A house of cards

My theology of holiness instructor explained that the flesh is not sinful. God created the physical world and it was good.

I pointed out that at the fall, sin and death entered the world. Thus, the physical world was changed.

He asked if a gun was sinful, or a knife.

I said, no, but a gun doesn't have a mind that seeks self-gratification.

What's bugging me is that he's telling these young students that, if only they were sanctified soul and body, they would not be bent toward sin. Excuse me, but our bodies are selfish, and no matter what our circumstances, we still have to restrain the flesh. This body is a temporary tent. The real me, the eternal me, is my spirit, that wants to serve and honor God. The body has a chemical make up that is selfish. "Feed me. Scratch me. Satisfy me." Selfishness is self-destructive when it stands alone, so the spirit has to keep it in check. "Yes, I'll feed you, but no, you can't have that extra candy bar." The spirit has to call the shots, stay in charge at all times. As long as we are in these temporary tents, we have to keep pounding the pegs down tight. Just because we are sanctified, does not mean that the body is going to sit back and say, "Don't mind me. I'm fine. I don't need or want anything." I fear we are setting these students up for failure if we lead them to believe that their bodies will be holy, sinless, --sanctified with one more trip to the alter and a sincere heart.

Can the fence be considered a road?

I spent another five hours today reading. This time I finished Defence of Christian Perfection by Daniel Steele (not to be confused with the smut author of a similar name). Steele is another Methodist writer from the 1800's. The man seemed to be quite educated, but he was so much in defence that at times he seemed argumentative, which in my understanding, is not becoming to sanctification or Christian perfection. Perhaps it was a holy anger; I should not judge.

Though I am still unsure in which field of theories I should place my foot, I was impressed by this statement by Steele (page 107):

"Experiences are God's work and are always orthodox; theories are of man's devising and are sometimes erroneous. The doctrine of Christian perfection in this life, 'the formal principle of Wesley's theology and the inmost spirit and essence of Methodism' (Dr. Warren), may be erroneous, and the doctrine of successive partial sanctifications never extinguishing depravity may be true. By their fruits let them be judged. Let the latter theory be substituted for the former when it has raised up more saintly men and women, and has communicated a mightier upward impulse to our common Christianity throughout the whole world."

Phoebe Palmer

I got the flu bug again, so I didn't get out much today. I spent a good bit of the day finishing a book called Entire Devotion to God by Phoebe Palmer. I have been grappling with the doctrine of entire-sanctification for sometime, and some may say, "Just let it go," but I do want to find peace with this. Is it possible to live, as many claim, sinless?

One reason I chose this book to study was that I knew Phoebe was a radical, but isn't that what "entire" sanctification is? I told an inspirational friend, a seminary graduate, about the book I was reading, and she said, "That'll mess you up." Great, so how is one to find truth without wading through the false teachers? And is there any guarantee that you won't be influenced by them?

Another trusted friend, with a doctorate in theology, referred to Phoebe as a mystic. I looked up the term and found: "a person who claims to attain, or believes in the possibility of attaining, insight into mysteries transcending ordinary human knowledge, as by direct communication with the divine or immediate intuition in a state of spiritual ecstasy... a person initiated into religious mysteries." Yes, that about sums her up.

So, Phoebe, if I were entirely-sanctified, body and soul, as you claim I can be, would this flu bug not make me so grouchy and impatient?