The Oberlin Evangelist

LECTURE I.

January 1, 1840

SANCTIFICATION -- No. 1

by the Rev. Charles G. Finney

Modernized by Cliff Collins

“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.” (1 Thess 5:23-24)

In discussing the subject of Sanctification, I plan to pursue the following order.

I. What does the word sanctification mean?

II. What do I understand by the words entire sanctification?

III. What is the difference between entire and permanent sanctification?

IV. What is not implied in entire sanctification?

V. What is implied in entire sanctification?

VI. Is entire sanctification attainable in this life?

VII. I will answer some objections.

VIII. I will show when we can attain it.

IX. I will show how we can attain it.

You can quickly see that this outline is sufficiently extensive to fill a large volume, if I prolong this discussion as I easily and profitably could. And at best, it will occupy several lectures. My purpose is to condense what I have to say as much as possible, and still keep the message simple. I will try not to be tedious. Yet, I hope to be understood and to be able to “commend myself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor 4:2)

I. What does the word Sanctification mean?

Here let me say, that defining words in every discussion is extremely important. This is especially true with the subject of sanctification. I have observed that, almost without exception, those who have written on this subject differ from the views I will share with you today do so on the ground that they understand and define the words Sanctification and Christian Perfection differently from what I do. Everyone has his own definition, often, they very a lot from each other and from what I understand by these words. Then, they go around claiming to oppose the doctrine that I will present here. Now this is not only completely unfair, but also obviously absurd. If I oppose a doctrine taught by somebody I am required to oppose what he really believes. If I misrepresent his opinions, “I fight as one that beats the air”. (1 Cor 9:26) I have been amazed at the many different definitions that have been given to such words as Christian Perfection and Sanctification; and I am amazed to hear so many opinions as to what is, and what is not, implied by these words.

One person totally objects to the use of the phrase Christian Perfection because, in his opinion, it implies this, and that, and some other thing, which I don’t think is implied at all. Another person objects that we use the word sanctification, because sanctification implies, according to their understanding of it, certain things that make its use improper. Now it is not part of my purpose to argue over the use of words. However, I must use some words; and you should let me use Bible language in its Scriptural sense, as I understand it. In addition, if I should sufficiently explain my meaning and define the sense in which I use these words, this should suffice. And, I beg that, by the words I use, that you don’t understand anything more or less, than what I profess to mean by it. Others may, if they please, use the same words and give different definitions of them. But, I have a right to hope and expect, that if others feel called on to oppose what I say, that they will carefully consider my definition of these words. They should not pretend, as some have done, to oppose my views while they only differ from me in the definition of the words we use. They give their own definition, which they use differently than the way I use the same words. Then, they array their arguments to prove that according to their definition of it, sanctification is not attainable in this life. However, no one here or anywhere else that I ever heard of, will pretended that, according to the way they define sanctification, sanctification ever was or ever will be attainable in this life, and I might add, or in the world which is to come.

Sanctification is a word that is frequently used in the Bible. Its simple and primary meaning is a state of consecration to God. To sanctify means to set apart for a holy use, to consecrate a thing to the service of God. A state of sanctification is a state of consecration or a state of being set apart to the service of God. This is clearly how both the Old and the New Testaments use this word. This is how I will use this word.

II. What is entire Sanctification?

Entire, sanctification is consecrating our whole being to God. In other words, Sanctification is that state of devotion to God and His service that is required by the moral law. God’s law is perfect. It requires just what is right, all that is right, and nothing more. Nothing more or less can possibly be Perfection or entire Sanctification than obedience to the law. Obedience to the law of God in an infant, a man, an angel, and in God himself, is perfection in each of them. And nothing can possibly be perfection in any being short of this, neither can there possibly be anything above it.

III. What is the difference between entire and permanent Sanctification.

That someone can be, for the time being, completely consecrated to God, and afterwards fall away from that service, is certain. Adam and “the angels who kept not their first estate” were entirely sanctified and yet they were not permanently sanctified. This is certain.

Permanent sanctification, then, is a state of not only entire but also of perpetual, unending consecration to God.

IV. What is not implied in entire Sanctification?

Since the law of God is the standard, and the only standard, by which we must decide what is, and what is not implied in entire Sanctification, it is fundamentally important that we understand what is and what is not implied in entire obedience to God’s law. This question is extremely important. Settling this question will accomplish one of the main goals in this discussion. We can never satisfactorily establish the doctrine of the entire sanctification of believers in this life until we understand it. We cannot understand sanctification until we know what is and what is not implied in sanctification. We cannot rely on our judgment of our own state or of the state of others until these questions are settled. With today’s vague and unsettled views of the Church on this question, no one can claim to have attained this state without being a stumbling block to the Church. Christ was perfect, and yet the Jews views of what constituted perfection was so wrong that they thought He was possessed with a devil, instead of being holy as He claimed to be. It is certainly impossible that a person can claim to be in this state without being a stumbling block to himself and to others unless he and they clearly understand what is not and what is implied in sanctification.

Therefore, I will first state what is not implied in a state of entire sanctification, as I understand the law of God. God’s law was epitomized by Christ, “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself”. (Mark 12:30-31, Luke 10:27) I understand that this passages lays down our whole duty to God and to all of God’s creatures. Now the first question is what is not implied in perfect obedience to this law. The second question is what is implied in perfect obedience to this law. Vague notions concerning these questions seem to me to have been the origin of a lot of error on the subject of entire sanctification. To settle this question, we must have the proper rules of legal interpretation clearly before our minds. I will therefore lay down some important principles concerning the interpretation of law, in the light of which, I think we can safely proceed to answer these questions.

Rule 1. Law cannot be naturally unjust.

Rule 2. Whatever is inconsistent with our nature and relations is naturally unjust and therefore cannot be law.

Rule 3. Any so called law, which requires more than a person has the natural ability to perform, is inconsistent with his nature and relations and therefore is naturally unjust, and is not law.

Rule 4. We must always understand and interpret the law in such a way that it is consistent with the nature of the subject. The law must be naturally consistent with our relationships to each other and to the lawgiver. Any interpretation that makes the law require more or less than what is naturally consistent with our relationships, virtually nullifies that law. It is the same thing as declaring that it is not law. No authority in heaven or on earth can require us to obey any law that is inconsistent with our nature and our relations.

Rule 5. We must interpret the law so that it is as naturally right and as just as possible. We must understand and explain the law so that the law requires what is right all by itself, and therefore it must be immutably and unalterably right.

Rule 6. We must interpret the law so that it doesn’t require anything more than what is consistent with natural justice or with the nature and relations of moral beings.

Rule 7. Of course, never interpret a law to imply that we must possess any attributes, or any amount of strength and perfection of attributes that we don’t have. For example, lets look at the second commandment “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”. Now the simple meaning of this commandment seems to be that we must regard and treat every person and interest according to its relative value. Now we must not think that this commandment, either expressed or implied, requires us to always know the exact relative value of everyone and everything in the universe; for we would have to be omniscient to do this. Only an omniscient mind can know all this. Therefore, we must understand that the command only requires us to sincerely and honestly judge the relative value of different interests, and treat them according to their value as far as we understand them. Therefore, let me repeat the rule. Never interpret laws to imply that we already possess any attribute or any amount of strength and perfection of attributes that we don’t have.

Rule 8. Never interpret a law in such a way that it requires us to do something that is naturally impossible because of our circumstances. For example, the first commandment says, “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength”. We cannot interpret this to require us to make God the constant and sole object of our attention, thought, and affection, for this would not only be clearly impossible in many circumstances, but it is also contrary to our duty.

Rule 9. Never make one requirement inconsistent with another requirement. For example, if we interpret the first commandment to mean that we must make God the only object of our thought, attention, and affection, then we can’t obey the second commandment that requires us to love our neighbor. And if we believe that the first commandment means that every faculty and power must be directed solely and exclusively to contemplating and loving God, then we won’t have any time to love all other beings and we set aside the second commandment. Therefore, let me repeat this rule. Laws cannot conflict with each other.

Rule 10. Any law requiring perpetual unselfish love must consist with and require all the appropriate and essential modifications of unselfish love under every circumstance; such as justice, mercy, anger at sin and sinners, and a special regard for those who are virtuous.

Rule 11. All the claims of the law must be restricted to the powers of one’s free will. To attempt to legislate over our involuntary powers would not be just. You might as well try to legislate how your heart should beat as to try to legislate over involuntary mental actions.

Rule 12. In morals, how much we know is indispensable to our obligation. The maxim, “ignorantia legis non excusat”, “ignorance of the law excuses no one”, only applies with morals to a very limited extent. That how much we know is indispensable to our moral obligation, will appear,

(1.) From the following Scriptures:

“Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17)

“And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But, he who did not know, yet committed things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.” (Luke 12:47-48)

“Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘we see’. Therefore your sin remains.’” (John 9:41)

In the first and second chapters of Romans, the Apostle Paul talks about this subject. He convicts the heathen of sin on the ground that they violate their own conscience, and do not live according to the light they have.

(2.) The principle, that the more we know, the greater our responsibility is, is recognized throughout the Bible. The Bible not only implies this, but also clearly recognizes the principle that knowledge is indispensable to, and corresponds with our obligation. With sins of ignorance, the sin lies in the ignorance itself, but not in neglecting to do what is unknown. A man can be guilty of present or past neglect to determine the truth. Here his ignorance is sin. The heathen are responsible for not living up to the light of nature; but they are under no obligation to embrace Christianity until they have the opportunity to do so.

Rule 13. The interpretation of moral laws must be consistent with physical laws. In other words, when you apply the moral law to us, you must recognize us as we are, as both physical and intellectual beings; and you must never interpret moral law in such a way that obedience to it would violate the laws of our physical nature and harm us physically.

Rule 14. When you interpret any law, recognize all the attributes and circumstances of both body and soul. When we apply the law of God to human beings, we must regard their powers and attributes as they really are, and not as they are not.

Rule 15. When you interpret any law, please restrict its obligation to the actions, and not to the nature of moral beings. Don’t think that law extends its legislation to our nature, or requires us to possess certain natural attributes. But, a law prescribes a rule of action. The law does not require us to have or possess certain attributes, or that our attributes should be in a certain state of perfection, but the law only requires the right use of our attributes as they are.

Rule 16. Please understand that obedience of the heart to any law implies and includes general faith, or confidence in the lawgiver. However, you cannot explain a law so that it requires faith in something we don’t understand. A man may be under obligation to understand what he doesn’t understand; in other words, it may be his duty to seek and understand the truth. But his obligation to believe with his heart does not appear until he understands the things he must believe.

Now, in the light of these rules, let us ask,

1. What is not, and,

2. What is implied in perfect obedience to the law of God, or in entire sanctification.

1. Entire sanctification does not imply any change in the substance of our soul or body. God’s law does not require this; and you wouldn’t have to obey it if it did, because the requirement would not be fair. Entire sanctification is entirely consecrating your powers, as they are, to God. It does not imply any change in your powers, but simply a change in the use of your powers.

2. Entire sanctification does not imply annihilating our natural character traits, such as our natural passion or vigor. There is nothing in the law of God that requires us to annihilate any of our natural traits. God only requires that we should use our character traits properly.

3. Entire sanctification does not imply annihilating any of our natural appetites, or feelings. Some think that our natural appetites and feelings are sinful, and that a state of entire sanctification requires us to completely annihilate our natural appetites and feelings. I have often been astonished at the fact, that those who oppose the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life assume that our physical nature is sinful. I am quite surprised to find that some people, who I thought were not embracing the doctrine of physical depravity, were actually resorting to this assumption to set aside the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life. Nevertheless, let us appeal to the law. Does the law anywhere condemn the nature of man, or require us to annihilate anything that is properly a part of our nature? Does the law require us to annihilate our appetite for food, or is it satisfied if we merely regulate its indulgence? In short, does the law of God anywhere require anything more than consecrating all our appetites and emotions of both our body and mind to the service of God?

Not long ago, I talked with a brother on this subject. He insisted that a man could continually obey God’s law, not commit sin, and still not be entirely sanctified, because he insisted that there might be something within him that could lay the foundation for his sinning at some future time. When I questioned concerning what that something in him was, he replied, “that which first led him to sin at the beginning of his moral existence”. I told him that man’s innocent nature first leads him to sin in the same way as the temptation of Adam’s innocent nature led Adam to sin. Adam’s innocent natural appetites were excited when he was presented with fruit that not only looked delicious but also could give him the knowledge of good and evil. This temptation was enough to lead him to willfully indulge in the pleasure of eating that fruit. This was his sin. Now, this is how every human being sins. Our physical nature, the substance of our body and soul, certainly can’t have any moral character. But when our appetites that are essential to our nature, are excited, although they have no moral character all by themselves, they lead to prohibited indulgence, and this is how every human being is led into sin. Now if a man can’t be entirely sanctified until that nature that first occasioned his sin is annihilated, he can’t be entirely sanctified as long as he has his body or his soul. Therefore, I insist that entire sanctification does not imply annihilating any natural appetite or emotion, but entire sanctification is only the complete consecration of our whole nature, as it is, to the service of God.

4. Entire sanctification does not imply that we annihilate our natural affection or resentment. By this, I mean that certain persons may be naturally pleasing to us. Christ appears to have had a natural affection for John. By natural resentment I mean, that, from the laws of our being, we will naturally oppose injustice or ill treatment. However, a desire to retaliate or to get revenge is inconsistent with the law of God. Perfect obedience to the law of God does not imply that we should not feel injured or unjustly treated when someone abuses us. God feels this, and He should feel it, and so should every moral being. To love your neighbor as yourself does not imply that if he injures you, you don’t feel the injury or injustice, but that you love him and want to do him good, in spite of his damaging treatment.

5. Entire sanctification does not imply any degree of unhealthy mental excitement. Rule 13 lays down the principle that the interpretation of moral laws must be consistent with physical laws. God’s laws certainly don’t clash with each other. And the moral law cannot require such a state of constant mental excitement that it will damage our physical nature. It cannot require any more mental excitement and action than is consistent with all the laws, all the attributes, and the circumstances of both our soul and body, as stated in rule 14.

6. Entire sanctification does not imply that any organ or faculty must be stressed to its maximum all the time. This would soon exhaust, damage, and could destroy any and every organ of our body. Whatever may be true of our mind once it is separated from our body, it is certain that, as long as it acts through a physical organ, a constant state of excitement is impossible. When our mind is strongly excited, there must be a great increase of blood flowing to our brain. A high degree of excitement cannot continue for a long time without wearing us out physically. It could even produce inflammation of the brain, or lead to insanity. And the law of God does not require any degree of emotion, or mental excitement, that is inconsistent with our life and health. Our Lord Jesus Christ was not in a state of constant excitement. When He and His disciples had gone through a period of great emotional excitement, they would turn aside “and rest awhile”. (Mark 6:3, 14:41)

Anyone, who has seriously thought about this subject knows, that the high degree of excitement that we sometimes see in religious revivals has to be short, or the people may become deranged. Sometimes a high degree of excitement must prevail for a while, to attract public and individual attention, and to draw people away from other pursuits to attend to the concerns of their souls. However, if anyone believes that this high degree of excitement is either necessary, or desirable, or possible, over a long period, he hasn’t thoroughly considered the matter. The church has made a tremendous mistake here. They think a revival consists mostly in this state of excited emotion, rather than in conforming the human will to God’s will. Hence, when the reasons for all the excitement ceases, and the public mind begins to calm down, they quickly claim that the revival is declining; when, in fact, with much less excited emotion, there may be vastly more real religion in the community.

Excitement is often important and indispensable. But the vigorous acts of the will are infinitely more important, and this state of mind may exist in the absence of highly excited emotions.

7. Nor does sanctification imply that the same degree of emotion, will power, or intellectual effort, is required all the time. Conscious decisions don’t need to have the same strength. They can’t have the same strength because they are not produced by equally powerful reasons. Should a man exercise as much will power to pick up an apple, as to extinguish the flames of a burning house? Should a mother, watching over her sleeping baby, when all is quiet and secure, exercise the same amount of will power that would be needed to snatch her baby from devouring flames? Now, suppose that she was equally devoted to God in watching her sleeping baby, and in rescuing it from the jaws of death. Her holiness would not consist in the fact that she exercised equally strong decisions in both cases, but that, in both cases, her will power was enough to accomplish what had to be done. Therefore, people can be completely holy, even though the strength of their affections may continually vary according to their circumstances, their physical condition, and their occupation.

We must place all the powers of our body and mind at the service and disposal of God. Our nature and circumstances require us to expend only the amount of physical, intellectual, and moral energy that we need to perform our duty. And nothing is further from the truth, than that the law of God requires a constant, intense state of emotion and mental action on any and every subject alike.

8. Entire sanctification does not imply that God must always be the direct object of our attention and affection. This is not only naturally impossible, but it would make it impossible for us to think of or love our neighbor or ourselves. (See Rule 9)

The law of God requires the supreme love of our heart. By this, I mean that our mind’s supreme preference should be God. God should be the great object of our supreme love and delight. But this state of mind is perfectly consistent with our engaging in any necessary activities, giving proper attention to our affairs, and exercising all those affections and emotions that these daily activities demand.

If someone loves God supremely, and engages in any business to promote His glory, if his eye is single, his affections and conduct are completely holy even if his thoughts or affections are not focused on God because he busy conducting his business.

A man, who is supremely devoted to his family, may act consistently with his supreme affection, and provide them his most important and perfect service, although he doesn’t think about them at all. As I tried to show in my lecture on the passage, “Make to yourselves a new heart, and a new spirit”, (Ezekiel 18:31. See, “Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts” and “How to Change Your Heart: These are the first two Messages in the series “Sermons on Important Subjects – 1836”.) I consider the moral heart to be the most important thing that lies at the very center of, our mind. As I mentioned in the first lecture, the natural or fleshy heart is the seat of our physical body, and pumps our blood throughout our bodies. Now there is a remarkable analogy between our physical heart and our moral heart. As our natural heart pumps life through our physical bodies; so our moral heart, or the supreme governing preference of our mind, is that which gives life and character to our moral actions. For example, suppose that I am a math teacher. Now, as a math teacher, my supreme desire is to glorify God in this particular calling. Now in demonstrating some of its intricate propositions, I must focus my entire attention to that object, perhaps for hours. Now, as long as my mind is intensely focused on that math problem, it is impossible that I can directly think about God, or exercise any direct affections, emotions, or conscious decisions towards Him. Yet, if, in my particular calling, I exclude all selfishness, and my supreme purpose is to glorify God, my mind is in a sanctified state, even though, for the time being, I don’t think about God.

Please understand that as long as the supreme preference of our mind has the efficiency to exclude all selfishness and to call forth the right amount of conscious decision, thought, affection, and emotion that is required to properly perform any duty, our heart is in a sanctified state. By a right amount of thought and feeling to properly perform our duty, I mean the right intensity of thought and energy of action, that the nature and importance of our particular duty demands.

When I say these things, I take it for granted, that our brain, together with all the circumstances of our nature are such, that the required amount of thought, feeling, and so forth, are possible. If we are so physically exhausted that we can’t exert what the nature of the subject demands, even in this situation, our languid efforts, even though they are far below the importance of the subject, would be all that the law of God requires. Therefore, whoever believes that a state of entire sanctification implies removing from the mind everything but God, labors under a serious error. Such a state of mind not only is inconsistent with our duty; it is also impossible as long as we are in the flesh.

The fact is, the wording and the spirit of the law have been, and generally are, grossly misunderstood. They are interpreted to mean things that God never intended. Many of these meanings are not consistent with natural justice. Many people have been thrown open to the assaults of Satan, and kept in a state of continuous bondage and condemnation, because God was not the direct object of their thought, affection, and emotions all of the time. They constantly felt condemned because they couldn’t keep their mind in a state of the highest tension possible and stressed to its limit at every moment.

9. Sanctification does not imply that your mind or emotions are always calm. Christ was not always emotionally calm. The deep peace of His mind was never broken up, but there were times when His emotions became quite excited. The life of Christ, as recorded in the gospels, illustrates all the statements I’ve already made. For example, Christ had all the natural appetites and feelings of human nature. If He didn’t, He could not have been “tempted in all points as we are” (Hebrews 4:15); nor could He have been tempted in any point as we are, if He didn’t possess a nature similar to our own. Christ also had a natural affection for His mother, and for other friends. He also showed that He had a sense of injury and injustice, and displayed a suitable resentment when He was injured and persecuted. He was not always in a state of great excitement. He appears to have had times of excitement and calm, times of labor and rest, and times of joy and sorrow just like other good men. Some people say that entire sanctification implies a state of uniform and universal calmness. They talk as if every kind and degree of excited feeling, except feelings of love to God, are inconsistent with this state. But Christ often displayed a high degree of excitement when reproving the enemies of God. In short, His life leads us to conclude that His calmness and excitement varied depending on His situation. And although He was sometimes so pointed and severe in His reproof, that many accused Him of being possessed by a devil, yet His emotions and feelings were only those that were needed and suited for the occasion.

10. Entire sanctification does not imply a continually sweet state of mind without any indignation or holy anger at sin or sinners. Anger at sin is only a modification of love. A desire for justice, or a desire to see the wicked punished for the benefit of the government, is only one of the many modifications of love. Such feelings are essential to the existence of love, whenever the circumstances call for them. Christ became angry with the moneychangers in the temple. (See Matt 21:12) He often displayed anger and holy indignation. “God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day.” (Psalms 7:11) Holiness, or a state of sanctification, instead of being inconsistent with anger, always implies the existence of anger, whenever circumstances occur that demand its exercise. (See Rule 10)

11. Sanctification does not imply a state of mind that is all compassion, and no feeling of justice. Compassion is only one of the modifications of love. Justice, or a desire to execute the law and punish sin, is another modification of love. God, Christ, and all holy beings, exercise all those affections and emotions that constitute the different modifications of love, under every possible circumstance.

12. Entire sanctification does not imply that we should love or hate all men alike, irrespective of their value, circumstances, and relations. One person may have a greater capacity for happiness, and be more important to the universe than another. Impartiality and the law of love do not require us to regard all beings and things alike. However, we should regard all beings and things according to their nature, relations, and circumstances.

13. Nor does sanctification imply a perfect knowledge of all our relationships (See rule 7). Now, if you believe that sanctification requires perfect knowledge of all our relationships then, in order to obey, you would have to understand all your relationships. However, in order to do this, you would have to be omniscient, because there isn’t one thing in the universe that is not related to us in some way. Knowledge of all these relations clearly implies infinite knowledge. It is clear that the law of God can’t require this; and therefore, entire sanctification or entire obedience to the law of God implies no such thing.

14. Entire sanctification does not imply perfect knowledge on any subject. Perfect knowledge on any subject, implies a perfect knowledge of its nature, relations, bearings and tendencies. Now since everything in the universe has some relation and some bearing on every other thing, there can be no such thing as perfect knowledge on any subject. That would require universal or infinite knowledge.

15. Entire sanctification does not imply freedom from error on any subject whatever. Some maintain that the grace of the gospel pledges to every man perfect knowledge, or at least enough knowledge to exempt him from error. I can’t stop here to debate this question, but I will merely say the law does not require infallible judgment. It only requires us to make the best use of the light we have.

16.Entire sanctification does not imply knowing the exact relative value of different interests. I have already said in rule 7, that the second commandment, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” does not imply that we should always understand the relative value and importance of every interest. This clearly can’t be required, unless it is assumed that we are omniscient.

17. Sanctification does not imply the same degree of knowledge that we could have possessed, if we had made better use of our time acquiring that knowledge. The law can’t require us to love God or man as well as we might have been able to love them if we obtained all the knowledge that we have about them sooner. If the law requires this, not one saint on earth or in heaven can ever be perfect. What is lost in this respect is lost, and we will never be able to make up what we have lost by atoning for our past neglect. No doubt, it will be true throughout eternity, that we will have less knowledge than we might have possessed, if we had spent all of our time acquiring knowledge. We don’t, we can’t, nor will we ever be able to love God as well as we could have loved Him, if we had always applied our minds to acquire knowledge concerning Him. And if we think entire sanctification implies that we love God as much as we should if we had all the knowledge we might have had, then I repeat, there is not one saint on earth, or in heaven, that is, or ever will be, entirely sanctified.

18. Sanctification does not imply the same amount of service that we could have rendered if we never sinned. The law of God does not imply or suppose that our powers are in a perfect state; that our mental or physical strength is what it would have been if we never sinned. But, the law simply requires us to use what strength we have. The very wording of the law is conclusive proof that it extends its demands only to the amount of strength we have. This is true of every moral being, no matter how great or small.

19. Entire sanctification does not require the same degree of love that we could have rendered if it is wasn’t for our ignorance. Since we certainly know much less about God, we are much less capable of loving Him. In other words, we are capable of loving Him with a less amount, and to a lesser degree than if we knew more about Him, which we might have done if it wasn’t for our sins. And as I have said before, this will be true throughout eternity. We can never make amends for this by any future obedience any more than we can make amends for other sins. Throughout eternity, it will remain true that we will know less about God, and love Him less than we might and should have done, if we had always done our duty. Therefore, if entire sanctification implies the same degree of love or service we could have rendered if we had developed our powers by using them perfectly, then not one saint on earth or in heaven is, or ever will be, in that state. Perfect development and improvement of our powers must depend on the perfect use of them. Every departure from their perfect use, diminishes their highest development, and curtails their capabilities to serve God in the highest and best manner. All sin cripples and curtails the powers of body and mind, and makes them incapable of performing the service they could otherwise have rendered.

Some object to this view, saying that Christ taught an opposite doctrine. In the case of the woman who washed His feet with her tears, He said, “To whom much is forgiven, the same loves much”. (Luke 7:44-47) But, did Christ intend to say that the more we sin the greater will be our love and our ultimate virtue? If this is true, I don’t see why it does not follow that the more we sin in this life, the better, if we are forgiven. If our virtue really improves by sinning, wouldn’t it be good economy for both God and man, to sin as much as we can while we are in this world. Certainly, Christ did not mean any such thing. All Christ meant to teach was that a person, who truly sensed the greatness of his sins, would exercise more love and gratitude than would be exercised by one who did not have this feeling of ill desert.

20. Entire sanctification does not imply the same degree of faith that we could have exercised if it wasn’t for our ignorance and past sin.

We can’t believe anything about God without evidence or knowledge. Therefore, our faith must be limited by our intellectual perceptions of truth. The heathen are not under obligation to believe in Christ, and thousands of other things that they know nothing about. Perfection in a heathen implies much less faith than in a Christian. Perfection in an adult would imply more and greater faith than in an infant. And perfection in an angel would imply much greater faith than in a man, because an angel knows much more about God than we do. Please understand that sanctification never implies anything that is naturally impossible. It is certainly naturally impossible for us to believe something that we don’t know anything about. In this respect, entire sanctification implies nothing more than our heart’s faith or confidence in all the truth that our mind perceives.

21. Sanctification does not imply the conversion of all men in answer to our prayers. Some maintain that a state of entire sanctification implies the offering of prevailing prayer for the conversion of all men. To this I reply,

(1.) Then Christ was not sanctified; for He offered no such prayer.

(2.) The law of God neither expresses nor implies such a demand.

(3.) We have no right to believe that all men will be converted in answer to our prayers, unless we have an express promise to that effect.

(4.) Because there is no such promise, we are under no obligation to offer such a prayer. Nor does the non-conversion of the world imply that there are no sanctified saints in the world.

22. Sanctification does not imply the conversion of any one for whom there is not an express or implied promise in the word of God. The fact that Judas was not converted in answer to Christ’s prayers does not prove that Christ was not in a state of entire sanctification.

23. Nor does sanctification imply that God will grant all those things that He promises, in answer to our prayers, if we are ignorant of the existence or application of those promises. A state of perfect love, implies doing everything God requires us to do. Strictly speaking, nothing can be required if we don’t know about it. Therefore, it can’t be our duty to believe a promise that we don’t know about, or understand its application.

If there is sin in this kind of situation, it lies in the ignorance itself. Often sin occurs because we willfully neglect to learn the truth. But, the sin lies in the willful ignorance, and not in neglecting to do something that we don’t know. A state of sanctification is inconsistent with any willful neglect to know the truth; for such neglect is sin. But sanctification is consistent with our failing to do something we have no knowledge of. James says: “He that knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin”. (James 4:17) “If you were blind”, says Christ, “you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see’. Therefore your sin remains”. (John 9:41)

24. Entire sanctification does not imply that future sin is impossible. Entire and permanent sanctification does imply that the sanctified soul will not sin. But, the only reason why he will not sin is because of the sovereign grace of God. Sanctification does not imply any change in the nature of the subject that makes it impossible or improbable that he will sin again. In fact, I don’t think there’s a man on earth, or perhaps in heaven, who would not fall into sin if it weren’t for the supporting grace of God.

25. Total sanctification does not mean that we no longer need to watch and pray. It is totally absurd to think that, either in this life or the next, we won’t need faith; or that we won’t need to be watchful against temptation. As long as we have feelings and emotions, temptation, in some sense and to some extent, must exist in whatever world we live. Christ clearly struggled hard with temptation. He found watchfulness, and strong opposition to temptation, indispensable to His perseverance in holiness. Is the servant above his master, or the disciple above his Lord? (See Matt 10:24)

Nor does sanctification imply that we no longer depend on the grace of Christ. In fact, the exact opposite is implied. A state of entire and permanent sanctification implies the most constant and perfect dependence on the grace and strength of an indwelling Christ. Some believe that entire sanctification implies that something happens that changes the nature of the sanctified soul, so that after he is sanctified, he will persevere in holiness in his own strength. This is as far as possible from the truth. No change whatever occurs in the nature of the individual. All that happens is that the individual simply learns to confide in Christ at every step. He receives Christ’s strength to constantly depend on the supporting grace of his Lord.

27. Sanctification does not imply that Christian warfare ends. Christian warfare consists in our mind’s battle with temptation. This certainly will never end in this life.

28. Nor does sanctification imply that there is no more growth in grace. Many think that the command to “grow in grace”, implies gradually giving up sin. They think that when people stop sinning, there won’t be any more room for them to grow in grace. Now, the Bible says that Christ grew in grace. “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor (kariti, grace) with God and men.” (Luke 2:52) The word “favor” in this passage is the same Greek word that is used for “grace” throughout the New Testament. For example: “being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”. (Romans 3:24) If growth in grace implies gradually giving up sin, then God has commanded men not to give up their sins at once. They must give them up gradually. The truth is that growth in grace implies relinquishing sin from the beginning. To grow in grace is to grow in the favor of God. And what would the Apostle Paul say, if he knew that the orthodox Church believes that the requirement to grow in grace simply means that they must gradually relinquish their sins? I believe that saints will continue to grow in grace and in the knowledge of God throughout eternity. But, this does not imply that they are not entirely holy when they enter heaven, or before.

29. Sanctification does not imply that others will recognize it as true sanctification. The way the Church today regards total sanctification; it is impossible that they would acknowledge a truly sanctified soul. And with the current views of the Church, there is no doubt that sanctified believers would be put down and denounced by the majority of Christians as possessing a spirit of pride or righteousness.

The Jews insisted and believed that Jesus Christ was possessed by a wicked, instead of a holy spirit. Their concept of holiness was so far off base, that they believed a spirit, other than the Spirit of God, motivated Christ. They believed this, particularly because of His opposition to the current orthodoxy of religion and the ungodliness of the religious teachers of that day. Now, who does not see that because the Church has conformed to the world in so many ways, that a spirit of holiness in anyone would certainly lead the Church to aim their sharpest rebukes at the spirit and life of those in this state, whether in high or low places. And, who does not see that this would naturally result in God’s sanctified saints being accused of possessing a wicked spirit?

The most violent opposition that I have ever seen manifested to anyone in my life was manifested by members of the Church, and even by some ministers of the gospel, towards those whom I believe were among the most godly people I ever knew. I have been shocked, and wounded beyond expression, at witnessing the almost fiendish opposition to such people. Recently I have noticed several times, that writers in newspapers called for examples of Christian perfection or entire sanctification. Now, I would humbly ask, what good would it do to point the Church to examples, if they don’t know what is, and what is not implied in a state of entire sanctification? I would ask, does the Church even agree among themselves as to what constitutes this state? Do ministers agree among themselves as to what is implied in a state of entire sanctification? Everybody knows that the Church and the ministry are practically in the dark concerning the doctrine of sanctification. Why then, call for examples? No man can be totally sanctified without being put down as a hypocrite and a self-deceiver.

30. Entire sanctification does not imply that the sanctified soul will always be sure that his feelings and conduct are perfectly right. Situations may occur when we may not know what we are supposed to do. We may be at a loss, without examining, reflecting, and praying, to know whether, in a particular situation, we have done and felt exactly right. If we were sure that we understood the exact application of the law of God to our particular situation, our conscience would quickly inform us whether we conform to that rule. But, in any and every situation where we do not have a clear understanding of the rule, it may require time, thought, and prayer; and we may be required to diligently inquire to satisfy our mind concerning the exact moral quality of any particular act or state of feeling. For example, a person may feel angry at seeing sin. He may question whether his anger, in kind or degree, was not sinful. Therefore, it may require self-examination and deep searching of heart to decide this question. We know that not all anger is sinful. We also know that a certain kind and degree of anger at sin is required. But, our most holy exercises may expose us to the assaults of Satan. And he may so accuse us, that for a while, it becomes difficult for us to determine the real state of our hearts. Thus, a sanctified soul may be “grieved by various trials”. (1 Peter 1:6)

31. Sanctification does not imply the same strength of holy affection that Adam may have exercised before he fell and his powers were weakened by sin. Our mind, in our state of existence, depends on our brain and our physical system to develop. For Adam and his descendants right down to us, violating the physical laws of our body easily results in the weakening and imperfection of some organ or system of organs. This must impair the vigor of our mind, and prevent it from developing properly. Therefore, you can’t say that we are or can be, in this state of existence, as perfect as we might have been if sin never entered into the world, and had there been no such thing as a violation of the laws of our physical nature. The law of God requires only the entire consecration of the powers we have. As these powers improve, our obligation increases, and they will continue to grow throughout eternity.

I believe that human nature is capable of very nearly, if not completely, recovering from the evils of intemperance, by a right understanding of, and an adherence to the laws of life and health. So that, after a few generations, the human body would nearly, if not completely, be restored to its primitive physical perfection. If this is true, the time may come when obedience to the law of God, will imply as great a strength and constancy of affection as Adam was capable of exercising before the fall. But, if on the other hand, it is true that any injury to the physical nature can never be completely repaired; then the evils of sin concerning its effect on the body will, to some degree, descend with men to the end of time. Therefore, a state of entire sanctification cannot imply that we possess the same strength and permanency of holy affection in us that Adam might have exercised before the fall.

32. Sanctification does not imply the formation of holy habits that will secure obedience. Some have said that it is absurd to say that entire sanctification is possible because it implies not only obedience to the law of God, but such a formation and perfection of holy habits that it becomes certain that we will never again sin. They claim that one can no more tell when he is entirely sanctified, than he can tell how many holy acts it will take to form holy habits of such strength that he knows he will never sin again? To this I answer,

(1.) The law of God has nothing to do with requiring the formation of holy habits. The law of God is satisfied with present obedience. It only demands that we fully devote all our powers to God right now. God’s law never complains that we have not formed such holy habits that we know we won’t sin any more.

(2.) If it is true that a person is never wholly sanctified until his holy habits are so fixed that he will never sin again, then Adam was not in a state of entire sanctification before he fell, nor were the angels in this state before they fell.

(3.) If this opinion is true, not one saint, nor one angel in heaven, as far as we can know, can honestly say they are totally sanctified. How do they know that they have performed so many holy acts that they have created such habits of holiness that they know they will never sin again?

(4.) Entire sanctification does not consist in forming holy habits; it does not depend on this at all. Both entire and permanent sanctification are based on the grace of God in Jesus Christ. And we are to assign perseverance in holiness only to the influence of the indwelling Spirit of Christ, instead of being secured by any habits of holiness that we have or ever will form.

33. Entire sanctification does not imply exemption from sorrow or mental suffering.

Christ wasn’t exempt from sorrow. Nor is sanctification inconsistent with being sorry for our own past sins, and sorry that we don’t have the health, vigor, knowledge, and love, that we might have had, if we had sinned less. Sanctification is consistent with sorrow for those around us; sorrow in view of human sinfulness or suffering. These are all consistent with a state of entire sanctification, and indeed are the natural results of it.

34. Entire sanctification is consistent with living in human society, with mingling in the events, and engaging in the affairs of this world. Some think that to be holy we must withdraw from the world. As a result, we have the absurd and ridiculous notions of papists who retire to monasteries and convents, and live a life of devotion. I believe that this state of voluntary exclusion from human society is inconsistent with any degree of holiness, and a clear violation of the law of love to our neighbor.

35. Entire sanctification does not imply being gloomy all the time. Nothing is farther from the truth than this. It is said about Xavier, besides whom, perhaps, few holier men have ever lived, that “he was so cheerful he was often accused of being lightheaded”. Cheerfulness is certainly the result of holy affections; and sanctification no more implies being gloomy in this world than it does in heaven.

I have said these things, and given these rules of interpretation so that you can apply this principle to many things I didn’t have the time to notice. However, before I proceed to the next topic of this discussion next time, I want to make the following remark.

After everything I have seen on this subject, it seems like everyone admits that the law of God is the standard of perfection. Yet, when they define what constitutes Christian perfection or entire sanctification, people completely lose sight of this standard. They seldom or never raise the clear question: “what does obedience to this law imply, and what does it not imply”? Instead of bringing everything to this test, they seem to lose sight of it. On one hand, many add things that never were required by the law of God. Thus, they lay an obstacle and a snare for the saints, to keep them in perpetual bondage, believing that the way to keep them humble is to place the standard totally above their reach. On the other hand, others abolish the law, so that it is no longer binding. Or, some do away with what the law implies, so that nothing is left of its requirements but a kind of sickly, whimsical, inefficient emotional substitute, which in its manifestations and results, appears to me to be anything else than what the law of God requires.