The Oberlin Evangelist

Lecture III.

January 29, 1840

SANCTIFICATION -- No. 3

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)

We have now arrived at a very important point in discussing this subject, and I beg your patient attention. Having shown,

I. What I meant by the word sanctification;

2. What entire sanctification is;

3. The difference between entire and permanent sanctification;

4. What is not implied, and

5. What is implied in entire sanctification.

Next, I will now show,

VI. That entire sanctification is attainable in this life.

1. It is self-evident that entire obedience to God’s law is possible on the ground of natural ability. To deny this is to deny that a person is able to do as well as he can. The very language of the law is such that it levels its claims to the ability of the subject, no matter how great or small that ability may be. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” (Luke 10:17) Here we learn that the law only demands the exercise of whatever strength we have in the service of God. Now, since entire sanctification consists in perfect obedience to the law of God, and since the law requires nothing more than the right use of whatever strength we have, then a state of entire and permanent sanctification is attainable in this life on the ground of natural ability.

2. The provisions of grace are such that it makes it reasonable to pursue entire obedience in this life. We know that the entire and permanent sanctification of the church must be accomplished. (Ephesians 4:11-13) We also know that this work must be accomplished “through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth”. (2 Thess 2:13) We also know that this work begins here, and it must be completed before our soul can enter heaven. Then the question is; is this state attainable before death; and if so when, in this life, can we expect to attain sanctification? We can settle this question by referring to the word of God. And here it is fundamentally important that we understand the rules by which we interpret scripture declarations and promises. So here are some common sense rules that we can use to interpret the promises. Using the proper rules of biblical interpretation is fundamental to all religious questions. Until the church agrees to interpret the scriptures according to certain fixed and undeniable principles, they can never agree to what the Bible teaches. I have often been amazed at the total disregard of all sober rules of Biblical interpretation. On the one hand, the threat of the law is ignored, and on the other hand, the promises are either thrown away or made to mean something completely different from what the Spirit of God intended. I have a lot to say on this subject, and plan, Lord willing, to make the rules of biblical interpretation a subject of study sometime. For now, I will only mention a few plain, common sense, and self-evident rules to interpret the promises. In light of these, we can settle the question before us; which is whether the provisions of grace are such that they make entire and permanent sanctification in this life, an object of reasonable pursuit.

(1.) The language of a promise must be interpreted with reference to the known character of the one who makes the promises, where this character is revealed and made known in other ways than by the promise itself. For example,

(a) If the one who makes the promise is very generous, or if he is stingy, we should consider this when we interpret the language of his promise. If he is very generous, we can expect him to mean all that he seems to mean in the language of his promise, and we should put a very liberal interpretation on his words. But if we know he is stingy, and that whatever he promises would be given with great reluctance, his words should be strictly interpreted.

(b) If the one who makes the promise tends to exaggerate for emphasis when he speaks, that should be taken into account when interpreting his promises. If we clearly understand that the promisor is in the habit of using extravagant language, to say much more than he means, we should consider this when interpreting the language of his promises. On the other hand, if he is known to speak frankly and sincerely, and he carefully and properly chooses his words; we can be sure that he means exactly what he says. His promise may be in figurative language, which we should not interpret literally, but even in this case, we must understand him to mean what the analogy naturally and fully implies.

(c) Another fact we should take into account is whether he made the promise deliberately or under circumstances of great but temporary excitement. If he deliberately made the promise, we should interpret it to mean what it says. But, if it were made under great but temporary excitement, we should make allowance for the state of mind that led to his use of such strong language.

(2.) The relationship of the parties to each other should be carefully considered when you interpret the language of a promise. For example, the promise of a father to a son allows for a more liberal and full interpretation than if he made the promise to a stranger, since the father may have a more liberal and bountiful disposition towards his son than towards someone he has no particular interest in.

(3.) We should take into account the purpose of the one who makes the promise, concerning the needs of the person he makes his promise to. If it is clear that the purpose of the promisor was to meet the needs of the promisee, then we must understand that his promise meets these needs.

(4.) If it is clear that the purpose of the promisor was to meet the needs of the promisee, then the extent of these needs should be taken into consideration when we interpret this promise.

(5.) The interest of the promisor to accomplish his purpose, or in fully meeting and relieving the needs of the promisee, should be taken into account. If there is the most satisfactory proof, besides the promise itself, that the promisor has the highest interest in the promisee and in fully meeting and relieving his needs, then we must understand his promise accordingly.

(6.) Let’s say that we know the promisor has exercised the greatest self-denial and made the greatest sacrifice for the promisee. In order to make it proper or possible for him to make and fulfill his promises, we should fully recognize his state of mind, implied in his conduct, when we interpret the language of the promise. It would be completely unreasonable and absurd to restrict and tone down the language of his promise until it falls completely short of what we might reasonably expect from the promisor. It would be unfair to ignore the great self-denial he has exercised and the sacrifices he has made.

(7.) We should take into account the bearing the promise has on the interests of the promisor. It is a general and correct rule of interpretation, that when something promised has an injurious bearing on the interest of the promisor and it is something that he cannot well afford to do; we can suppose that the promise was made somewhat reluctantly. In that situation, the language should be interpreted accordingly. You should not understand anything more by it than the strictest construction will demand.

(8.) If the thing promised will not hamper the interests of the promisor, no such construction should be resorted to.

(9.) Perhaps the promisor has the greatest delight in doing or bestowing the thing promised. Perhaps he considers it “more blessed to give than to receive”. Perhaps these, and other revelations of his character, and his own expressed and often repeated declarations, reveal that he has the highest satisfaction and finds his own happiness in bestowing favors on the promisee. In this situation, the most liberal construction should be put on the promise, and we should understand that the promisor means all that he says.

(10.)We must consider the resources and the ability that the promisor has to meet the needs of the promisee, without hurting himself. If a physician promises to restore a patient to perfect health, it might be unfair to understand that he means exactly what he says. If he helped the patient recover from his disease, you could reasonably assume that this was all he really meant, since the known inability of a physician to restore an individual to perfect health might reasonably modify your understanding of the language of his promise. But when there can be no doubt as to the ability, resources, and willingness of the physician to restore his patient to perfect health, then we are, in all reason and justice, required to believe he means all that he says. If God should promise to restore a man to perfect health who was diseased, there we cannot doubt that we should understand that His promise means exactly what it says.

(11.) When one person gives commands and promises to another person using the same words, in both situations we should understand that they mean the same thing, unless there is some clear reason to the contrary.

(12.) If the wording, context, or circumstances don’t demand a different interpretation, we must understand that the wording means the same in both situations.

(13.) We must interpret the language of law so that it is naturally just. We must interpret the language of the promises to make it consistent with the known greatness, resources, goodness, bountifulness, relations, purpose, happiness, and glory of the one who makes those promises.

(14.) If his bountifulness is equal to his justice, his promises of grace must be understood to mean as much as the requirements of his justice.

(15.) If he delights in giving as much as in receiving, his promises must mean as much as his requirements.

(16.) If he is as merciful as he is just, we must interpret his promises of mercy as liberally the requirements of his justice.

(17.) If “he delights in mercy”, if he says “judgment is his strange work”, and mercy is that in which he has special satisfaction, his promises of grace and mercy must be interpreted even more liberally than the command and threats of his justice. We should understand his words, in this situation, as meaning just as much as the same words would in any circumstances.

(18.) Another rule of interpreting and applying the promises that has been extensively overlooked is this: the promises are all “yes and amen in Christ Jesus”. All the promises are based on the great and immutable principles of God’s government. God is no respecter of persons. He knows nothing of favoritism. But, when God makes a promise, He reveals a principle that universally applies to all persons in similar circumstances. Therefore, the application of the promises are not restricted to the individuals they were first given to, but can be claimed by all persons in similar circumstances. What God is at one time, He always is. What He has promised at one time or to one person, he promises at all times to all people under similar circumstances. That this is the correct view of the subject is clear from the way that the New Testament writers understood and applied the promises of the Old Testament. Let anyone, with a reference Bible, read the New Testament to understand how its writers applied the promises of the Old Testament, and he will see this principle brought out in all its fullness. Read the promises made to Adam, Noah, Abraham, the Patriarchs, and to the inspired men of every age, together with the promises made to the church, and especially all the promises of spiritual blessings. You will find that what God has said and promised once, He always says and promises, to all persons and at all times, and in all places, where the circumstances are similar.

3. Now that I have stated these rules, I will say a few words concerning when a promise becomes due, and on what conditions we may realize the fulfillment of a promise.

(1.) The promises of sanctification in the Bible imply the exercise of our own free will in receiving the thing promised. Since sanctification consists in the right exercise of our own free will, or in obedience to the law of God, a promise of sanctification must be conditioned on exercising faith in the promise. And its fulfillment implies the exercise of our own powers in receiving it.

(2.) In order for a promise of sanctification to do us any good, it must be due at some certain time that is either expressed or implied in the promise. Because, if the fulfillment of the promise implies that we exercise our own free will, the promise is worthless to us, unless we can understand when it becomes due, or at what time we can expect and plead its fulfillment.

(3.) A promise in the present tense is on demand. In other words, it is always due, and we may claim its fulfillment at any time.

(4.) A promise due at a future specified time is on demand after the time of fulfillment, and we may claim it at any time after that.

(5.) A great many of the Old Testament promises became due when Christ came. Since that time, we can plead them as promises in the present tense. The Old Testament saints could not plead their fulfillment; because they were told that, they would not be fulfilled until the coming of the Messiah. Therefore, all those promises that became due “in the last days”, “at the end of the world”, that is, at the end of the Jewish dispensation, we must regard as now due or as promises in the present tense.

(6.) Although these promises are now due, they are conditioned on the exercise of faith and the right use of the appropriate means by us, to receive their fulfillment.

(7.) When a promise is due, we may expect the fulfillment of it immediately or gradually, according to the nature of the blessing. The promise that the world will be converted in the latter day, does not imply that we should expect the world to be converted at any one moment of time; but that the Lord will begin it, and hasten it in its time, according to the faith and efforts of the church. On the other hand, when God can fulfill the blessing promised immediately, and when the situation makes it necessary that He should fulfill it immediately, then we can expect its fulfillment whenever we exercise faith.

(8.) There is a clear distinction between promises of grace and promises of glory. Promises of glory will not be fulfilled until we arrive in heaven. Promises of grace apply to this life, unless there is some reason otherwise.

(9.) A promise also may be unconditional in one sense, and conditional in another sense. For example, promises made to the church as a body may be absolute and their fulfillment may be secure and certain, sooner or later, while their fulfillment to any generation of the church or to any particular individuals in the church, may be and must be conditioned on their faith and the appropriate use of the proper means. Thus, the promise of God that the church shall possess the land of Canaan is absolute and unconditional in such a sense that the church, at some period, will certainly take possession of that land. But, the promise is conditional in the sense that any generation that enters in to possess the land must depend entirely on their own faith and the appropriate use of means. So, the promise of the worlds’ conversion, and the sanctification of the church under the reign of Christ, is unconditional in the sense that it is certain that those events will occur some time. However, when they will occur, what generation of individuals shall receive this blessing is conditioned on their faith. This principle is plainly recognized by Paul in Hebrews 4:6, 11: “Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience (unbelief),” “Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall after the same example of disobedience (unbelief).”

Now let us turn to the Bible to answer the following questions. Is entire and permanent sanctification attainable in this life? Would it be worth our while to reasonably pursue permanent sanctification?

What is sanctification? Simple present obedience to the law of God is present sanctification. Continuing obedience to the law is permanent sanctification. The law is, and forever must be, the only standard. Whatever departs from God’s law on either side must be wrong. Whatever requires more or less than the law of God requires, has nothing to do with this question.

I will not examine a lot of scripture promises, but those I read, I will examine and show that they fully support the definition I just gave. One scripture would be sufficient to settle this question forever, if it is full and its application is just. I could give many lectures just examining the promises, for there are lots of them. Many are clear and easy to understand. But, since I have already given several lectures on the promises, my purpose now is to examine only a few of them, more critically than I did before. This will enable you to apply the same principles that I use here to examine other scripture promises.

1. Let me begin by referring you to the law of God, as given in Deuteronomy: “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” (Deut 10:12)

(1.) This passage sums up our duty to God, to fear and love Him with all our heart, and all our soul.

(2.) Although this is spoken to Israel, it is equally true for the whole human race. It is equally binding on everyone, and it is all that God requires of anyone concerning Himself.

(3.) Obedience to this requirement is entire sanctification.

“And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.” (Deut 30:6) Here we have a promise using the same words as the command I just quoted.

(1.) This passage promises just what the law requires. It promises all that the first and great commandment requires.

(2.) Obedience to the first commandment always implies obedience to the second command. It is impossible that we should “love God, whom we have not seen”, and “not love our neighbor whom we have seen”. (See I John 4:20)

(3.) This promise appears to mean exactly what the law means. It promises only what the law requires.

(4.) If the law requires a state of entire sanctification, or if what the law requires is a state of entire sanctification, then this is a promise of entire sanctification.

(5.) Since the command is universally binding on everybody, and applies to everybody, this promise must universally apply to all who will receive it.

(6.) You must have faith to fulfill this promise. It is entirely impossible for us to love God with all our heart, if we don’t have confidence in Him. God produces love in people by so revealing Himself that He inspires confidence; this is that confidence which works by love. In Rules 10 and 11, for interpreting the promises, I said, “where a command and a promise are given using the same words, we must interpret the words the same way in both cases, unless there is a good reason for a different interpretation”. Now here we have no reason why we should not understand that the words of this promise mean the same as the words of this command. This promise appears to have been designed to cover the entire requirement.

(7.) Suppose we used the language in this promise as a command, or suppose that we changed the form of this promise into a command. Suppose God said as He says elsewhere, “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul”; who would doubt that God requires a state of entire sanctification or consecration to Him. How then should we understand it when this is used in the form of a promise? Rule 14: If His bountifulness equals His justice, His promises of grace must mean as much as the requirements of His justice. Rule 15: If He delights in giving as much as in receiving, His promises must mean as much as His requirements.

(8.) This promise is to be fulfilled in this life. The wording and context implies this: “I will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul.”

(9.) This promise is certainly for the Church someday. There will be a time when God will produce this state of mind in the Church. But, to what particular individuals and generation this promise will be fulfilled must depend on their faith in the promise.

2. “Behold, the days are coming”, says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,” says the Lord. “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days”, says the Lord, “I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord’, for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them”, says the Lord. “For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer 31:31-34)

Let me comment on this passage:

(1.) The time that this promise became due, or the time when we may claim and expect its fulfillment, was at the coming of Christ. We discover this in Hebrews 8:8-12, where it says that this promise applies to the gospel day.

(2.) This is undeniably a promise of complete sanctification. It is a promise that the “law shall be written in the heart”. It means that the very state of mind and spirit required by the law will be birthed in the soul. Now, if the law requires entire sanctification or perfect holiness, this is certainly a promise of it; for it is a promise of all that the law requires. To say that this is not a promise of entire sanctification, is just as absurd as saying that perfect obedience to the law is not entire sanctification. And if you say that perfect obedience is not entire sanctification, then you imply that something more is our duty than what the law requires. This would be saying that the law is imperfect and unjust.

(3.) This promise clearly implies a permanent state of sanctification.

(a) The first covenant was set aside because it was broken: “My covenant which they broke”. One important purpose of the New Covenant is that it will not be broken; otherwise, it would be no better than the first.

(b) The fact that God will engrave it in our hearts implies that this promise will be permanent.

(c) The statement that God will remember their sin no more implies that this promise is permanent. In Jer. 32:39, 40, where the same promise is basically repeated, you will find it clearly states that the covenant is to be “everlasting”; and that He will so “put His fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from Him”. The Bible clearly promises that this will be permanent.

(d) Suppose we put the words of this promise into the form of a command. Suppose God says, “Let my law be within your hearts, and let it be in your inward parts, and let my fear be so within your hearts that you shall not depart form me. Let your covenant with me be everlasting”. If this were a command, would any reasonable person doubt that it meant perfect and permanent sanctification? If not, by what rule of sober interpretation would anyone change it to mean something else when it is in the form of a promise? It appears to be tragic to make a promise mean less than it does when we find it in a command. See Rule 17.

(4.) Concerning the Church, this promise, at some time in history, becomes unconditional, and its fulfillment certain. But, concerning particular individuals or generations of the church, its fulfillment must be conditioned on their faith.

(5.) The church, as a body, has never received this new covenant. Yet, multitudes in every age of church history have received it. And God will hasten the time when it will be so fully accomplished, that there will be no need for one man to say to his brother, “Know the Lord, for all shall know Him from the least to the greatest”.

(6.) God made this promise to the Christian church, not to the Jewish church. The saints, under the old dispensation, had no reason to expect this, or other similar promises to be fulfilled, because their fulfillment was deferred until the beginning of the Christian dispensation.

(7.) Some say that God only promises regeneration. But, weren’t the Old Testament saints regenerated? Yet, the Bible clearly says that they did not receive the promises. “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” “And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” (Hebrews 11:13, 39,40) Here we see that the Old Testament saints did not receive these promises. Yet, they were regenerated.

(8.) Some say that the promise implies no more than the final perseverance of the saints. But, didn’t the Old Testament saints persevere? Yet we have just seen, that the Old Testament saints did not receive the fulfillment of these promises.

3. “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.” (Ezek 36:25-27)

Let me comment on this passage.

(1.) This passage was written within nineteen years of the passage we examined in Jeremiah. It clearly refers to the same time and is a promise of the same blessing.

(2.) This is a promise of entire sanctification. The language is very definite and full. “Then”, refers to some future time when it will become due. “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean.” Notice that the first promise is, “you shall be clean”. If to be “clean” does not mean entire sanctification, what does it mean?

The second promise is, “I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols”. If this is not a state of entire sanctification, what is?

The third promise is, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” If to have a “new heart”, or a “heart of flesh”, as opposed to a “heart of stone”, is not entire sanctification, what is?

The fourth promise is, “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them”.

(3.) Let us turn the words of these promises into a command; and understand God as saying, “Make yourselves a clean heart, a new heart, and a new spirit. Put away all your iniquities, all your filthiness, and all your idols. Walk in My statutes, and keep My judgments, and do them”. Now what man in his right mind would doubt that God meant to require a state of entire sanctification in this promise? The rules of legal interpretation demand that we should understand that God requires a state of entire sanctification. Rule 5: “The interest of the promisor to accomplish His plan or to fully meet and relieve the needs of the promisee should also be taken into account. If there is the most satisfactory proof, aside from that which is contained in the promise itself, that the promisor feels the highest interest in the promisee, and desires to meet and relieve his needs, then that promise must be understood accordingly”.

If this is true, how should we use these words when they are found in a promise? It amazes me that anyone should still doubt whether, in these promises, God means as much as in His commands couched in the same words. For example, let’s look at Ezekiel 18:30- 31: “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?” Every sober rule of interpenetration demands that the words in our promise should mean as much as the words of this command. And who can believe, that when God requires His people to put away all their iniquities, He only means that they should put away some of their iniquities?

(4.) This promise concerns the church, and we know that this was never fulfilled anytime during the history of the church.

(5.) Concerning the church, this promise is absolute in the sense that it certainly will be fulfilled sometime in the future.

(6.) The purpose of this promise was to apply to all Christians after the ascension of Christ, rather than to the Jews in the Old Testament. The sprinkling of clean water and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit indicate that the promise is primarily for the Christian age. It is similar to the promises in Jeremiah 31:31-34, Joel 2:28, and many others. All these promises clearly look forward to the gospel day as the time when they shall become due. Since the extent and meaning of these promises have never been fulfilled, their complete fulfillment remains to be realized by the church as a body. And those individuals and that generation, who will possess this blessing, are those who will understand, believe, and appropriate them into their own lives.

4. “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)

(1.) According to Prof. Robinson’s Lexicon, the language used here is the strongest form of expressing perfect or entire sanctification.

(2.) This is a prayer for and a promise of entire sanctification.

(3.) The language shows that both the prayer and the promise refer to this life, since it is a prayer for the sanctification of the body as well as the soul. This passage is also a prayer that they might be preserved, not after, but until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(4.) This is a prayer of inspiration, with a clear promise, that God will do it attached to it.

(5.) This promise must be conditioned on our faith, since sanctification without faith is naturally impossible.

(6.) Now, if this promise, with the others that I have already quoted, does not honestly and fully settle the question that entire sanctification can be attained in this life, it is difficult to understand how anything can be settled by appealing to scripture.

There are many promises just as important, that I could quote and examine in the light of the rules of interpretation. They would heap up example upon example that this is a doctrine of the Bible. Only examine them in the light of these plain, self-evident principles, and it seems to me, that they must produce conviction.

In my next lecture will mention several other considerations that support this doctrine.