Waymon D. Miller (A Biographical Sketch)
Waymon D. Miller was born at Mayflower, Arkansas, on April 26, 1918. He remained on the farm until about four years of age, when his family moved to Conway, and after a year to Little Rock. He received his public school education in North Little Rock, and was graduated from high school there in 1937. He was studying to be a professional artist at his conversion, and when he decided to devote his life to preaching the gospel. Before beginning his preaching career he was also an amateur radio musician, with regular programs on numerous stations.
In the fall of 1937 he entered Harding College, Searcy, Arkansas to further his preparation to preach the gospel. While in Harding he was elected president of the freshman class, and won state debate championship in the junior college division. Later he attended Ouachita College, and did extention study with the University of Arkansas. While in Harding he formed acquaintence with Miss Naomi Holt, whom he later married. The Millers also have a daughter, Mary Lee, five years of age.
Brother Miller has preached in many states, and is now working regularly with the North Side congregation in Fort Worth. He has a special interest in writing, and has contributed many articles to gospel papers. He is a staff writer for the Gospel Record. He has written and published a book on the theme of this lecture, “Why I Left The Nazarene Church.” He has engaged in a number of public and written religious debates. At present he is writing another book for future publication, “Modern Holiness Doctrines,” which is an exhaustive study of these modern religious errors.
I am deeply grateful tonight for the honor that has been conferred upon me. This is a rare type of lectureship program, very unusual in its nature, and one that the presence of such a great audience attests remarkable interest. I feel keenly sensible tonight of my inability as I stand before you. I have been informed that all the preceding speeches have been excellent ones. I have therefore a very high mark set before me by these other capable brethren, to which I feel doubtful that I can attain. But we are genuinely grateful for the interest you express by your presence in the theme of the evening assigned me, “Why I Left The Nazarene Church.”
I was reared in the Church of the Nazarene. I attended the Church of the Nazarene first when about six years old. At my home in North Little Rock, Arkansas, my older brother and I were playing in the front yard one day. The pastor of the Nazarene church drove by and saw us. He stopped, and asked, “Are you boys members of any church? Do you attend church anywhere?” We replied in the negative. He then got out of his car, went to the door, knocked, and asked our mother if she would permit us to go to Sunday school the next Sunday if he would come and get us. To this she gave her consent. That was my first inducement to attend the Church of the Nazarene.
My grandfather was an invalid for eight years before his death. He was bedfast when I started attending the Nazarene church. Shortly after my brother and I started attending the Nazarene church, my mother also started going. And soon the Nazarene people (I pay tribute to them here for their zeal) were conducting cottage prayer meetings in our home for the benefit of my grandfather. This was a source of joy and inspiration to him as long as he lived. At about the age of six years, soon after I started attending the Nazarene church, my mother, my two brothers and I all became members of that denomination. I was a member of the Church of the Nazarene for approximately ten years, or until I was about sixteen years old. I must say that at this early age, while in my formative years, some of the impressions made upon me by the Nazarene people were ones that will be retained as long as I shall live.
It was rather unusual that I became a member of the New Testament church. For about a year prior to my obedience to the gospel I became dissatisfied with the teachings of the Nazarenes. Many reasons were involved in that, too numerous to discuss just now. But I stopped going to church anywhere, and for a period of a year hardly darkened a church door. About a year after my leaving the Church of my own free will and personal dissatisfaction, I was urged to attend the church of Christ in North Little Rock.
Perhaps just here I should return to some events even earlier in my life, and connect some experiences that have a bearing upon my religious life. I was born in a rural village, Mayflower, Arkansas, which is twenty-two miles north of Little Rock. In the fall of 1921 two gospel preachers, W. W. Still and J. C. Mosley, came through this little town on their way to Fort Smith to attend a “preacher’s meeting.” At that time there were a few Christians, but no established New Testament church in Mayflower. These brethren investigated the possibilities of holding a gospel meeting there when they returned from Ft. Smith. The school house was obtained, and Brother Mosley preached for about two weeks, baptizing seventy-five persons. My mother and father obeyed the gospel in that meeting, and a thick layer of ice was broken on the gin pond to provide a place of baptizing. Brother Mosley is now very aged, but still living in Whitwell, Tenn. I have long since lost all contact with Brother Still. I was about three years old when the above meeting was held. My family then moved to Conway, Arkansas for a year, and then to Little Rock. My mother and father did not attend church regularly, and soon lost almost all interest in the truth. Being left in its infancy, and without qualified leaders, the newly-established church in Mayflower withered away. But the church there has since been re-established. It was after my mother and father had grown indifferent to the church that we started going ing to the Nazarene church, my father excepted. Before the elapse of much more time, after our becoming Nazarenes, my father was restored to the truth, and assisted in the establishment of a church in North Little Rock. He was one of the charter members, and one of the first deacons, of the New Testament church in North Little Rock. And it was through his insistence that about eleven years later I started attending the church of the New Testament.
At first I was not too well impressed with the idea of attending the church of Christ. It did not appeal to me very much. I did not know too much about the church of Christ, but what I did know was not very favorable. I had heard people talk so disparagingly about “Campbellites” that I had a repulsion for them. I had been taught to avoid them, and had regarded them as narrow and bigoted. To me they appeared the most reproachful of all the more distasteful religious sects. They seemed to be just fanatical rabble-rousers with a Pharisaical spirit. Everything that I had heard about the New Testament church was unfavorable propaganda, which had almost completely poisoned my mind against it. It seemed that to believe as “Campbellites” was the next thing to having no religion at all.
But the first time I attended the church of Christ, to my great surprise, I was deeply impressed with the service. It was so simple and unpretentious. The sermon especially attracted my attention. There was something about the ring of it, the first time I heard a true gospel sermon, that aroused my curiosity. I began to wonder what was the difference between the way that fellow preached, and the manner of preaching to which I had been accustomed as long as I could remember. I spent considerable time in meditation upon this first gospel sermon. In it I had found something strangely different. Though I had intended to be indifferent to it, my heart was troubled and my conscience was stirred over it. I had supposed it would be insensible and unattractive, though I found it to be strangely appealing. And it finally dawned upon me that the real difference between the preaching of this man, and that to which I had been accustomed, was that in every single point, however insignificant, he had the scripture to verify his teaching. I had never been used to anything like that. I had never been used to a religion that could sustain every phase and aspect of it by the simple word of God, without injecting into it any of the traditions, speculations and theologies of men. So that appealed to me very much.
I will not say that it was easy to leave the Nazarene Church. It is never easy to depart from error. In this point members of the New Testament church, who have never been members of a sectarian denomination, cannot wholly sympathize with those in error. But, my friend, if you are present as a member of a human institution, I can by personal experience sympathize with you for sacrifices you may make in accepting the truth. You may say tonight, “I am not a member of the true New Testament church, of which you now speak. I am hesitant to accept what you now teach because I am abiding in the religion of my youth, which has many sentimental and endearing attractions to me.” I could once say the same thing! You say, “It is the religion of my friends, and if I depart from it, I would risk the loss of all my friends of this life.” I had to do the same thing! You say, “If I abandon my present views, I might even make personal enemies.” I had to take the same chance for the truth of Christ! You say, “If I depart my present religion, I would go into an institution to which few, if any, of my relatives belong.” I did exactly the same thing. I can count on this hand, and have two fingers to spare, all of the relatives I have who are members of the Lord’s church. And so I can completely sympathize with any of these sentiments that might disturb you tonight. But if we are not willing to submit to sacrifices, we cannot be disciples of the Lord.
On September 15, 1935, I obeyed the simple gospel of Christ, just as I can read it from this Book. I was baptized by Brother Clem Z. Pool. My younger brother, Orlan, obeyed the gospel upon this occasion with me. He now is a gospel preacher having preached for the past seven years. He is now attending Abilene Christian College. Brother D. H. Perkins, now of Denver, Colo., who followed Brother Pool in North Little Rock, is most responsible for my beginning to preach the gospel. Since I started preaching, no other has rendered more assistance than Brother E. R. Harper, now of Abilene.
I should like to add an interesting side light to my obeying the gospel. When I was a member of it, the Church of the Nazarene occupied a building at 6th and Olive in North Little Rock. They presently outgrew that building, and erected a new building in another location. When they moved into this new building, our brethren bought the building at 6th and Olive, and in this building they still meet. Hence, I prayed “through” at the Nazarene mourner’s bench, and obeyed the simple gospel of Christ in the same building! I shall not speak disparagingly tonight of the Nazarene people, many of whom are yet my intimate friends. To this day I hold these Nazarene people in highest esteem. I have not set myself against them, but rather oppose the erroneous doctrine which they hold. I can truthfully say that the Nazarene people are among as conscientious, zealous and sincere people as can be found. And I did not leave them because of a lack of these qualities, but because I knew that conscientiousness, zeal and fervency alone were not sufficient. A person may have all of these, and still not be obeying God. This is illustrated in the life of the Apostle Paul, in his persecution of the church before his conversion. (Acts 23:1; 26:9-11).
It is impossible tonight to relate to you all of the reasons why I left the Nazarene church. It would be impractical to array before you every tenet, even every cardinal doctrine, that the Nazarene church holds. But I would like to supply for your consideration a few doctrines of the Nazarene church. They are doctrines I could not reconcile with the scriptures when I began studying my Bible. In presenting these matters I shall not have time either to give every scripture which refutes them. I shall just give a specimen of simple scriptural denial of them. I’ve found this, in my study of the Bible, that God does not have to say a thing a thousand times for it to be true anyhow. When God states a truth in one place, in simple, unequivocal terms, it is just as much true if he had said it a million times! So if we can find just one simple scripture which contradicts in an unmistakable way these cardinal teachings of the Nazarene church then we shall have amply disproved them.
Origin and Foundation of Nazarenes
First, I shall relate a brief history of the Nazarene church. Near the close of the nineteenth century was begun in America what is now known as “the holiness movement.” The “holiness movement” in this country was an outgrowth of the Wesleyan “holiness movement” in England, which swept all Europe like wildfire. I have before me tonight the official manual of the Nazarene church from which to quote. I did not wish to misrepresent any detail of their teaching. The manual provides the following historic data: “On May 12, 1886, a number of the brethren in Providence, Rhode Island, interested in promoting the Wesleyan doctrine and experience of entire sanctification, organized and held weekly religious services.” (Manual, page 15) The Nazarene church is an outgrowth of that “holiness movement.” I quote further: “In October, 1895, a number of persons, under the leadership of Rev. Phineas F. Bresee, D. D., and Rev. J. P. Widney, LL. D., formed the First Church of the Nazarene, at Los Angeles, California, with one hundred and thirty-five charter members.” (Manual, page 17) There it is, acknowledged and claimed by the Nazarene church Manual, the official creed of that church, as to exactly when, and surrounded by what circumstances, the Nazarene church was established. For these reasons I could not be a member of the Nazarene church any longer.
You may ask, “Why? What is elicited by these statements that caused you to see that you could not continue with them?” There are three reasons drawn from the above quotations. In the first place, the Nazarene church was founded for the wrong purpose, and upon the wrong foundation. I read to you very definite statements that this movement was instigated for the specific purpose of promoting “Wesleyan doctrine.” It was established, therefore, to promote the peculiar theology of John Wesley. As I studied my Bible I came to see that any organization founded upon human ideas and opinions in religion, was established upon the wrong foundation. The Apostle Paul declared, “For other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 3:11) Our Lord Jesus Christ is then the foundation of the New Testament church. No other foundation is acceptable. No other can be laid, than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ! So I could not continue with an institution founded upon Wesleyan doctrine. The foundation of the true church, of which we can read in this Book, is Jesus Christ, and Him only. “For other foundation can not man lay!”
Then secondly, the Church of the Nazarene was the wrong church to be the New Testament church. In consulting this manual, which is their church creed, and expresses their doctrines, that the Church of the Nazarene was established in 1895 by two preachers, and one hundred thirty-five charter members, in the city of Los Angeles, California. Yet when I referred to my Bible in the second chapter of Acts, I found that the New Testament church was established in the city of Jerusalem. It is the distance around the world from Jerusalem to Los Angeles, California! The New Testament church was established in 33 A. D.; the Nazarene church in 1895. Too much difference there for it to be the church which Jesus died to redeem and purchase! (Eph. 5:25; Acts 20:28). The Nazarene church is admittedly of human origin, being founded as we have already quoted from their manual. But Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church…” (Matt. 16:18) Jesus is the divine Builder of the true church, and not these men mentioned in this manual! So I could not accept Nazarene doctrine further, for it was founded in the wrong place—Los Angeles instead of Jerusalem; it was founded at the wrong time—1895 instead of 33 A. D.; it was founded by the wrong persons—the men I named instead of Jesus Christ. In these three vital tests, the Nazarene church cannot be identified with the New Testament church.
And then, thirdly, the Church of the Nazarene was established for the wrong purpose. It not only rested upon the wrong foundation, but was conceived for the wrong purpose. I have read from this manual that it was established for the purpose of promoting Wesleyan doctrine—established solely for the promotion of the peculiar theologies of John Wesley! As I studied my New Testament I saw that such would not do, that such is not acceptable to the Lord. Jesus emphatically stated, “For in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matt. 15:9). That is exactly why the Nazarene church was established, to “teach for doctrines the commandments of” John Wesley! But Jesus said those who do that, those who pursue such a course, would be worshipping Him in vain. Then I considered Paul’s warning in this matter: “Though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:8). What is it, Paul? If anything else is preached than that which has been declared by inspiration, both the preacher and the recipient will be condemned thereby. I could not, therefore, further subscribe to the doctrines of John Wesley, because they were not preached by any divinely inspired preacher of apostolic time. The peculiar theologies of John Wesley were never proclaimed by divine authority, and therefore I could not continue in them. While the Nazarene church was founded to promote the teachings of Wesley, the New Testament Church was established, and exists today, for the express purpose of proclaiming and promulgating the simple gospel of Christ. (Eph. 3:10). For no other reason was the divine church established, for no other reason does she exist today, except to preach the Word of God, and that alone, unmixed and uncontaminated with human theologies.
Hereditary Total Depravity
Perhaps the most important peculiar doctrine of the church of the Nazarene is that of hereditary total depravity. Now, that is an expression as long as a yardstick—so long I can hardly pronounce it some times. But it really has a simple, yet diabolical meaning. Of course the term “hereditary” means “by inheritance, by birth.” The term “total” means “absolute, or complete.” “Depravity” means “wicked, corrupt, estranged from God, a state of spiritual condemnation.” Now, here is what we have, adding these together, that by birth one is completely wicked and abandoned of God; he is of such spiritual condition at birth, or by inheritance, that he is wicked in heart and estranged from God! It will be well here to notice other terms by which this doctrine is also called. Some times it is called “inbred sin,” “inherent sin,” “the old man,” “the Adamic nature,” or “the carnal mind.” I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of this teaching in reference to “holiness” doctrines. Were it not, I say, for this one doctrine alone, all other so-called “holiness” doctrines could not stand, nor would there be any need of them. This is the one doctrine that supports all of the other peculiar beliefs, and I shall show you why as we study further.
Let us then consider what Nazarenes teach about this doctrine. On page 27 of the church manual, under the heading “Original Sin, or Depravity,” is found the following expression: “We believe that original sin, or depravity, is that corruption of the nature of all the offspring of Adam, by reason of which every one is very far gone from original righteousness, or the pure state of our first parents at the time of their creation, is averse to God, is without spiritual life, and is inclined to evil, and that continually; and that it continues to exist with the new life of the regenerate, until eradicated by the baptism with the Holy Spirit.” This, my friends, is the unscriptural, anti-scriptural and nauseous doctrine of hereditary total depravity. This doctrine, as we trace it back through history, evidently originated with Augustine in the fourth century. As far as I have been able to determine, he was the first to assert this doctrine. It was not taught then very extensively until the time of John Wesley. The doctrine appealed to Wesley, and he further developed it and amplified it. And the teachings of John Wesley on inherent sin have become the basis of all “holiness” sects. Now, I want to call your attention to this, that this one false doctrine, conceived in the mind of Augustine in the fourth century, and amplified by Wesley in his day, paved the way for a number of other unscriptural doctrines. You know, that is always the course of error. When one innovation, or unscriptural practice, is introduced, usually other unscriptural practices must be invented to accommodate it.
What did Wesley teach about this doctrine, which served as the basis of modern “holiness” doctrines? Wesley said, “Every man born into the world now bears the image of the devil, in pride and self will; the image of the beast, in sensual appetites and desires.” (Wesley’s Sermons, Vol. II, page 266).
I quote further from Wesley: “We are condemned before we have done good or evil, and under curse ere we know what it is.” (Original Sins, Wesley, page 340) Original sin, or depravity, as I mentioned, fostered several other false doctrines. If a man were born totally depraved, Wesley then conceived that nothing short of a miracle of God could save him, hence the doctrine of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit. It also developed the unscriptural doctrine of sanctification, the “second blessing,” which “eradicates” this depraved nature. This also promoted the unscriptural doctrine of Christian perfection, the result of having the “image of the devil” removed by the Holy Spirit. All of these doctrines are intimately related, interdependent one upon the other, and all reposing upon the unscriptural doctrine of hereditary depravity.
Now then, what does the Bible teach about that? Does the Bible teach that because Adam sinned, then all men are born in sin, bearing “the image of the devil,” and “condemned before we have done good or evil?” Why, surely not; The Apostle Paul wrote in this matter: “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so that death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12) But this scripture is not worded so as to favor Wesleyan doctrine. The verse says, “So that death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” If Nazarene doctrine were true, the verse would have to read like this: “So that sin passed upon all men, for that Adam sinned.” But that is not what it says, is it? Or, again: “The image of the devil passed upon all men, for that Adam sinned.” It doesn’t say that either, does it? If you follow the thoughts Paul develops in this fifth chapter of Romans, especially noticing verses seventeen and eighteen, it will enlighten our study upon this subject. He here argues that Adam brought sin and death into the world, and that Jesus came to offset these evil consequences through the redemption of man. Jesus came to abolish death, and bring life and immortality to light through the gospel. (II Tim. 1:10). Now, let us examine the matter critically. If all men were born in sin because of Adam’s transgression, then since the death of Christ all men are born redeemed, since Christ’s work was to destroy the effect of Adam’s sin! We are forced to accept one of the two horns of that dilemma—either total depravity or universalism!
Let us see if all men are born so engrossed in sin as Wesley imagined. Luke informs us that Christ himself was a descendant of the fleshly lineage of Adam. (Luke 3:38). Luke here traces the genealogy of Christ back to Adam! Now, according to Nazarene theology, this would mean that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of heaven, the sinless Son of God, came into this world bearing “the image of the devil” and therefore under divine condemnation! This conclusion they must accept if they maintain their doctrine of hereditary sin, or accept the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception. This Catholic doctrine claims that while all men inherit sin from Adam, that God miraculously purified the Virgin Mary before the birth of the Savior. But this is simply another doctrine of Catholic forgery. Let us remember that Christ was in the flesh a descendant of Adam, yet Peter said that he “did no sin” (I Peter 2:22), hence the doctrine that sin is inherited from Adam is false!
Let us examine a few more scriptures which deny such an absurd and unscriptural doctrine. The Word of God positively declares: “The son shall not bear the iniquities of his father.” (Ezek. 18:20). I do not know how much plainer scripture would have to read to deny this false doctrine. Nazarenes claim that sin is transmitted all the way from Adam down from father through son unto us. But Ezekiel affirmed that “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father!” If that be true, how could sin be inherited? Nazarene doctrine asserts, as we have seen, that one is born in sin, inclined to evil, and that continually. Does the Bible say whether this is so? It positively denies it! Ezekiel again proclaimed, “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day thou wast created, until sin was found in thee.” (Ezek. 28:15). What is that? You were first perfect, until sin was later found in you. Nazarene doctrine reverses that order. It claims that we are born in sin, which remains until you are both saved and sanctified, and then you are perfect! The Apostle Paul contended that one is a sinner because of his own wickedness, and lost because of his own sins. And the Lord knows this is enough! Our own sins are sufficient to eternally damn us, and enough for us to bear, without ladening us with the sins of Adam, or anyone else! Paul said, “And you who were sometimes alienated and enemies in your minds by your wicked works.” (Col. 1:21). Paul, alienated from God by Adam’s transgression? No, by “your wicked works!” My friends of the Nazarene Church cannot accept this scripture, with its undeniable implications. Paul here contends that one is separated from God because he has personally sinned. I formerly believed that I was separated from God because of Adam’s sin; that his sin was transmitted father to son down to me, that I was held accountable for Adam’s transgression, that I was born “bearing the image of the devil,” as Wesley contended.
Let us consider this matter of depravity from another point of view. Truly the rule is a poor one that will not work both ways. It has been asserted that the son inherits “the image of the devil” from his father. But what if the father has already been to the mourner’s bench, “prayed through,” received the “second blessing,” and had the “image of the devil” eradicated from him before the child was born? He is then regarded as sinlessly perfect, according to Nazarene theology. The child cannot therefore inherit “the image of the devil” from his father, because the father’s sinful nature had been destroyed! Furthermore, if we can inherit a sinful nature, why cannot we inherit a righteous nature? If a child is born of a Nazarene parent who has had sin “eradicated,” and is in a state of sinless perfection, why cannot that child inherit this sinless nature? Is damnation the only thing to be inherited from the parent? If moral character were hereditary, it would be as easy to inherit salvation as damnation! Further still, if moral character were hereditary we would frequently witness an even more complicated situation. If one parent were sanctified (perfect), and the other parent still retained “the image of the devil,” then the child would be a spiritual enigma—half saint and half devil! But I’m sure Nazarenes would not accept this conclusion. Yet this logically demonstrates that moral character is not transmissible.
Sanctification
The second doctrine we shall examine here is that of sanctification. This is the second step taken in following the course of Wesleyan “holiness.” The doctrine of sanctification, as we mentioned, became necessary because of the first doctrine, inbred sin. If one were born bearing the “image of the devil,” there must of necessity be some means of removing this image before one could obtain heaven. To fulfill this need, the “holiness” advocates produced the doctrine of entire sanctification, which is also called “the second blessing,” “the experience of grace,” “the fulness of the blessing,” and many such kindred expressions. According to Nazarene theology, a person goes to the mourner’s bench to pray away his past, personal sins. (And I remind you, my friends, that I am speaking from personal experience. I sometimes say that I “cut my teeth” on a Nazarene mourner’s bench!) This is the first “blessing,” the first “helping” of salvation. But God hasn’t completed his work in this first experience, and they must return again to seek the “second blessing.” The first experience at the mourner’s bench prays them “through” to salvation from their sins, and then they have to return to the “bench” for God to pardon them of Adam’s sin! That is sanctification in a nutshell, according to their concept of it. I quote again from the Nazarene manual: “We believe that entire sanctification is that act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made free from original sin or depravity, and are brought into a state of entire devotement to God, unto the holy obedience of love made perfect. It is wrought by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and comprehends in one experience the cleansing of the heart from sin, the abiding and indwelling experience of the Holy Spirit, empowering the believer to life and service.” (Manual, page 29) Now, let us consider the complications of such a theory. According to this doctrine a person is first “regenerated” and then later “sanctified.” Before obtaining this “second blessing” this would make one a child of God, regenerated, but still bearing “the image of the devil!” According to the theory, one is a believer while still possessed of “original sin or depravity,” since this experience “eradicates” these from the believer. I suppose we are to look upon the regenerate, who has not yet obtained sanctification, as a “depraved believer!” The doctrine also has a person regenerated, not having as yet his heart cleansed from sin. But there is no such idea in the scriptures as a regeneration which does not cleanse the heart from sin! Furthermore, the theory avers that sanctification empowers the believer to life and service. I suppose then that before sanctification one is a believer without life or service! These are ridiculous and absurd, as well as manifestly unscriptural. The Bible denies and refutes such theological concoctions. I again charge this doctrine to be but a figment of John Wesley’s imagination! There is not a single syllable of scripture that suggests such a doctrine.
The English verb “sanctify” is translated from the Greek “hagiazo.” Thayer, a peerless and universally accepted Greek scholar, defines “hagiazo” in this manner: “To render sacred or holy, to consecrate, to render or to acknowledge to be venerable, to hallow, to separate from things profane and dedicate to God, to purify by expiation, to purify internally by a reformation of the soul.” (Greek-English Lexicon, Joseph H. Thayer, page 6). Personally, I prefer the expression, “to separate from things profane, and dedicate to God.” That is a most appropriate definition of sanctification, as the idea is used throughout the Bible. Surely the Bible teaches the sanctification of God’s children, but not at all according to Wesley’s ideas. As people of God we are separated, a peculiar people, a holy nation. (I Peter 2:9). Most assuredly we are separated from the world, and dedicated to the service of God. We must separate ourselves from defilement, and touch not unclean things, for God to accept us. (II Cor. 6:17). This matter is stressed with great force in the Bible. But this is far removed from Wesley’s ideas of sanctification.
The Bible explains how we are sanctified. Sanctification is effected by the offering of the blood of Christ. (Heb. 10:14). The Bible nowhere teaches that we are sanctified by a baptism of the Holy Spirit, as Nazarenes claim. The Holy Spirit never appeared directly to anyone to save or sanctify them, but Nazarenes assert that He does both. Let us consider another scripture: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” (I Cor. 6:9-11). What happened, Paul? You were once in sin, engaged in these worldly practices, but now you are washed, sanctified and justified. Notice that order. That is not the Nazarene order of washing, sanctification and justification. The Nazarene order is: (1) Pray at the mourner’s bench; (2) then you are justified, and (3) later, at a second “experience,” you are sanctified. The divine order is: (1) “Washed” in the blood of the Lamb of God, (2) “sanctified,” or set apart for God’s service, and (3) “justified” or accepted with God. The apostle further shows how this separation from sin and dedication to God occurs. “God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” (Romans 6:17-18). You were once the servants of sin, but obeyed from the heart the gospel of Christ, which then (not later) set you apart (sanctified you) unto the service of God. That is simple sanctification as expressed in the Bible.
Sinless Perfection
The next doctrine in order is sinless perfection, which we have already defined. Simply speaking, sinless perfection is the product of sanctification. When one receives sanctification it enables him to live a sinlessly perfect life, according to Nazarene theology. Recently I heard of a Nazarene preacher who professed never to commit a sin. He claimed, “Since I have been sanctified, every impulse or desire to sin has been completely erased from my heart!” This is a claim which is consistent with Nazarene doctrine. They claim that their desire to perform sin is removed by sanctification. Yet the Nazarene church manual prescribes discipline to be exercised upon ones who live such “perfect” (?) lives, but who are found committing sin! Such a gross inconsistency! Every Nazarene preacher who is ordained must first experience sanctification, have all sin removed from his life, and testify that he is living sinlessly. But the manual also reveals how a Nazarene preacher can be disfellowshipped if he walks in sin! But, if in sanctification the “Adamic nature” is removed and I have absolutely no impulse to sin, if I do sin after that, then with what nature do I commit sin? It cannot be the Adamic nature, for that has already been “eradicated.” It must therefore be my Christian nature which led me into sin! Yes, Nazarenes withdraw fellowship from those whose “Adamic nature” has been removed, and who have absolutely no desire, no impulse, to commit sin, but are guilty of sin anyhow! Such inconsistencies cannot be compatible with the scriptures.
What does the Bible teach in the matter of Christian perfection? There are numerous different senses in which the term “perfect” is used in the Bible. The term is used at times to signify absolute perfection, and at other times to suggest a relative perfection. When absolute moral perfection is meant, the term is always applied to God and never to man. When the term is applied to man, it is invariably suggestive of a relative perfection. The idea of man’s absolute moral perfection, or sinlessness, is foreign to the Bible. In the matter of perfection, God is our flawless example which we cannot fully duplicate, but after Whom our lives are to be patterned. (Matt. 5:48). Paul used the term in both these senses. He disclaims absolute perfection (Phil. 3:12), but claims a relative perfection (Phil. 3:15). This is the only intelligent interpretation of these two passages. The term “perfect” is also used in still another manner in the Bible, to refer to spiritual maturity. Paul urged the Hebrew brethren to lay aside the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, and to go on unto perfection. (Hebrews 6:1).
The Bible denies that man can achieve absolute moral perfection in this life. As already cited, Paul disavowed perfection in the absolute sense. (Phil. 3:12). The writer of old claimed, “For there is no man that sinneth not.” (I Kings 8:46) And further, “There is not a just man upon the earth that doeth good, and sinneth not.” (Eccl. 7:20). These ought to be conclusive. Yet Nazarene preachers claim, “I do good, and never have any impulse to sin!” But the Bible teaches that there is no such person!
How does one obtain perfection, or holiness? I would like to answer this with a personal experience. Last year I preached in a meeting in Oregon. One night at the close of the service a lady shook hands with me, and said, “Preacher, you do not believe in holiness, do you?” My reply was, “Surely, I do.” She asked again, “Do you believe in the holiness of the child of God?” Again I replied, “Yes, I believe that.” The next night there was submitted a written question which asked how a person received holiness. For an answer I turned to Ephesians 4:24, and read, “And put ye on the new man, which is after God created in righteousness and true holiness.” This new man is created after God according to true holiness, and not the imaginary, hypothetical type for which Wesley contended. How does a person receive this holy nature? Paul said, “By putting on the new man.” The apostle further instructed us as to how this “new man” is put on. (Romans 6:3-6). In this passage the apostle discusses water baptism as the consummating act of conversion, from which one arises “to walk in newness of life.” In this completion of conversion, the old man is crucified, and one is raised to live unto God. (Verses 6, 10). Christian holiness is not therefore a “second work of grace,” but is imparted at conversion. Holiness is received by putting on the “new man;” the “old man” is discarded, and the “new man” is received in conversion. Hence, holiness is received at conversion. There is therefore nothing mysterious in the meaning of holiness. It is synonymous with righteousness or godliness, which none would deny are received in conversion.
The Mourner’s Bench
The last doctrine we shall review with you is that of mourner’s bench salvation. Remove the mourner’s bench from the Nazarene church and with this stroke you would inflict a mortal wound to their “holiness” doctrines. The mourner’s bench cannot be divorced from all vital “holiness” doctrines; they are all dependent upon it. At the mourner’s bench most of their vital spiritual transactions occur. It is at the mourner’s bench they receive everything worthwhile in the “holiness” religion. It is there they “pray through” to salvation. It is there that they get the “second blessing.” It is at the mourner’s bench they pray for divine healing. It is at the bench that they pray for the salvation of their friends. It is there that they pray for a “spiritual revival”—great emotional demonstrations. Hence the mourner’s bench is indispensable to “holiness” doctrines. If in closing we can show the impropriety of the mourner’s bench, then all of their other doctrines shall fall with it.
The mourner’s bench is without question the most ridiculous and absurd feature of the “holiness” religion. Let me illustrate how this is true. The preacher will preach for an hour or so. He injects all the vigor and vitality of his system into his sermon, convincing sinners, who stand perilously upon the brink of eternal doom, that if they will only decide to accept God that he will immediately save them. After the hour of persuasion, he finally convinces the sinner that he should be saved, and that God is willing to immediately save him. Sinners come in assurance of the fact that God is willing to save them, but they get to the mourner’s bench only to find out that God has changed his mind! Instead of God saving them instantly, then now they must pray, scream, cry, and beg God to do what the preacher assured them He was already willing to do. When the sinner is out of the notion of being saved, and the preacher does all he can to get him into the notion of being saved, God is in the notion of saving the sinner. But when the sinner finally takes a notion to be saved, he then finds that God has changed His mind; he has now backed out! God, who was at first willing to save the sinner, must be begged to change his mind again, and return to a willingness or notion of saving the sinner! Such is the glaring absurdity of this doctrine.
To impress the unscripturalness of such a doctrine, I wish to file a number of charges and indictments against the mourner’s bench system of salvation. (1) God has nowhere required the unregenerate, or alien sinner, to pray for the forgiveness of his sins. If anyone will confront me with just one verse of scripture which teaches, suggests, intimates, infers or implies that God has required the alien sinner to pray for the pardon of his sins, then I’ll go back to a Nazarene mourner’s bench! (2) Of all of the cases of conversion in the New Testament, especially in the book of Acts, no inspired gospel preacher ever urged a sinner to pray his sins away at a mourner’s bench. Gospel preachers many times informed inquirers what to do to be saved. On Pentecost three thousand were saved. (Acts 2). But there is no record of a single prayer being uttered on Pentecost! The procedure was simple. The gospel was preached (verses 14-37), the hearers were exhorted to believe that Jesus is “both Lord and Christ” (verse 36), and they were commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (verse 38). Those who did so were saved, and added unto the Lord’s church. (Verse 47). Our “holiness” friends often pray for a reinactment of Pentecost, but they are not willing to follow these Pentecostal precedents. There was no mourner’s bench there! (3) The mourner’s bench places all the responsibility of salvation upon God, whereas man is responsible for accepting God’s will. (Acts 2:40). Man is responsible to God for hearing and obeying the truth. The mourner’s bench represents man as being passive, while God is active in conversion. This idea is foreign to the New Testament. Man is required to “save himself”—take an active, responsible, obedient part in his own conversion. (4) The mourner’s bench represents God as being a respecter of persons. The Bible declares, however, that “with God there is no respect of persons.” (Romans 2:11). God treats all men with equality; what he does for one, he will do for all.
I could not begin to estimate the number of times I have seen a Nazarene mourner’s bench swarmed with “seekers” for salvation, and usually as many would go away not having found God as those who claimed to have found him there! I still read the Nazarene church paper, The Herald of Holiness. Nazarene preachers report to that paper the achievements of their revival meetings, and many times their reports indicate that there were more left “seeking” salvation at the mourner’s bench than found it. Under the dispensation of grace, God does not refuse to save any who earnestly apply for the salvation tion He offers. The mourner’s bench is therefore inadequate. It will not save all who need to be saved! The divine plan of salvation is offered to “all the world” and “every creature.” (Mark 16:15).
(5) The mourner’s bench, in a similar connection, implies that God is unwilling to save all who come to him. As already seen, many turn away from the mourner’s bench disappointed and filled with despair, feeling that God will not save them. We have been cited a case in Tennessee where one man, after repeated and unsuccessful attempts to obtain “salvation” at a mourner’s bench, went totally insane, and was committed to a state institution. The thought that God would not save his miserable soul was too much for this poor man. But whether it leads to this unusual extreme, the mourner’s bench does nevertheless argue that God is not willing to save all who seek salvation. The Apostle Peter strongly denies this idea when he contended that the Lord is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (II Peter 3:9). This can never be reconciled with the teaching of the mourner’s bench.
(6) Saul of Tarsus was commanded to cease his fasting and prayer and complete his obedience to Christ. If God ever intended to teach that prayer and mourning obtains our salvation, the case of Saul would have offered the best opportunity in all the Word of God. But after having spent three days in fasting and prayer, he was asked by the inspired, Spirit-led preacher, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). Had Ananias been a modern “Holiness” preacher, he would have said, “Pray on, Brother Saul, and you will ‘get it’ after while!” I have never known a Nazarene preacher instruct a mourner to do precisely what Ananias required of Saul! In the case of Saul, God amply demonstrated that he does not save by the mourner’s bench method.
(7) The mourner’s bench disregards the fact that it is useless to call upon the Lord without obeying him. Jesus asked, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46) Since the mourner has not completed his obedience to the Lord (Acts 22:16), his tarrying in prayer is useless.
(8) Finally, the mourner’s bench does not comply with God’s plan of salvation. It is rather a system conceived as a substitute for obeying God’s divinely revealed will to the sinner. In sending the apostles forth into all the world with the gospel, Jesus charged that they preach the gospel to every creature. He also gave the provisions of the gospel, commands for the sinner to obey: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.—” (Mark 16:16) On the day of Pentecost, Peter commanded that countless throng: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.—” (Acts 2:38) According to these revelations of inspiration, God requires the sinner to believe in Jesus Christ, repent of his sins, and be baptized for the remission of sins. Any system that does not incorporate these divine requirements is not of God but of men. Since the mourner’s bench does not include all of these divine requirements, it is not then God’s means of saving the sinner.
As we bring this lesson to an end, we deeply appreciate the undivided attention given us. You have listened most kindly and patiently, and I trust that your heart will be receptive to whatever truths it stands in need of. We are happy now to tender to you, my sinner friends, the invitation of Jesus Christ. Will you not at this time yield your hearts to the crucified Savior in obedience to the simple terms of the gospel. He is both ready and willing to save you; he will not turn you away! Dear friends, if you have never obeyed the truth of God, let it make you free tonight. Will you not thrust aside the shackles of sectarian bondage for the freedom of the truth. You may tonight be led out of the dismal, dark abyss of error, and into the marvelous, radiant light of the truth. Have you the courage just now to lay all aside for Christ, regardless of the cost? Will you not be unashamed to confess your Lord, though others may scoff and scorn you for doing so? The only unquestionably safe course for your soul is to take your station upon the simple teachings of the word of God, and forever reject the wisdom and councils of men in religion. If you’ll live for Christ tonight by obeying him, he’ll wash your soul from sin in his own blood, make you a new creature, a citizen of the kingdom of Christ, and give you hope of that blessed eternal inheritance in the celestial city of God.