred fifty years ago, Samuel Rutherford said, as quoted by J. A. Wood:

Christ is more to be loved for giving us sanctification than justification. It is in some respects greater love in him to sanctify than to justify, for he maketh us more like himself in his own essential portraiture and image of sanctification. [13] That there were extended periods during which the witnesses to holiness were few is no argument against the truth of the doctrine and no reflection on the terminology by which the doctrine was and is defined, for the same thing could be said as regarding justification and every essential tenet of the Christian creed. That there was a new interest in the doctrine, and consequently a reviving of the terminology by which the doctrine is expressed, in the Wesleyan reformation is cause for rejoicing, seeing no sane person can separate the moral revival which saved England and the Anglo-Saxon civilization from demoralization in the days of Wesley and the doctrine which he and his coadjutors preached. The Wesleyan revival is just another instance substantiating the fact that separation, not amalgamation, is the prelude to power. God’s people can do more to save the world by being delivered from it than ever they could do by becoming mixed with it.

Holiness

If it be said that the terminology of holiness is offensive, by the same words it is said that holiness itself is offensive to many. J. A. Wood says:

Much of the prejudice and opposition to this doctrine comes from remaining depravity in unsanctified believers. Indwelling sin is an antagonism to holiness, and, in so far as any Christian has inbred sin, he has within him opposition to holiness. Many do not yield to it, but resist it, pray against it and keep it under; others, we are sorry to know, both in the ministry and laity, yield to their depravity, and stand in opposition to God’s work. [14]

It is evident, therefore, that the nature and fact of holiness are what they are, regardless of the terminology by which they are described. And it is further evident that it is not always to the terminology, but to the fact and nature of holiness itself, that opposition is really directed.

However, nothing can be gained either on the part of promoters or on the part of honest opposers that any attempt should be made to carry through a meaning of terms without doing so openly. If the tenets of holiness teachers are untenable, let them be shown to be so; but let the terminology by which they present their theses be defined by them and understood (not misunderstood or misinterpreted) by others. There is an indispensable element of intelligence in our holy religion, and our Master told us to go forth and "teach all nations." The idea that more will find God and full salvation by a staggering rather than a straight and purposeful walk is too fallacious to merit more than the passing mention. Some may find the way over byways and unmarked courses, but more will find the way if the highway is fitly prepared and well marked.

If others use our terminology with a meaning other than that we hold, it is their duty to attach their meaning to our vocabulary, seeing ours is first on the historic field. Our vocabulary stands approved, and sanctification, holiness, Christian perfection, perfect love, the baptism with the Holy Ghost, Christian purity, and other such terms imply the same work and state of grace. That work is wrought in the hearts of believers subsequent to regeneration, on the basis of the merits of the blood of Jesus, on condition of faith, and by the efficient agency of the Holy Ghost. The Second Blessing

We have not spoken in detail of the Wesleyan term "second blessing," a term that Wesley used infrequently. This term, though not found in the Scriptures, is, nevertheless, as we believe, scriptural. Wesley said that sanctification is "a second blessing, properly so-called." By this he seemed to mean that it is second to justification, and the only "blessing" in this life that stands on the same level of urgency and meaning with justification. The fact then that there are "thousands of blessings" in the course of the Christian life does in no sense invalidate "the second blessing," as it does not invalidate the first blessing of justification. The treatment this term has received at the hand of critics has served rather to enhance its value and to increase its usefulness. In their endeavor to de mote the term, critics have the more closely identified it with the grace and estate it was invented to describe.

John Wesley did not make extended use of the term "second blessing," and in his day no one seems to have made any special attack upon it. Wesley wisely preferred Scripture terms or terms that are a little better identified with Scripture expressions; and in this, as in many other things, we do well to imitate his example. This we say without intentionally yielding in the least the idea expressed by this term, and with no thought that it shall or should be discarded altogether.

Eradication In our time the special prejudice has been directed against the term eradication, and against the idea expressed by this term. Some urge that we discontinue the use of this term on the ground that it is not found in the Scriptures. But many who raise this objection seem to have no scruples against such words as "suppression," "repression," and "counteraction" -- words which are neither scripture nor scriptural. But although the word eradication is not found in our English Bible, the idea contained in the word is there in bold type. Note such passages as those which exhort that your old man may be crucified, "that the body of sin might be destroyed," that "the old man" may be "put off," that we might be made "free from sin," and that the Christian may "purge himself from these," and others.

Dr. Asbury Lowrey, in his chapter on "The Greek Text," in Possibilities of Grace, says: "A critical knowledge of any doctrine, duty or privilege of the New Testament requires an examination of the language in which it was first promulgated." [15] Such a study, followed without prejudice, will serve but to substantiate the following observations:

1. Although there are words in the Greek language that mean suppression, not one of them is ever used in connection with the disposition to be made of inbred sin. Invariably the word used (and there are a number of them) signifies "to loosen," "to unbind," to "disengage," to "set free," to "deliver," to "break up," to "destroy," or to "demolish." If it were the plan of God that sin should be suppressed or counteracted, is it not reason that the use of the Greek would indicate this purpose? If it were not God’s plan to eradicate sin from the hearts of believers, is it not beyond explanation that a Greek word carrying this meaning was invariably used in indicating what the disposition was to be?

2. The tense of the Greek verbs used in all passages like Rom 6:6 where the death-stroke to sin is described is always aorist, which indicates an act as being completed at a definite time and continuing as complete until the present time. And when the energy of the Holy Spirit in the work of entire sanctification is described, the verb is never in the imperfect tense, the tense which the Greek uses to describe a gradual process. On this basis we conclude that the word eradication is permissible, and the idea it involves is essential. Those who use terms which imply that inbred sin is to be suppressed or counteracted are using words which are not permissible, and holding views that are altogether erroneous. Dr. A. M. Hills quotes from an unnamed writer as follows: "Repressive power is nowhere ascribed to the blood of Christ, but rather purgative efficiency." [16] Then Dr. Hills goes on to say: The truth is, we have the most critical and scholarly commentaries and Greek exegetes, the lexicons and grammars, on our side in this matter. If the Greek New Testament can teach anything by nouns, adjectives, and verbs, and even adverbs and prepositions, about a spiritual experience, our doctrine of sanctification, as a heart-cleansing work, is taught by the Word of God. [17]

There has been, on the part of some, an effort to identify the word and idea of self with the flesh or carnal mind. But such a tendency is evidence of unsound philosophy and a careless use of terms. Sound holiness teachers have never used the word self in this ,sense. Self means "one’s own individual identity," "one’s own person," "personality," "individuality," "personal identity," and any claim that this is to be eradicated is of course pure nonsense. John says: "Every one that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." This indicates that it is an abnormal condition from which self needs to be purified, and then that self shall be pure as Jesus is pure.

Perfection

Opposers of the doctrine of Bible holiness have invented such words and phrases as "perfectionist," "perfectionism," "absolute perfection," and "sinless perfection," terms that have never been employed by sane promoters of the doctrine. Concerning the use of these terms, Rev. E. W. Moore well says they are "the devil’s scarecrow to frighten God’s people from the finest wheat. People are much more afraid of the doctrine of sinless perfection than they are of the practice of sinful imperfection." The phrase "Christian perfection" or, as some prefer, "evangelical perfection" is not "sinless perfection" in the sense that those possessing it "cannot sin." But the phrase in either form is just the equivalent of "perfect love," seeing it is only in the sense of purified affection and holy intentions that any implication of perfection is claimed or taught by accredited holiness teachers.

Baptism with the Spirit The phrase "baptism with the Holy Ghost" is descriptive of the efficient means by which the believer’s heart is made clean from sin. John the Baptist emphasized the deeper purging of the heart when he contrasted his baptism with water with Christ’s baptism with the fiery Spirit. Water baptism is a symbol of the regenerating work of the Spirit, but fire is the symbol of that purifying that comes when the Spirit is received in sanctifying fullness. The baptism with the Holy Ghost is also a baptism for power; but they who say it is for power only must ignore the plain teachings of the Scriptures, and must nullify the import of the symbols. The term "baptism with the Holy Ghost" or "baptism with the Spirit" makes clear historic reference to the Day of Pentecost when the Spirit came suddenly upon the waiting disciples, and cleansed their hearts from sin, as Peter afterwards affirmed (Acts 15:7-8), giving them power and unction that they might be witnesses of Christ to the uttermost part of the earth. From this historic connection we learn that the Spirit’s coming is in keeping with all the promises of God for instantaneous cleansing. And although, like other terms, this phrase has its own particular emphasis, it is always implied, even when it is not specifically mentioned in connection with entire sanctification. All who are baptized with the Holy Ghost are by that means sanctified wholly, and all who are sanctified wholly in truth have arrived at that state by reason of the fact that the Holy Ghost has come upon them in sanctifying fullness subsequent to the new birth.

Thomas Cook, in New Testament Holiness, says:

We must recognize the fact that to possess the Holy Spirit is one thing, but to be filled with the Spirit is quite another. Before Pentecost the Holy Ghost was given to the disciples. Christ bad breathed upon them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." But Pentecost made an unspeakable difference to them. The visible tongues of fire were only emblems of what had passed within. What new creatures they then became! How their gross conception of Christ’s kingdom was purged away, and how they were raised from earthliness to spirituality! Their intellects were flooded with divine light, their souls throbbed with divine sympathy, and their tongues spoke so wonderfully of the things of God, so that all who had known them previously were amazed, saying, "What meaneth this?" They were all raised to a new altitude; a new energy and force possessed them. Each one became strong as an iron pillar, "the weakest as David, and the strong as the angel of the Lord." They met together as the sincere but timid and partially enlightened followers of Christ, but they left the upper room full of light, and power, and love. They are now filled with the Holy Ghost as an all-illuminating, all-strengthening, all-sanctifying presence. The baptism of fire had consumed their inward depravity, subsidized all their faculties, and filled to the full each capacity with divine energy and life.

"Baptized with" and "filled with the Holy Ghost" are often convertible terms in the Acts of the Apostles, but it is instructive to note that they are not always so. The apostles received but one baptism, but they were "filled" with the Spirit over and over again. The baptism of the Holy Ghost was, and still is, a sort of initiatory rite to the life of Pentecostal service, and fullness and victory. Christian life begins at Calvary, but effective service begins at Pentecost. Before Pentecost there was not much service rendered by the apostles that was worth the name. But with the Spirit’s baptism they entered upon a new phase of service. The analogy of the sacrament of baptism connects the baptism of the Spirit with a new era in Christian life. Pentecost, and the visit of Cornelius, when the baptism of the Spirit is spoken of, were not only historical events, but great representative occasions, which may be held to typify and signify the beginning of the Spirit-filled life. [18]

Thus far in this section we have applied ourselves to only that terminology which has to do with the divine phases of the grace and blessing of Bible holiness. We may not give lengthy consideration to the prerequisite (a well-authenticated justified state) or to the conditions (consecration and faith). Thomas Cook says:

Some writers of advanced Christian experience magnify the will and emphasize the importance of absolute submission, while others urge faith as the condition of the blessing. Both are right. Perfect trust cannot exist without compete surrender. Nor can we surrender our will to One whom we cannot trust. Lady Maxwell could pray, "Put a thorn in every enjoyment, a worm in every gourd, that would prevent, or in any measure retard my progress in Divine life." And when we can say, from our inmost heart, "I am willing to receive what Thou givest, and to want what Thou withholdest, and to relinquish what Thou takest, and to suffer what Thou inflictest, and to be what Thou requirest, and to do what Thou commandest. Have thine own way with me and mine in all particulars," we are not far from the Canaan of God’s perfect love. This full surrender is consecration. It means an entire willingness on our part to be, to do, and to suffer all that God wills. We use the word "consecration," not because it is the best word, but because it is the word in most common use and the word most likely to be understood. What repentance is to justification, consecration is to entire sanctification. Just as repentance towards God must precede faith in the Lord Jesus Christ in the case of those who seek Divine forgiveness, so unconditional surrender is the indispensable condition of trusting Christ as a Saviour from indwelling sin. Some think they must struggle and make great effort, but faith does not come as the result of effort. It rises up spontaneously in the soul when hindrances are removed. Unbelief has always a moral cause -- unwillingness to do the will of God in some point. The difficulty is not with our faculties, nor with evidences, but with our moral state, our disposition to follow unhesitatingly where the truth leads. Faith becomes as natural as breathing when we dethrone our idols. [19] The list of terms suggested in this section is not long. It may be that some will find still other terms useful and, in certain instances, preferable. But our own judgment is that the advantage of a lengthy vocabulary is largely offset by the justifiable tendency of hearers to suppose that every distinction is based upon a worthwhile difference. I believe that the end can be better reached by investing the familiar terms with a rich and definite meaning, and then by using the additional terminology principally in illustration and enforcement.