For Further Reading: Frank, Persuasion and Healing: A Comparative Study of Psychotherapy; Oden, Contemporary Theology and Psychotherapy; Outler, Psychotherapy and the Christian Message; Roberts, Psychotherapy and a Christian View of Man.
Chester O. Galloway
PUBLIC PRAYER. At its lowest acceptable level public prayer is group recognition of divine authority. This religious exercise may be despoiled by such evil motives as vengeance, pride, or unholy ambition. A newspaper reporting on a part of a religious service, said: "It was the most eloquent prayer ever delivered to a Boston audience." If such was the intention of the one who prayed, his purpose was evidently achieved.
Public prayer is appropriate in a thousand places such as grace before meals, dedication of buildings, formal or informal ceremonies, official
4
PUNISHMENT—PURGATORY
32
gatherings, or other solemn or sublime occasions, as the reverent recognition of Deity. Either clergy or laity may offer such prayer.
Public prayer achieves its highest and holiest purpose in the biblical sense as one redeemed soul, most often the pastor of a congregation of believers, in his priestly function speaks to God for and with the people. In those moments of koi-nonia the one voice, speaking for all, pleads the merciful favor of God, offers reverential praise, reaffirms the congregation's loving commitment, and rejoices in the blessed warmth of God's surrounding love and grace. Only when the pastor has thus spoken to God for the people may he speak effectively to the people for God.
The language of public prayer need not be restricted to the classic "Thee" and "Thou." However, it certainly will avoid the excessive familiarity of folksy colloquialisms. And it must always be remembered that it is directed to God and must never refer to God in the third person.
The communion of the soul with God may permeate all of life and express itself in sighs, songs, groans, cries of distress, whispers of adoration, or well-remembered phrases from the Scriptures. But when one prays to God in and for a group, whether large or small, one should reverently and sincerely seek so to speak as to bring the eternal God and those immortal souls together in high and holy fellowship.
See worship, prayer, church.
For Further Reading: The Book of Common Prayer; Baker's Dictionary of Practical Theology, 385 ff, 400, 406.
John E. Riley
PUNISHMENT. This term indicates a penalty imposed for transgression of law. It commonly specifies any ill suffered in consequence of wrongdoing. The verb refers to the act of inflicting pain or chastisement for crime or fault. In the strict sense of the term we may discern a definite expression of public indignation, whereby the offender suffers pain or loss of honor. He suffers because he has perpetrated a wrong against another person, or society as a whole. Punishment implies a forefeiture in some sense and degree of personal rights.
Punishment is usually one of three kinds: corporal, pecuniary, or capital. The first involves suffering to one's body, the second involves the paying of a fine, and the third, loss of one's life. In ancient times punishment was only twofold and took the nature of either retaliation or restitution, i.e., compensation to the injured party for the wrong done by the offender.
Retribution for sin is a cardinal point in the teaching of both Testaments of the Christian Scriptures. There the primary object of punishment is to maintain, or restore, righteousness in keeping with the will of both God and the social order. In an ultimate sense, God will see to the punishment of sins, taking vengeance upon the ungodly and rendering to every man according to his deeds (Rom. 2:5-11).
The removal of sin's punishment is brought about by repentance and confession of one's sin (1 John 1:9), and personal trust in and commitment to the saving work and atoning blood of Jesus Christ, as the only basis for one's forgiveness.
On the civil level three justifications may be set forth for punishment: (1) as a deterrent to wrongdoing; (2) as a means of inducing repentance and rehabilitating the wrongdoer; and (3) as a guarantee against the repetition of the crime (in the case of capital punishment or life imprisonment).
See eternal punishment, retribution (retributive justice).
For Further Reading: DeWolf, "Rewards and Pun-
ishments," ER, 661-62; Greenberg, "Crimes and Pun-
ishments," IDB, A-D:733-44; Kennedy and Roberts,
"Crime and Punishments," HDB (rev.), 189-90; Munsey,
Eternal Retribution; Orr, "Punishment, Everlasting,"
ISBE, 4:2501-4. ROSS E. PRICE
PURGATORY. This term means literally "a place of, or means of, purification." In Roman Catholic theology, it designates an intermediate state between death and eternal bliss where souls are made fit for heaven by means of expiatory sufferings. It is reserved only for penitent souls who, after departing this life, are cleansed from venial sins and the temporal punishment due their remitted mortal sins. Contrary to popular thinking, it is not a period of probation, but rather a cleansing process for those who are already partakers of divine grace, yet who, by reason of imperfection, are not qualified to enter heaven directly. It is for that mass of partially sanctified Catholics who have died in fellowship with the church. These, though their time of probation is past, and they are assured of heaven eventually, are not sufficiently pure and holy to be in the presence of God.
Such souls may be aided in their intermediate penance and suffering by the prayers of their brothers and sisters on earth, both lay and priestly. Hence, there have arisen in that church purgatorial societies—confraternities which have for their main purpose the assistance in every possible way—through gifts, services rendered to the
PURIFICATION, CEREMONIAL
433
church, masses provided for, and prayers by members of the priesthood—of these poor souls in purgatory.
The doctrine of purgatory was taught by such Catholic divines as Gregory the Great, Bon-aventura, and Aquinas. It was professed at the Council of Lyons (1274), the Union of Florence (1445), and reaffirmed against Protestant denials at the Council of Trent (1545-63).
Although Gregory contended that this purgatorial punishment consisted of both absence from God and burning by fire, it was the contention of St. Catherine of Genoa that the fire of purgatory was nothing other than God's love, burning away whatever in us had not been cleansed away prior to death.
Protestant thinkers have raised four strong objections to the doctrine of purgatory: (1) It is without true scriptural basis, since 2 Mace. 12:39-45 is not accepted as inspired; (2) if Christ's gospel promises full forgiveness, then there is no need for purgatory; (3) moreover, the doctrine retains the necessity of punishment after forgiveness; and (4) it implies that the atoning death of Christ was not sufficient to purchase man's full justification and cleansing from sin. To these, the Wesleyan theologian would add a fifth objection on the basis of his belief in instantaneous sanctification by faith following regeneration and occurring during the believer's lifetime.
See HEAVEN, HOLINESS, PROBATION, CATHOLICISM (ROMAN).
For Further Reading: Bigham, "Purgatory," ER, 628; Boettner, "Purgatory," Baker's DT, 430; Harvey, Handbook of Theological Terms, 200; Wiley, CT, 3:230.
Ross E. Price
PURIFICATION, CEREMONIAL. Basic to this fundamental religious concept is the belief that man must rid himself of any defilement which hinders his fellowship with God. It is necessary to determine the sources of defilement and the proper means of purification. In the OT this is largely a ceremonial consideration, but in the NT it becomes moral and personal.
In the OT any contact with that which is unclean results in defilement and requires purification. The following are sources of defilement: (1) unclean animals; (2) dead bodies; (3) leprosy; (4) bodily secretions associated with reproduction, and (5) idol worship in all of its forms.
The need for purification preceded the giving of Mosaic law (Gen. 35:2; Exod. 19:14); but a strong emphasis on ceremonial purification began with the establishment of Israel as the covenant people of God. The covenant ceremonial law provided for purification, including the idea of expiation for certain sins. This ceremonial law sets the standard for purification in the OT. While some religions regarded purification as being completely ceremonial and nonethical in character, for Israel purification had both ceremonial and ethical significance. These two considerations grew side by side in the OT. It is true that in the Psalms, Prophets, and Wisdom literature of the OT there is a tendency to emphasize moral purity; but the ceremonial aspect is not denied.
However, it is not until after the Exile that the Jews developed an elaborate system of rules for ceremonial purification deduced from those stated in the OT. Significantly, the largest of the six sections of the Mishnah deals with purification. Such a ballooning of ceremonial purification led Jesus to declare, "'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!'" (Mark 7:9, rsv).
An important principle of biblical theological thought is that God's people should reflect His character. This includes personal moral purity in response to the holiness of God (Lev. 19:2; 1 Pet. 1:15). The NT emphasizes moral and spiritual purification with little interest in ceremonial considerations. Likewise in the NT, impurity does not come from external sources, but is moral and from within. Purity then begins in the heart of man and extends outward to encompass the entire life. This moral purification is part of the redeeming work of Christ (1 John 1:7). Jesus' teachings on moral purification are well summarized in Matt. 5:8, where purity of heart is a prerequisite to seeing God.
In the NT, purification is thus personal and evangelical, completing the development of the concept begun in the prophetic and devotional writings of the OT. The external and ceremonial emphasis recedes into the background, and purification becomes the work of God in human hearts, so that man becomes partaker of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). To deny the objective reality and impartation of this nature of holiness in favor of a mere imputation of holiness as our standing or position in Christ is to deny NT purification and to return to the OT concept of external ceremonial purification.
See TALMUD, CLEANSING, HOLINESS, IMPARTED RIGHTEOUSNESS, ERADICATION, HEART PURITY, PROGRESSIVE REVELATION.
For Further Reading: IDB, 1:641-48; The New Schaff
4
PURIFICATION FROM SIN
34
i—PURITY AND MATURITY
Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 3:386-90; Encyclopedia fudaica, 8:1406-14.
Alvin S. Lawhead
PURIFICATION FROM SIN. See heart purity.
PURITAN, PURITANISM. Under Queen Elizabeth I the place of the Church of England was established and clarified politically through the power of the English throne and doctrinally by the famous 39 Articles of Faith. However, the Church of England was still threatened from two sides. On the one hand was the faction that looked toward Rome, and on the other were the earnest Reformers who wished to go further in purifying the church from its Catholic overtones and leanings. By 1564 these were popularly nicknamed Puritans.
Many who had been exiled under Queen Mary had come under the influence of Swiss Protestantism and had returned filled with admiration for its thoroughgoing commitments. They were men with deep religious earnestness upon whom Elizabeth had to depend in her conflict with Rome. However, they drove hard to purge from the worship services what they believed to be remnants of the Roman church. In particular, the Puritans objected to the prescribed clerical dress, to kneeling at the reception of the Lord's Supper, the use of the ring in marriage as continuing the view of matrimony as a sacrament; and they strongly disliked using the sign of the Cross in baptism, believing it to be superstitious. Doctrinally, the Puritans were (for the most part) Calvinistic and insisted on the primacy of the Bible as the basis of authority.
Furthermore, the Puritans saw in the NT a definite pattern of church government quite unlike the Church of England. They came to believe in effective discipline maintained by elders. And they wanted ministers in office with the consent of the congregation.
By the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign all of the Separatists, or radical Puritans, had been driven underground or had gone into exile in places like Leyden in Holland, from which the Pilgrims sailed to the New World.
See PROTESTANTISM, WESLEYANISM, PIETISM (ENGLISH EVANGELICAL), WORSHIP, METHODISM, CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
For Further Reading: Sweet, Religion in Colonial America; Faughan, ed., The Puritan Tradition in America; Walker, A History of the Christian Church.
Leslie Parrott
PURITY AND MATURITY. The distinction between purity and maturity has been a basic postulate of the holiness movement. Failure to make this distinction, says Wiley, "lies at the base of practically every objection to entire sanctification" (CT, 2:506).
Purity is a matter of the heart, of present soundness, integrity, and rectitude; maturity is a matter of growth and development, in knowledge, strength, and skill. Purity is a condition of freedom from sin, of singleness of mind, of entire devotement to God. As soon as a believer becomes convicted of his remaining double-mindedness, the correction of the condition is both his privilege and obligation. His self-cleans-ing should be immediate (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 12:1, 12-15; 1 John 3:3), and his appropriation of the inner cleansing of the Spirit must be, and can only be, by faith (Acts 15:8-9; 26:18; Gal. 3:2-3). Time is not the purifying agent. But maturity and growth are correlates, both dependent upon time and process. Maturity is an advanced degree of understanding and establishment in spiritual things.
"No Christian is cleansed into maturity, nor do any grow into purity," writes J. A. Wood (Perfect Love, 85). Wood is typical of the leading authorities of the last century, who carefully insisted on the preservation of the distinction between purity and maturity.
Some ambiguity appears in the writings of Wesley, who often seemed to associate Christian perfection with spiritual adulthood. However, this is a relative stage of attainment, which, while beyond spiritual infancy, is only the threshold of what shall be. When tracing the stages of spiritual progress, he reaches entire sanctification with the words, "in another instant, the heart is cleansed from all sin, and filled with pure love for God and man." Then immediately he adds: "But even that love increases more and more ... till we attain 'the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ'" (Works, 6:509). In his sermon "On a Single Eye" he declares that those with a single eye, who walk in all the light they have, "cannot but 'grow in grace.'" Such persons will "continually advance in all holiness, and in the whole image of God" (Works, 7:299).
Even more serious confusion is introduced by the substitution of "mature" for "perfect" as the translation of teleios by modern versions (e.g., Niv has "mature" at 1 Cor. 2:6; Eph. 4:13; Phil. 3:15; Col. 4:12; and Heb. 6:1 [teleiotes]). Since teleios is more qualitative than quantitative in import, such substitution is at least questionable. Doubtless it is justified in Eph. 4:13 since maturity is the obvious goal. It is less certain in the oth-
QUIETISM—RABBINIC THEOLOGY
435
er passages, especially Phil. 3:15, where it is more likely Paul is saying, "Let us therefore as many as are complete in our devotion to God be thus minded," rather than "Let all of us who have reached a level of advancement called maturity." Who is likely to step forward and assert, "I am among the mature'? The context describes the normal attitude of a Spirit-filled person, no matter how inexperienced and immature. To confuse purity with maturity is to confuse things which are qualitatively different. To expect a young, inexperienced Christian, clearly sanctified wholly, to demonstrate full maturity, is to lay the groundwork for his frustration, discouragement, and perhaps defeat.
See holiness, maturity, growth, heart purity.
For Further Reading: Rose, A Theology of Christian Experience, 230-35; Jessup, Foundations of Doctrine, 130-34; Wood, Purity and Maturity.
Richard S. Taylor
Q,R
QUIETISM. Historically Quietism has been an understanding of Christian perfection which emphasizes union with God not by asceticism and aggressive personal devotion but by passive surrender of the senses, intellect, and will to the divine. As a result God, not oneself, is responsible for one's life and actions. Avid espousal of this theory often led to both an antinomianism which disclaimed moral responsibility and an interior kind of holiness which separated one from concern for sin in any social sense.
Specifically the term may be applied to a school of Catholic mystics in France and Italy in the late 17th century. Miguel de Molinos emphasized passivity of the soul to such an extent that his enemies had his doctrines condemned by the church. The same fate fell on the French Quietist, Madame Guyon, whose emphasis was more on "surrender" than "passivity." Later Catholic scholars have largely exonerated the Quietists of any major doctrinal error.
Although their influence upon Roman Catholicism has not been great, the Quietists have had an enduring influence upon revivalism and Wesleyanism in particular. Molinos and Guyon together with other Catholic mystics have become strong witnesses to the experience of perfection in love in the American holiness tradition, especially through the writings of Thomas C. Up-ham.
See mysticism, perfect (perfection), perfect love, perfectionism.
For Further Reading: Daniel-Rops, The Church in the 17th Century, 367-93; Upham, life of Madame de la Mothe Guyon; Dieter, The Holiness Revival of the 19th Century, 53-56. melvin EASTERDAY DlETER
RABBINIC THEOLOGY. Basically, rabbinic theology is the orthodox system of doctrine which Jewish people of pious nature have held from ancient times. The Maccabean revolt of 160 b.c. was led by priests known as Hasidim, "pious ones," who rejected Greek culture. In NT times, the proponents of keeping the ancient laws and customs were the Pharisees. Their spiritual heirs were the Rabbinites of the 8th—10th centuries a.d. and the Hasidim of the 18th century.
All these groups held to doctrines that were based on the OT and elaborated in the Talmud. Yet, rabbinic theology was more than doctrine; it was also a way of life. It was more than doctrine believed in by individuals, for doctrine and life were tied to national customs that were retained even during the dispersal of Jewish people around the world.
The basic doctrine of rabbinic theology is the existence of God as the Creator of the universe and all its creatures. All things were created out of nothing as an act of God's will. God is also the Ruler of the world and of the history of mankind. Extending from this doctrine is the belief in God as eternal and spiritual, omnipresent and omniscient. He is one God, and besides Him is none other. His resolutions are unchangeable, and His will is constant.
This theology also holds that God's will includes His intent both to punish the wicked and to provide merciful forgiveness for those who repent of their sins. He also wills to hear and answer the prayers of the penitent.
A second basic doctrine is the genuineness of the revelation of God through the Torah, i.e., the
first five books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch. The Torah was given to Moses at Mount Sinai and has been preserved intact. It is to be obeyed by applying its regulations to every aspect of life. Man must obey the law in freedom of choice and with wholehearted commitment.
After death, man continues to exist and will know punishment or reward for his deeds. A belief in the resurrection is common.
Rabbinic theology also believes that the Jewish people are the Chosen People and will be restored to their land by a Messiah who will come when the people are ready for him.
See JUDAISM, JUDAISTIC CONTROVERSY.
For Further Reading: Cohen, Judaism: A Way of Life: Markowitz, Jewish Religion, History, Ethics, and Culture; Heschel, God in Search for Man; "Theology," The Jewish Encyclopedia, 128-37.
George Herbert Livingston
RACIAL SIN. See original sin.
RACISM. This is the belief that some races are inherently superior to others, and the attitudes, policies, and practices which express this belief. Hitlerism with its doctrine of the Aryan super-race is a glaring modern example. The belief in the inferiority of the black races is an equally odious form of racism.
Yet not all adverse value judgments can be labeled racism. Distinctions can be made between advanced or primitive cultures which acknowledge a sociological retardation without the implication that the backwardness is due to inherent racial inferiority.
While racism has been a sociological phenomenon throughout human history, it has been encouraged by Darwinism, with its doctrine of the survival of the fittest. It has also provided a rationale for war. Arlie J. Hoover says: "Racism asserts that struggle, not cooperation, is the normal, yea even the desirable, state of race relations and that competition proves some races superior to others in intelligence, creativity, and cultural capacity."
Racism is not biblical. Over and over God reminds the Israelites that His choice of them was not due to any superiority in them, but that all nations might be blessed through them. The destruction of the Canaanites was not on racist principles but on moral grounds: their decimation was a divine judgment on them for their sins. While separatism was demanded, the purpose was not to safeguard them from inferior peoples but to prevent their religious corruption.
However, the Jews did tend to become infected with a racist mentality, contrary to God's intentention. An example might be Peter's reluctance to eat with Cornelius. However, on the other hand, perhaps a purely ceremonial connotation should be seen in his "common or unclean" (Acts 10:14), rather than racism as such. At least Peter sincerely, though mistakenly, believed such social separation from the Gentiles to be a divine requirement; so his reluctance was prompted by a desire to obey God, not necessarily by a belief in his personal superiority.
According to the NT, the gospel levels all men, assuming for all races equal need and equal access to all the benefits of the Atonement, including the fullness of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 25:31-46; 28:19; John 1:9; Acts 2:17; 10:28, 34-35; Rom. 3:9-30; 11:16-23; 1 Cor. 1:24; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:11-17; 1 Tim. 2:1-6; Rev. 7:9-10).
Christian love alone is the antidote for the disease of racism. Love acknowledges all men as human beings created by God, all as the subjects of God's love and the objects of redemption. Yet love does not extinguish cultural differences, nor does love condemn them. While love creates a kindred feeling, and prompts equal respect to all regardless of race, it does not demand external uniformity. Furthermore, a very natural preference for one's own kind on a social plane is not in itself proof of either prejudice or racism; though love will gladly transcend this preference in the interests of community or evangelism.
See JUDAISM, MISSION (MISSIONS, MISSIOLOGY), MAN, GOSPEL, REDEMPTION.
Share with your friends: |