Is anyone open to discussing a resolution for a minor change to the article on Entire Sanctification? It is the second paragraph of the article that I find ammendable, specifically the language of "baptism with the Holy Spirit". I realize that this has been a part of our language concerning Entire Sanctification for a very long time. However, from what I understand (and I would have to do a lot more research to feel comfortable supporting this as a resolution), Wesley himself discouraged the use of the phrase "baptism with the Holy Spirit" to describe entire sanctification. Furthermore, it seems to me that it is misrepresentative of the Biblical witness. Obviously, we wish to say that the Holy Spirit has worked in some special way in the life of the person who has been entirely sanctified. But is "baptism with the Holy Spirit" really the most biblical way of saying that? Aren't all Christians baptized with the Holy Spirit, not just entirely sanctified ones? In Galatians 3, Paul uses the reception of the Spirit as evidenced of the Galatians receiving the gospel, not of being entirely sanctified. In Acts, the Spirit continally comes to believers at their baptism, not at a later stage in their Christian life. So I am simply wondering if there is a better, more biblical, and more theologically coherent way of talking about Entire Sanctification than "baptism with the Holy Spirit"? Does this language add to the confusion that our lay people often experience concerning our distinctive doctrine?
One thing that we have to realize is the the Church of the Nazarene is only 1/2 Wesleyan (at best). The other 1/2 comes out of the American Holiness Movement. Much of the confusion in our language comes from that tradition. I think Quanstrom did a good job outlining the historical discussion. I am aware that there has been an ongoing discussion regarding reshaping the language of our doctrine on ES for some time. I agree that Spirit Baptism language can be confusing and misdirecting.
