Spirit of Power and Purity

Integrating Entire Sanctification and Spirit Baptism through a Relational Pneumatology

PHIL FELLOWS

Eucharisma 2, (Winter 2024), 53-67.

Pentecostalism and Methodism are two of the most significant global religious movements of the past three hundred years. Within about a century and a half of the beginning of the Methodist revival there were an estimated thirty-five million Methodist worshippers.1 Within a similar period from its inception, Pentecostalism is projected to include one billion worshippers.2 When the global charismatic renewal is included into these figures, their impact is incalculable.

At the heart of both movements is a distinctive experience of the Holy Spirit, expressed within Wesleyanism as Entire Sanctification and in Pentecostalism as Spirit Baptism.3 The historical movement from the experience of the Wesleyan revival to the Pentecostal and charismatic movements has been well documented.4 Yet while Entire Sanctification may have led to Spirit Baptism, in contemporary charismatic or Pentecostal preaching its distinctive insights are often missed or forgotten.

In this paper the two understandings of the Spirit’s work will be compared in order to develop an account of the work of the Spirit in the life of a believer that enables them to encounter the fullness of both his empowering and sanctifying work. It will be argued that such a synthesis is possible using the insights of a form of relational Pneumatology found in Eastern Orthodoxy. If the argument succeeds it will provide both a resource for contemporary Pentecostal and charismatic pastors to understand their own history, doctrine and tradition more fully and a framework in which that doctrine can be preached effectively.

This is potentially of particular interest to charismatic and Pentecostal pastors for a number of reasons. First, a deeper understanding of our tradition (the author of this paper is a charismatic pastor from a neo-Pentecostal background) will enable pastors to respond to pastoral and theological challenges we encounter with greater confidence and rigour. New pastoral and other practices and formulations can be offered that draw on both an understanding of the Spirit as sanctifier and as empowerer. Second, it confronts the risk inherent in some accounts of Pentecostal and charismatic spirituality of the Spirit’s role becoming misunderstood through a neglect of either his empowering or purifying work. Third, when counselling congregants and others as they face the challenges of sin, suffering and mission, a coherent and concise account of how the Spirit’s work embraces different facets of Christian experience is invaluable. Finally, it helps in ecumenical and apologetic settings to be able to offer a fuller account of Pentecostal and charismatic doctrine and experience, particularly as it relates to the understandings of the Spirit’s work in other denominations and traditions.

Before proceeding with this argument, it is important to note that Pentecostalism is a global movement with an enormous diversity of understanding and practice.5 This discussion will focus upon the understanding of Spirit Baptism that has characterised Pentecostalism from its beginning,6 and the common practice of rooting the Pentecostal movement in the 1906 Azusa Street revival.7 Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that doing so potentially contributes to the misleading idea of an American-centred Pentecostalism.8 Unfortunately, given the limits of space, this is inevitable and will have to be mitigated by further research in future.9

The argument will be divided into three parts. The first will analyse Entire Sanctification as it was taught by John Wesley and Spirit Baptism as it has been understood in Classical Pentecostalism. Having isolated the key attributes of each doctrine, the discussion will then move to examine three historic approaches to integrating them, noting that none is wholly satisfactory. Finally, the work of Eastern Orthodox writers will be used to propose an alternative approach that, it will be argued, is superior to the others.

Entire Sanctification and Spirit Baptism

Entire Sanctification

As has been noted, many contemporary historical theologians locate the roots of contemporary understandings of Spirit Baptism in the experience of Entire Sanctification that characterised the Wesleyan revival.10

Wesley described Entire Sanctification using both affirmations and the via negativa.11  In summary, it comprised the experience of love for God and others occupying the whole of the human heart and soul.12 It is, therefore, the restoration of the image of God in humanity or the full mind of Christ which is the focus of the experience.13  Further, the love experienced in Entire Sanctification is necessarily expressed in ‘tempers, words and actions.’14

Wesley was ambivalent about the relationship of Entire Sanctification to miraculous Spiritual gifts. While Wesley stated that he was not opposed to the continued operation of such gifts,15 and observed them among at least one group who had received Entire Sanctification, this was not the aim of the experience and, in this instance, proved destructive to the pursuit of the Spirit’s fruit, particularly ‘humble love.’16 Similarly, Wesley did not experience or expect the continued presence of glossolalia but nor would he rule it out.17 In general, therefore, the aim of Entire Sanctification was not to obtain gifts or power but holiness.18

Bratton has isolated four representative testimonies of the experience of Entire Sanctification during the late eighteenth century.19 All four spoke of being filled with the presence of God (associated with the presence of the Spirit) and being overwhelmed with love.20 Two of the witnesses spoke explicitly of the Spirit removing the ‘root of sin’ or ‘heart of stone.’ 21The other two associate the experience with the presence of light and physical metaphors such as ‘rushing wind.’22

How it Worked

Wesley understood this experience to be a second blessing distinct from, and subsequent to, justification.23 It was received by faith and yet was also to be preceded by active repentance.24 In this sense works suitable for repentance were considered necessary for Entire Sanctification, although not in the same ‘degree’ as faith.25

This raises the question of whether Entire Sanctification is received through a process or a crisis. Given Wesley’s emphasis upon repentance, some have downplayed the theological significance of the instantaneous aspect of the experience.26 Nevertheless, Wesley explicitly affirmed instantaneity and stressed it in his preaching.27 For Wesley, therefore, this is a false dichotomy: Entire Sanctification is a crisis that occurs in the context of a process.28 Whilst it is a definite experience and a new state, it is also a development of prior character. In this sense there is ‘one kind of holiness’ which varies in degree. Entire Sanctification therefore represents the culmination of a process,29 yet not its conclusion; we continue to grow in love and can also fall from it.30

Wesley was not always explicit about how each member of the Godhead is at work in this process. Some have argued that Wesley’s understanding of the Christian life was primarily Christological, even as it encompasses Entire Sanctification.31 Others, however, have demonstrated that Wesley embraced a developed and distinctive pneumatology.32 When Wesley described Entire Sanctification he would often do so in pneumatological terms.33 At the same time, however, Wesley would insist both that every believer had received the Spirit irrespective of whether they had received Entire Sanctification and that the Spirit’s work encompasses those who are already believers.34 Wesley relied upon a range of Scripture references to support his understanding. According to Sangster’s survey of the texts Wesley customarily relied upon in this regard, none were from Luke-Acts while seven were Pauline and ten were from 1 John.35

Position within the Christian Life

For Wesley, Entire Sanctification occupies a teleological position within the Christian life. While, in the sovereignty of God, there is no reason in principle why it may not occur soon after justification, generally that was not Wesley’s observation.36 It was not expected or experienced, therefore, as part of Christian inauguration.37  Moreover, Wesley would point to the writer of 1 John’s distinction between little children, young men, and fathers as providing an illustration of, and justification for, holding to perfection as the goal of Christian life.38 This did not mean, however, that a believer needed to be physically mature in order to receive the blessing.39

Pentecostal Spirit Baptism

Having considered the Wesleyan doctrine of Entire Sanctification we will now analyse a Pentecostal understanding of Spirit Baptism. 

Sources

The number of Pentecostal denominations, together with the absence of a single unifying figure such as Wesley, poses a challenge for identifying and analysing a distinctive Pentecostal theology.40 Indeed, some Pentecostal scholars believe that to speak of the doctrine of Pentecostal churches is itself problematic.41 Inevitably, this means that the discussion here is partial and does not embrace every wing of the Pentecostal movement. Hopefully further research can enable the proposals outlined below to be extended and developed in dialogue with other branches of Pentecostal theology.. Moreover, throughout our discussion we will note the presence of dissent among Pentecostal scholars concerning elements of their tradition.

Experience

Classical Pentecostals understand Spirit Baptism to be an experience available to all believers, resulting in an equipping or empowering for service and particularly focused on being a ‘witness for Christ.’42 While Spirit Baptism includes an experience of the love of God, its chief result is nevertheless missional and prophetic empowering rather than transformation of character.43

In contrast to Wesley’s understanding of Entire Sanctification, Classical Pentecostalism holds that Spirit Baptism is linked to involvement in miraculous gifts of the Spirit.44 Moreover, Spirit Baptism is often expected to be evidenced by glossolalia.45 This belief has been dominant since the beginning of the movement, although it has always been controversial and the exact relationship between glossolalia and Spirit Baptism is disputed.46

Donald Gee collated a number of early testimonies of Pentecostal Spirit Baptism. In addition to the gift of tongues, several of the testimonies speak of a sense of the presence of God and of being filled with power and physical strength. There are also reports of a sense of Divine light being present in and around the believer.47 These experiences are replicated in the testimonies collated by Edmund Rybarczyk which describe the experience as bringing a Divine likeness, a filling with love and of light shining from the believer.48 The primary Biblical reference point for Pentecostal understandings of Spirit Baptism is Acts 2. The experience of the apostles described therein is taken to be typical of the experience that is available to every believer.49

Reception and Operation within the Christian Life

Classical Pentecostals understand the experience of Spirit Baptism to be subsequent to regeneration or initiation. It is viewed as a ‘renewal experience’ for those who are believers in Christ.50 Thus the experience is to be ‘ardently and earnestly’ sought by believers, often corporately, and received by faith.51 Most would hold, however, that it is possible for conversion and Spirit Baptism occur simultaneously in new converts. This approach is often linked with a focus on the Pauline epistles over, or alongside, the Luke-Acts narratives.52

Despite the Classical Pentecostal insistence upon the subsequence of the experience of Spirit Baptism to regeneration, its location within Pentecostal soteriology is nevertheless linked with inauguration. Spirit Baptism is directed towards the sending out of the believer empowered for mission.53 This is demonstrated by the Pentecostal emphasis upon receiving Divine equipping for a particular task, the expectation of Spiritual gifts, and the texts cited in support which overwhelmingly refer to young believers who are being commissioned into ministry.54 Moreover, as we have noted above, dissenters such as Fee would prefer to locate Spirit Baptism as an integral part of Christian inauguration.55

How Do They Compare?

Having analysed both Entire Sanctification and Spirit Baptism it is possible to summarise their differences and similarities.

First, this analysis has revealed that the doctrines are distinct and should not be equated or conflated. For example, Entire Sanctification is directed towards the transformation of character, does not prioritise miraculous gifts, and occupies a teleological position within the Christian life. By contrast, Spirit Baptism is directed towards equipping with power, is evidenced by, and provides entry to, miraculous gifts, and is more naturally located alongside Christian inauguration.

However, second, while the experiences are distinct, they do not contradict one another in any key respect. They are not, therefore, incompatible.

Third, there is some overlap between the spiritualities. They share, for example, the expectation of a post-conversion experience of the Spirit received by faith. Moreover, testimonies of the experience of both Entire Sanctification and Spirit Baptism involve a sense of the presence of the Divine, use the language of love and light to describe that experience, and can incorporate physical consequences.

Theological Frameworks

Given these similarities, it is instructive to examine historic proposals for integrating the two spiritualities.

The Pentecostal Wesley

The historical link between Entire Sanctification and Spirit Baptism has been explored in depth.56 Some argue, however, that the two doctrines should be closely associated theologically as well as historically, even if they are not equated.57 The advocates of this position point to Wesley’s approval of Fletcher’s and Benson’s teachings including his republishing of Fletcher’s Last Check to Antinomianism with its equating of Spirit Baptism and Entire Sanctification.58 Further, it is argued, Wesley explicitly used the language of Pentecost in connection with the experience of Entire Sanctification.59

Wood and others have successfully drawn attention to the pneumatological framework for Entire Sanctification. Nevertheless the Pentecostal Wesley thesis is flawed as a basis for integrating Entire Sanctification with Spirit Baptism. There are two difficulties in particular that make it unsuitable for our purposes.

While Wesley did use language connected with Pentecost to describe Entire Sanctification, he did not do so in the same way as Classical Pentecostals.60 Wesley would speak of Spirit Baptism as an event that occurred at the beginning of the Christian life even if its significance was only fully realised later.61 Moreover, as has been noted, Wesley taught that the believer would normally undertake works of repentance between justification and Entire Sanctification. This is in keeping with his understanding of the experience as the deepening of an existing reality.62 Underlying these difficulties is the more fundamental problem that Spirit Baptism and Entire Sanctification are structurally and dogmatically different in the ways discussed above.63

In part as a result of these problems, the Pentecostal Wesley proposal is also difficult to preach. By way of example, should the pastor exhort his congregation to undertake works of repentance, seeking Entire Sanctification as the climax of years of progressive growth, or expect it shortly after conversion, seeking it in corporate prayer? Should the believer expect there to be miraculous gifts, and particularly glossolalia, as a consequence of the blessing, or look only for a renewal in love?  The ambiguity at the heart of the proposal leaves these questions without a coherent answer and therefore renders the position unclear and unhelpful for Pastors.

Three-Fold Blessing

Wesleyan or Holiness Pentecostalism provides an example of a proposal which sought to incorporate both Entire Sanctification and Spirit Baptism into the Christian life. In this proposal there are at least three significant experiences of the Spirit within the Christian life, expected as conversion, Entire Sanctification, and Spirit Baptism.64 Thus Entire Sanctification is kept separate from Spirit Baptism with the former a prerequisite for the latter.65

This proposal is attractive for a number of reasons. It recognises that Entire Sanctification and Spirit Baptism describe distinct experiences and cannot be conflated. It also takes seriously the idea that there are numerous subsequent experiences of the Spirit described in Scripture, a point that a number of Pentecostal scholars have recently made.66 Moreover, it is clear in its outline and therefore capable of being preached in a local church.

There are, however, serious problems with this thesis. For example, in this proposal Spirit Baptism is no longer available to all for the work God gives every believer to undertake. Instead it is a benefit available only to those who have experienced Entire Sanctification. Conversely, Entire Sanctification is pushed ever earlier in the Christian life.67 Perhaps most problematic, however, is the setting of power rather than holiness as the telos of Christian living. The aim of the Christian life thus becomes the acquisition of Spiritual power rather than the character of Christ.

Pneumatological Intensity

The final proposal we will consider in this section comes from contemporary Pentecostal scholars who wish to nuance their movement’s understanding of Spirit Baptism. 

In this model it is conceded the Spirit is fully given to the believer at conversion. Spirit Baptism can then be expressed as the ‘release’ of the indwelling Spirit,68 and placed within a dynamic understanding of the process of salvation.69 The difference in the believer’s experience of the Spirit can then be described using the language of ‘intensification.’70 Thus, for those who favour this approach, all humanity participates in the Spirit ontologically while regeneration represents an intensification of that participation.  Gabriel adapts this approach with a view to using the metaphor of ‘intensification’ to denote not only Spirit Baptism but other experiences of the Spirit subsequent to conversion.71

This proposal parallels Wesley’s understanding that the individual believer’s personal participation in Pentecost happens at their conversion yet does not ‘fully come’ until later.72 Moreover, Yong’s locating of Spirit Baptism in the context of the increasing fullness of the Spirit correlates well with Wesley’s dynamic understanding of Entire Sanctification. Yong in particular, therefore, comes close to expressing Wesley’s interplay between dynamic repentance and the instantaneous work of the Spirit. Further, this proposal also solves a practical problem involved in preaching the doctrine of Spirit Baptism, namely: how can one receive the Spirit when he has already been given at conversion? It is common to argue that the Spirit is received at conversion but now received in a different way. Yet that concept is hard to explain given the repetition of the language of reception and the essentially static nature of the metaphor employed.73

Nevertheless, there are problems with this proposal. The language of ‘release’ or ‘intensification’ pictures the Spirit as an impersonal force or instrument to be used rather than a person to whom the believer yields. Moreover, there is not yet a developed place for Entire Sanctification as the telos of Christian life.

This framework has the most potential for incorporating Spirit Baptism and Entire Sanctification into a coherent structure of any of those examined. Yet it must be adjusted further. The final section of this article will consider how this might happen by engaging with the relational pneumatology found in some Eastern Orthodox thought.

Relational Pneumatology

This section will advance an alternative framework for integrating Spirit Baptism and Entire Sanctification by engaging with the language of relationship in some Eastern Orthodox conceptions of divine grace and the operation of the Spirit. 

Relational Pneumatology in Eastern Orthodoxy

Theological Framework

Within the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Spirit is understood to be given to each Christian at the inauguration of their life in Christ, usually regarded as their baptism. There is no further giving of the Spirit. Yet the believer’s relationship with the Spirit may change over time, creating a greater awareness of his presence and thus openness to his power.74

This is paralleled in the Orthodox identification of the grace of God with his energeia. Thus each blessing is not solely conceived as a gift from God but a gift of God himself.75 Mystical experiences within the Christian life can then be understood as participating in the Divine energeia. Moreover, while revelation and participation in the Divine life occur in the context of the deepening of the pneumatological relationship, it is nevertheless a ‘free act of the living God.’76

While the Divine energeia should not be equated with the person and work of the Spirit without qualification, there is a close connection between the two.77 Thus, as Ware observes, the possibility of a developing relationship with the Spirit and participation in the divine energies led Eastern Fathers such as St Gregory Palamas to distinguish between different classifications of Christians depending upon their own experience of God’s presence.78

Testimonies of the Fathers

This understanding is testified to in the writings of several of the Eastern Fathers, examples of which are given below. The testimony of Macarius is representative of this tradition.

Macarius writes that the Spirit’s presence is revealed over time as he comes to ‘overshadow’ the believer and ‘grant to each more speedily the perfection of divine power.’ The experience of this presence is dependent upon the believer’s faith and piety.79

Elsewhere Macarius observes that ‘Grace is constantly present, and is rooted in us, and worked into us like leaven, from our earliest years, until the thing thus present becomes fixed…But, for the man’s own good, it manages him in many different ways, after its own pleasure. Sometimes the fire flames out and kindles more vehemently; at other times more gently and mildly.’80 Again, this is not speaking of a second gift of the Spirit but of a new and distinct work by the Spirit in the life of the believer.

Similarly, Macarius would describe experiences of the Spirit using the language of a trance with accompanying visions and of having a ‘light shining in the heart [that] disclosed the inner deeper, hidden light, so that the man, swallowed up in the sweetness of the contemplation was no longer master of himself, but was like a fool or a barbarian to this world by reason of the surpassing love and sweetness, by reason of the hidden mysteries; so that the man for that season was set at liberty, and came to perfect measures, and was set free from sin.’81 These experiences are set alongside the common references to the gift of tears in writers such as St Isaac the Syrian and St John Climacus  which marks, in Ware’s account, the ‘breaking-down of our sinful self-trust, and its replacement by a willingness to allow God to act within us.’82

There is, therefore, within the Eastern Orthodox tradition, an account of how the Spirit relates to the believer throughout their life yet also discloses himself in new, and at times dramatic, ways as the believer is willing to seek him and practice repentance. 

Towards an Integrated Framework

A relational conception of the work of the Spirit within the life of a believer provides a means of integrating Entire Sanctification and Spirit Baptism.

This model begins by arguing, together with those Pentecostal thinkers who have observed the universality of some experience of the Spirit, that the Spirit is at work in all creation at all times. It is the Spirit who gives life which is received by creatures, who provides for them, guides and meets with them.83 This is more than simply an exposure to a particular intensity of the Spirit, however. Every individual is in some sense in relationship with the Spirit of their Creator; he gives himself and we respond in our words and actions even if we choose not to acknowledge him in it.84 This is very close to the position proposed by Gabriel and others. Yet, as has been argued above, in using the language of ‘intensity’ their proposal risks both reducing the Spirit to an impersonal force and implying that he is in some sense less present in some places or at some times than others. Such an implication runs against Gabriel’s explicit argument yet is a consequence of the metaphor of intensification he proposes.85

Everyone is therefore in a relationship with the Spirit of their Creator. When an individual becomes a Christian, however, something changes. This is not a change in the extent to which the Spirit is present in any particular place or time; in the words of the Orthodox Trisagion prayers, he is ‘present in all places and filling all things.’ Again, the language of intensification falls short at this point. By focussing on the language of relationship, however, the change wrought in the new believer is easily accountable. It is not that the Spirit, or his intensity, changes; rather it is his relationship with the individual that changes from being simply the Spirit of the Creator to, for example, the Spirit of adoption.86 Again, it is the language of relationship that most adequately preserves the agency of the Spirit in the believer both before and after conversion and captures the sense in which it is the same Spirit who leads the individual to conversion and remakes them after it.

This new type of relationship between the believer and the Spirit is susceptible to growth both gradually, as in the process of repentance, and suddenly at moments of Divine self-disclosure. In those moments the believer’s Christian life and experience will change because there has been a change in their relationship with the Spirit whether it be to manifest himself in power or to purify and cleanse.

While there is a danger in such analogies, the process described, above, has parallels in human relationships. It is easy to imagine a man and woman who begin as friends, spend time together and then fall in love. Their relationship will change and deepen gradually and in an instant as they marry, have children or buy a home. The language of ‘intensity’ fails to capture the changing dynamic between the people involved. Rather it is the relationship of the individuals which changes as they give themselves to each other in new ways.

The metaphor of relationship therefore explains and reconciles both Spirit Baptism and Entire Sanctification within a single pneumatological framework while preserving the agency and personality of the Spirit. The believer’s relationship with the Spirit can thus grow deeper both over time and in a moment. It is such moments of Divine self-disclosure and deepening of the believer-Spirit relationship that account for both Spirit Baptism and Entire Sanctification. This model holds with Classical Pentecostals, that it is the desire of God to deepen the experience of his presence towards the beginning of Christian life in order to equip the believer for service. Similarly, as the relationship between the believer and the Spirit develops over time through repentance, there may be a time when the Spirit wills to deepen his relationship with the believer still further by effecting Entire Sanctification.

Attraction of this Model 

There are several reasons to favour this approach.

First, this proposal coheres with the central elements of both Spirit Baptism and Entire Sanctification, outlined above. It acknowledges both that the Spirit is given distinctively to believers at the inauguration of their Christian life and yet that there are distinct and identifiable experiences of the Spirit that can occur later.87 Similarly, it emphasises both the cooperative development of a relationship between the believer and the Spirit and the possibility of unilateral acts of Divine self-revelation.88 This parallels both the Classical Pentecostal encouragement to seek Spirit Baptism as a believer and Wesley’s conjunction of gradual and instantaneous spiritual growth.89

Second, this proposal acknowledges the insights of Gabriel, Smith, and others of the inherent subsequence of all aspects of the Spirit’s work while also recognising the priority and personality of the Spirit in all his interactions with the world.90 It thus avoids the tendency towards reducing the Spirit to an impersonal force and the risk of instrumentalising the experience of Spirit Baptism and miraculous gifts. 

Third, this framework emphasises both the possibility and necessity of receiving Divine power for service and the teleological priority and possibility of holiness. It thus explains the continuity between the experience of Spirit Baptism and Entire Sanctification while preserving the integrity of each. Further, since these experiences are conceived as distinct self-disclosures of the Spirit within the context of a relationship, we can allow that there may well be physical consequences to either experience without giving them undue focus.

Finally, while we are not arguing that either Wesley or Classical Pentecostals consciously operated with this framework, the relational aspects of Spirit Baptism are acknowledged by Pentecostal writers even if they are not emphasised.91

Challenges

There are, nevertheless, challenges to this proposal.

For this proposal to be accepted both Wesleyans and Pentecostals would need to be flexible about how they explain and speak about their respective spiritualities. Clifton has argued for this sort of flexibility in a Pentecostal context while Lovelace urges that revival and the experience of the Spirit may look different in the lives of different believers without either experience being illegitimate.92

This challenge is most evident regarding the issue of glossolalia. While there is no reason why Pentecostals should not retain glossolalia as an important aspect of the believer’s deepening relationship with the Spirit, this framework mitigates against tongue-speaking as the necessary initial evidence of all post-justification experiences of the Spirit. There is some support for this in Hayford’s argument that Pentecostals should understand Spirit Baptism as offering the capacity for praying in tongues while acknowledging that individuals may not choose to do so.93 It remains a minority position, however.

Further, the incorporation of both spiritualities into a single framework risks reducing the clarity of our preaching.94 This challenge, is not, however, insuperable. It is possible to maintain a holistic theological framework and heed Wesley’s instruction that his preachers must preach ‘perfection to believers, constantly, strongly, and explicitly,’ encouraging believers to ‘continually agonize for it.’95

Further study and analysis is required to determine the extent to which these challenges can be overcome. Nevertheless, we have argued that the model of relational pneumatology advanced above represents a coherent and clear framework for the advance of a combined Pentecostal and Wesleyan spirituality.

Conclusion

This paper has examined the distinctive spiritualities encompassed by Entire Sanctification and Spirit Baptism as they are taught in the Wesleyan and Classical Pentecostal traditions. It began by analysing each spirituality together with selected testimonies of its experience. That analysis revealed that Entire Sanctification and Spirit Baptism cannot properly be equated since they occupy different positions within the Christian life, fulfil different functions, and are said to produce different results. Nevertheless, it was argued, the doctrines are not incompatible and that there is some overlap between them.

The discussion then focussed on three historic proposals that had the potential to unite Spirit Baptism and Entire Sanctification into a single theological framework. Each of these proposals was found to be lacking in one or more respect. It was then suggested incorporating the relational pneumatology found in some Eastern Christian writing could provide a coherent and clear account of how Spirit Baptism and Entire Sanctification can be integrated within contemporary Christian discipleship.

This proposal represents an attempt to explain how pastors and church leaders might encourage their congregations to experience the fullness of the Spirit testified to in Pentecostalism and Wesleyanism. Ultimately, however, it was not the formulation of correct theology that predicated the experiences of either movement; the practice of dependence upon, and the cultivation of a relationship with, the Spirit will be the true preparation for his work in the lives of believers. 

Phil Fellows

Phil Fellows is a doctoral student at Aberdeen and has published work in charismatic and Pentecostal theology with a particular focus on pastoral care and spirituality. 

  1. David Hempton, Methodism: Empire of the Spirit (London: Yale University Press, 2005), 2. ↩︎
  2. Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (New York: OUP, 2002), 10. ↩︎
  3. There is a subset of Wesleyan Pentecostals who affirm both experiences, although this is not the dominant position of the movement as a whole: Allan Heaton Anderson,  To the Ends of the Earth: Pentecostalism and the Transformation of World Christianity (Oxford: OUP, 2013), 5-6. ↩︎
  4. For example, Ben Pugh, ‘The Wesleyan Way: Entire Sanctification and its Spin-offs – a Recurring Theme in Evangelical Devotion’, Evangelical Review of Theology, 38.1 (2014), 4-21, [5-18]. ↩︎
  5. Walter J. Hollenweger, ‘From Azusa Street to the Toronto Phenomenon’, in Pentecostal Movements as an Ecumenical Challenge, ed. Jurgen Moltmann and Karl Josef Kuschel (London, SCM: Concilium 3, 1996), 3-14 [7]. ↩︎
  6. Throughout the rest of this paper references to ‘Classical Pentecostalism’ are to this wing of the movement. There are other branches of the movement that are not fully captured by this term, including Holiness or Wesleyan Pentecostals: Anderson, Ends, 6. ↩︎
  7. See, for example, Ben Pugh, ‘“Under the Blood” at Azusa Street: Exodus Typology at the Heart of Pentecostal Origins’, Journal of Religious History 39.1 (2015), 86-103, although Anderson’s challenge to this position should also be noted: A. Anderson, Spreading Fires: The Missionary Nature of Early Pentecostalism (London: SCM Press, 2007), 4. ↩︎
  8. Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity (New York: CUP, 2004), 11. ↩︎
  9. Some caution is necessary here. Anderson summarises the standard account as being ‘made in America’: Anderson, Ends, 44-45. However, he also notes that the movement is trans-national with roots in the disparate revival movements of the nineteenth century which complicate this story. In a British context the Welsh revival of 1904-5 is particularly significant: Anderson, Ends, 27. ↩︎
  10. Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Metuchen, NJ: Hendrickson, 1987), 49. ↩︎
  11. For example, Wesley, Sermon 40, ‘Christian Perfection’, s.I.1-9 in Sermons II, ed. Albert C. Outler, vol.2 of The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976-), 100-105. ↩︎
  12. Wesley, ‘Letter to Charles Wesley, September 1762’, in Letters (Telford), vol.4, 187; Wesley, ‘The Scripture Way of Salvation’, s.I.9, Bicentennial Works, 2:160; Collins, Love, 302. ↩︎
  13. For example, Wesley, Plain Account, s.27, Bicentennial Works, 13:190; Dunning, 187. ↩︎
  14. Wesley, ‘Letter to Charles Wesley, September 1762’, in Letters (Telford), vol.4, 187; Collins, Love, 302. ↩︎
  15. John Wesley, ‘Letter to Conyers Middleton,’ in Letters, Essays, Dialogs and Addresses, Thomas Jackson (ed.), vol. 10 of The Works of John Wesley (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1872), 54-56; Wesley, Sermon 89, ‘The More Excellent Way’, s.2, Bicentennial Works, 3:265; Timothy L. Smith, ‘John Wesley and the Second Blessing,’ Wesleyan Theological Journal, 21 (1986), 137-152 [148]. ↩︎
  16. Wesley, ‘Letter to Miss Bolton, December 5, 1772’, in Works (Jackson), vol.12, 481; Wood, Laurence W., The Meaning of Pentecost in Early Methodism: Rediscovering John Fletcher as John Wesley’s Vindicator and Designated Successor (Oxford: Scarecrow Press, 2002), 190. ↩︎
  17. For example, Wesley, Sermon 37, ‘The Nature of Enthusiasm’, s.21-22, Bicentennial Works, 2:54; John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, 629, 631 (1 Cor. 14:15, 28), available through the Wesley Center Online at < http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/john-wesleys-notes-on-the-bible/notes-on-st-pauls-first-epistle-to-the-corinthians/#Chapter+XIV > [accessed 19 June 2018]. Wesley departs from Bengel here: Howard A. Snyder, ‘The Church as Holy and Charismatic’, Wesleyan Theological Journal, 15.2 (1980), 7-32, [27]; Smith, Blessing, p.148. See also, Daniel R. Jennings, The Supernatural Occurences of John Wesley (Oklahoma City, OK: Sean Multimedia, 2012), 81-85. ↩︎
  18. John Wesley, ‘A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, Part I’, s.V.28, in Bicentennial Works, 171-172; Dayton, Roots, 45. ↩︎
  19. Amy Caswell Bratton, Witnesses of Perfect Love: Narratives of Christian Perfection in Early Methodism (Toronto: Clements Academic, 2014). ↩︎
  20. Bratton, 53, 68-69, 89, 97. ↩︎
  21. Bratton, 53, 68-69. ↩︎
  22. Bratton, 89, 97. ↩︎
  23. John Wesley, ‘Letter to Samuel Bardsley, 1772’ in John Telford (ed.), vol.5 of The Letters of the Reverend John Wesley, AM, (London: Epworth Press, 1931), 315; Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2007).
    ↩︎
  24. Wesley, ‘A Plain Account of Christian Perfection’ (1766), s.19 in Doctrinal and Controversial Treatises II, Bicentennial Works, 13:175; Collins, Love, 281. ↩︎
  25. Wesley, Sermon 43, ‘The Scripture Way of Salvation’, s.III.2, Bicentennial Works, 2:162-163; Collins, Love, 284; D. Marselle Moore, ‘Development in Wesley’s Thought on Sanctification and Perfection’, Wesleyan Theological Journal, 20.2 (1985), 43. ↩︎
  26. Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1994), 153-154. ↩︎
  27. Wesley, ‘Letter to Sarah Rutter, December 5, 1789’ in Letters (Telford), vol.8, 150; Laurence W. Wood, ‘Pentecostal Sanctification in Wesley and Early Methodism’, Wesleyan Theological Journal, 34.1 (1999), 24-63 [25]; William Arnett, ‘The Role of the Holy Spirit in Entire Sanctification in the Writings of John Wesley’, Wesleyan Theological Journal, 14.2 (1979), 15-30, [20]. ↩︎
  28. Collins, Love, 293; Harald Lindstrom, Wesley and Sanctification (Wilmore, KY: Francis Asbury P., 1996), 120-122; Stanger, 15. ↩︎
  29. Wesley, Sermon 83, ‘On Patience’, s.10, Bicentennial Works, 3:174-176; H. Ray Dunning, ‘A Wesleyan Perspective on Spirit Baptism’ in Chad Owen Brand (ed), Perspectives on Spirit Baptism (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing), pp.181-240 [192]; Moore, 39. ↩︎
  30. Maddox, Grace, 152, 187. ↩︎
  31. For example, Herbert McGonigle, ‘Pneumatological Nomenclature in Early Methodism’, Wesleyan Theological Journal, 8 (1973), 61-72 [68-72], Dunning, 182; Donald W. Dayton, ‘The Doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit: Its Emergence and Significance’, Wesleyan Theological Journal, 13.1 (1978), 114-126 [115]. ↩︎
  32. For example, Albert C. Outler, ‘The Place of Wesley in the Christian Tradition’, in Thomas C. Oden and Leicester R. Longden (eds), The Wesleyan Theological Heritage (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), 75-96 [92-93]; Laurence W. Wood, The Meaning of Pentecost in Early Methodism: Rediscovering John Fletcher as John Wesley’s Vindicator and Designated Successor (Oxford: Scarecrow Press, 2002), 139, Wood, Sanctification, 28. ↩︎
  33. For example, Wesley, ‘Letter 16 March 1771 to Joseph Benson’ in Letters (Telford), vol.5, 228-229, ‘Letter to Elizabeth Ritchie, June 23, 1774’ in Letters (Telford), vol.6, 94; Plain Account, Bicentennial Works, 13:150-185. Arnett, Sanctification, 23; Wood, Sanctification, 25, 45. ↩︎
  34. Wesley, ‘Letter to John Fletcher, 22 March 1775’ in Letters (Telford), vol.6, 146; Smith, Fletcher, 78. ↩︎
  35. W.E. Sangster, The Path to Perfection: An Examination and Restatement of John Wesley’s Doctrine of Christian Perfection (New York, NY: Abingdon, 1943), 37-52; Frank Bateman Stanger, ‘The Wesleyan Doctrine of Scriptural Holiness,’ The Asbury Seminarian, 39.3, 8-29 [11-12]. ↩︎
  36. Wesley, ‘Brief Thoughts on Christian Perfection’ (1767/1783), s.2-3, Bicentennial Works, 13:199; Roy S. Nicholson, ‘John Wesley’s Personal Experience of Christian Perfection’, The Asbury Seminarian, 6.1 (1952), 65-86 [78]; Moore, 40. ↩︎
  37. Wesley, Plain Account, s.13, Bicentennial Works, 13:152. ↩︎
  38. Wesley, Sermon 117, ‘On the Discoveries of Faith’, s.15-17, Bicentennial Works, 4:36-38; David L. Cubie, ‘Perfection in Wesley and Fletcher: Inaugural or Teleological?’, Wesleyan Theological Journal, 11 (1976), 22-37 [27]. ↩︎
  39. Kenneth Collins, ‘The Promise of John Wesley’s Theology for the 21st Century: A Dialogical Exchange’, Asbury Theological Journal, 59 (2004), 171-180 [177-178]. ↩︎
  40. Dayton, Roots, 17. ↩︎
  41. For example, Frank D. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 34; Allan Anderson, ‘Varieties, Taxonomies, and Definitions’ in Allan Anderson, Michael Bergunder, Andre F. Droogers, Cornelis van der Laan (eds), Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods (Berkley, CA: UCP, 2010), 13-29. ↩︎
  42. William Menzies, Anointed to Serve (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1971), 9; Macchia, Baptised, 16, 20; Stanley M. Horton, ‘Spirit Baptism: A Pentecostal Perspective’, in Chad Owen Brand (ed.), Five Perspectives on Spirit Baptism (Nashville: TN, B and H Publishing, 2004), pp.47-93 [, 54, 78]. ↩︎
  43. Macchia, Baptised, 16. ↩︎
  44. Macchia, Baptised, 20; Horton, 54. ↩︎
  45. Menzies, Anointed, 9; Horton, 55. ↩︎
  46. Donald Gee, The Pentecostal Movement, rev’d ed. (London: Elim, 1949), 7-8; Horton, 52; Macchia, Baptised, 35. ↩︎
  47. Gee, 24-25, 35. ↩︎
  48. Edmund J. Rybarczyk, ‘Spiritualities Old and New: Similarities between Eastern Orthodoxy and Classical Pentecostalism’, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 24.1 (2002), 7-25 [22]. ↩︎
  49. Gee, p.7-8; Menzies, Anointed, 9; Dayton, Roots, 23. ↩︎
  50. Macchia, Baptised, 20; Horton, 55; William W. Menzies and Robert P. Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 109-120. ↩︎
  51. Assemblies of God (USA), Statement of Fundamental Truths: Article 7 < https://ag.org/Beliefs/Statement-of-Fundamental-Truths#7 > [accessed 6 June 2018]; Myer Pearlman and Frank M. Boyd, Pentecostal Truth (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1968),72-73; Horton, 91. In Pearlman, Boyd and Horton’s accounts the seeking focuses on Christ rather than the Spirit himself. This is typical of the Pentecostal emphasis on Jesus as Baptiser in the Holy Spirit. ↩︎
  52. See, for example, Gordon D. Fee, ‘Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Issue of Separability and Subsequence’, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 7.2 (1985), 87-99; Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994), 863-864. Fee goes further than merely accepting the possibility that Spirit Baptism and conversion happen simultaneously. He argues that there is ‘very little biblical support’ for the subsequence doctrine. It was, in his mind, a matter of historical necessity that the earliest Pentecostals experienced Spirit Baptism as subsequent to their conversion. Contemporary Pentecostals should not ‘make a virtue out of necessity.’ However, non-Pentecostals should not ‘deny the validity of such experience on biblical grounds’: Fee, ‘Subsequence’, 98. There are more positions on timing than these two. However, these are the most commonly expressed. ↩︎
  53. In this sense it bears comparison with the Orthodox practice of chrismation, the sacramental anointing of a new Christian with oil speaking of the Spirit’s equipping to mediate Christ to the world. ↩︎
  54.  Pearlman, 72-73, Horton, 55. ↩︎
  55. For example, Fee, ‘Subsequence’, 90-99 and the comments at fn 52, above. Fee’s proposal has not gained significant support within the movement. ↩︎
  56. For example, Ben Pugh, ‘The Wesleyan Way: Entire Sanctification and its Spin-offs – a Recurring Theme in Evangelical Devotion’, Evangelical Review of Theology, 38.1 (2014), 4-21, [5-18]. ↩︎
  57. For example, Laurence W. Wood, ‘Thoughts Upon the Wesleyan Doctrine of Entire Sanctification with Special Reference to Some Similarities with the Roman Catholic Doctrine of Confirmation’, Wesleyan Theological Society, 15.1 (1980), pp.88-99, [88-89]; Kenneth Grider, J. Entire Sanctification: The Distinctive Doctrine of Wesleyanism (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1980), p.24 While this position has often tended to be more closely associated with the Holiness movement, some recent Wesley scholarship has also used the language and categories of Pentecostalism: for example, Wood, Meaning, p.163-208. ↩︎
  58. Smith, Fletcher, p.77; Laurence W. Wood, ‘Historiographical Criticisms of Randy Maddox’s Response,’ Wesleyan Theological Journal, 34.2 (1999), pp.111-135 [119-120]. ↩︎
  59. John Wesley, October 28, 1762, Journals and Diaries IV (1755-1765) in Bicentennial Works, 21:392; Sermon, 74, ‘Of the Church’, s.12, Bicentennial Works, 3:49-50; Wood, Meaning, p.174-175. ↩︎
  60. For example, Joseph D. McPherson, ‘Historical Support for Early Methodist Views of Water and Spirit Baptism’, The Asbury Journal 68.2, pp.28-56 [29-30]. ↩︎
  61. Wesley, ‘Letter to John Fletcher, June 1, 1776’, in Letters (Telford), vol.6, p.221; Randy L. Maddox, ‘Wesley’s Understanding of Christian Perfection: In What Sense Pentecostal?’, Wesleyan Theological Journal, 34.2 (1999), pp.78-110 [85]; Maddox, Grace, p.177. ↩︎
  62. Maddox, Pentecostal, 85; Collins, Love, 282. ↩︎
  63. It is striking that some holiness writers concede this point and modify Wesley’s teaching accordingly: Grider, 92. ↩︎
  64. Dayton, Roots, 18, citing David W. Faupel, The American Pentecostal Movement: A Bibliographical Essay, Occasional Bibliographic Papers of the B.L. Fisher Library, no.2 (Wilmore, KY.: B.L. Fisher Library, Asbury Theological Seminary, 1972) [Available < http://place.asburyseminary.edu/firstfruitspapers/5/ > [accessed 22 March 18]. ↩︎
  65. See, for example, John MacNeil, The Spirit Filled Life (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1896), 73, 81, 87; R.C. Horner, Bible Doctrines (Ottawa: Holiness Movement Publishing House, 1909); Roland Wessels, ‘The Spirit Baptism, Nineteenth Century Roots’, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 14.2 (1992), pp.122-157 [155-156] and Dayton, Roots, p.99-100. Neither MacNeil nor Horner were themselves Pentecostals. ↩︎
  66. For example, Andrew K. Gabriel, ‘The Intensity of the Spirit in a Spirit-Filled World: Spirit Baptism, Subsequence, and the Spirit of Creation’, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 34 (2012), pp.365-382 [372]; Frank D. Macchia, ‘The Spirit of Life and the Spirit of Immortality: An Appreciative Review of Levison’s Filled with the Spirit,’ Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 33.1 (2011), pp.69-78 [70-71]. ↩︎
  67. So, for example, Horner works to show that Wesley was Entirely Sanctified at his conversion. Wesley did not share this opinion: Horner, p.140 discussed in Dayton, Roots, p.99-100; Wesley, Plain Account, s.13, Bicentennial Works, 13:152. ↩︎
  68. For example, Macchia, Baptised, 77. ↩︎
  69. For example, Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 2005), 101. This position is similar to contemporary Anglican charismatic accounts or those found within the Vineyard movement. ↩︎
  70. James K.A. Smith, ‘The Spirit, Religions, and the World as Sacrament: A Response to Amos Yong’s Pneumatological Assist’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15.2 (2007): 251-261 [254]. ↩︎
  71. Gabriel, 379. ↩︎
  72. For example, Wesley, ‘Letter to John Fletcher, June 1, 1776’, in Letters (Telford), vol.6, 221; Wood, Meaning, 163-164. ↩︎
  73. Wessels, 154. ↩︎
  74. Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way (New York, NY: SVS Press, 1979), 100. ↩︎
  75. Kallistos Ware, ‘God Hidden and Revealed: The Apophatic Way and the Essence-Energies Distinction’, Eastern Churches Review, 7 (1975), 125-136 [131]. ↩︎
  76. Dan Chitoiu, ‘St Gregory Palamas’ Critique of Nominalism, in Constantinos Athanasopoulos (ed.), Triune God: Incomprehensible but Knowable – The Philosophical and Theological Significance of St Gregory Palamas for Contemporary Philosophy and Theology (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, 2015), 124-131 [126]. ↩︎
  77. Ware, ‘Hidden’, [133-134]. ↩︎
  78. Kallistos Ware, ‘Tradition and Personal Experience in Later Byzantine Theology,’ Eastern Churches Review, 3.2 (1970), 131-141[139]. ↩︎
  79. Collection I.25.2.4-5 quoted by Marcus Plested, The Macarian Legacy: The Place of Macarius-Symeon in the Eastern Christian Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2004), 86-87. This section of our analysis draws upon an unpublished paper by Kallistos Ware, ‘Personal Experience of the Holy Spirit According to the Greek Fathers’, Available: http://silouanthompson.net/2008/08/personalexperience/ (accessed 21 April 2018), para.23-39. Ware notes similar references in the work of St Mark the Monk, St Symeon the New Theologian, and St John Climacus. ↩︎
  80. Collection II.8.2, quoted in Harvey D. Egan, SJ, An Anthology of Christian Mysticism, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), 84. ↩︎
  81. Collection II.8.3, quoted in in Egan, 84. ↩︎
  82. Ware, Way, 101. ↩︎
  83. For an extended discussion together with Patristic and Scriptural citations, see Thomas C. Oden, Classic Christianity (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1992), 529-531. ↩︎
  84. For example, Exodus 28:3; 31:3. ↩︎
  85. See Gabriel, 369-371. ↩︎
  86. For example, Romans 8:15. ↩︎
  87. Ware, ‘Personal Experience’, [51]. ↩︎
  88. Chitiou, 126. ↩︎
  89. This conception of the Spirit’s work also helps explain how we might understand the interplay between co-operant and free grace observed throughout Wesley’s theology: for example, Collins, Holy Love, 292. ↩︎
  90. For example, Gabriel, 366. ↩︎
  91. Horton, 69. ↩︎
  92. Shane Clifton, ‘The Spirit and Doctrinal Development: A Functional Analysis of the Traditional Pentecostal Doctrine of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit’, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 29 (2007), 5-23 [12]. Richard Lovelace, ‘Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the Evangelical Tradition’, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 7.2 (1985), 101-123 [117]. ↩︎
  93. Jack Hayford, The Beauty of Spiritual Language: My Journey Toward the Heart of God (Dallas, TX: Word, 1992), 89-107; Macchia, Baptised, 37; and Lovelace, 101. ↩︎
  94. For example, Clifton, 18-19. ↩︎
  95. Wesley, Plain Account, s.26, Bicentennial Works, 13:188. ↩︎