The Oberlin Evangelist

LECTURE IV.

February 12, 1840

SANCTIFICATION -- No. 4

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)

Having examined a few of the promises to prove that we can attain a state of entire sanctification in this life, I will now mention some other considerations that support this doctrine.

5. Christ prayed for the entire sanctification of His saints in this life. “I do not pray”, He said, “that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one”. (John 17:15) Jesus did not pray that God should keep them from persecution or from natural death, but He prayed that God should keep them from the evil one (Satan’s power, evil, sin). Suppose Christ commanded them to keep themselves from the evil of the world, what would you think He meant by such a command?

6. Christ taught us to pray for entire sanctification in this life; “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. (Matt 6:10) Now, because there is entire sanctification in heaven, and that is His will, Christ requires us to pray for it on earth. Can Christ teach us to pray for something that He knows He can’t or won’t grant?

7. The Apostles apparently expected Christians to attain this state here on earth. “Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, greets you, always laboring fervently for you in prayers, that you may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.” (Ephesians 4:12)

(1.) The purpose of Epaphras’ labors, what he expected to produce, was to be instrumental in causing those Christians to be “perfect and complete in all the will of God”.

(2.) If this passage does not describe a state of entire sanctification, what passage would? If “to be perfect and complete in all the will of God”, is not Christian perfection, what is?

(3.) Paul knew that Epaphras was laboring for this purpose, and with this expectation; and he informed the church of it in a way that clearly showed that he approved of the views and conduct of Epaphras.

8. That the Apostles expected Christians to attain this state is also seen in 2 Cor. 7:1. “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”

Paul clearly speaks in this passage as if he really expected the Corinthians, “to perfect holiness in the fear of God”. Notice how strong and full the words are, “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit”. If “to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness”, is not entire sanctification, what is? Paul expected this to take place in this life, because he expected them to cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh as well as of the spirit.

9. We can take all the intermediate steps! Therefore, we can reach the end! Certainly, there is no point in our progress towards entire sanctification, where we can’t go any further. Many object, saying, that although we can take all the intermediate steps, we can’t reach the goal in this life because the steps are infinite. You can divide five by three, and you can carry this problem out indefinitely because you will never exhaust the fraction. However, this illustration deceives the mind that uses it, as well as the minds of those who listen to it. It is true that you can never exhaust the fraction when you divide five by three, simply because you can carry out the division indefinitely. But in the case of entire sanctification, all the intermediate steps can be taken; because there is an end, or a state of entire sanctification; that can be reached at a point infinitely short of infinite.

10. The fact that God has made provision against every occasion of sin suggests that we can attain this state in this life. Men sin only when they are tempted. “No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.” (1 Cor 10:13) Certainly, if it is possible for us to escape every temptation without sin, then a state of entire and permanent sanctification is attainable.

11. God has made full provision for us to overcome the three great enemies of our souls; the world, the flesh, and the devil.

(1.) The world: “For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:4-5)

(2.) The flesh: “Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh”. (Gal 5:16)

(3.) Satan: “taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one”. (Eph 6:16) “And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.” (Romans 16:20)

Now all sober rules of Biblical interpretation requires us to understand the passages I have quoted, in the sense I have quoted them.

12. This is clear from the fact that God provides abundant means to accomplish this goal. “(He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head Christ from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.” (Eph. 4:10-16)

(1.) This passage clearly applies to this life. It is in this life that the apostles, evangelists, prophets, and teachers exercise their ministry. As far as we know, this ministry only applies to this life.

(2.) Paul clearly teaches here that these means are designed and adequate to perfect the whole Church as the body of Christ, “till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”.

These means that God uses, that is apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers are for perfecting the saints, until the whole Church, as a perfect man, has come to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. If this is not entire sanctification, what is? That this takes place in this world is clear from what follows. For Paul adds, “that we should no longer”, (that is, after arriving at this perfection) “be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.”

(3.) This is a very strong passage supporting sanctification, since it says that God provides abundant means for the sanctification of the Church in this life. And, since the whole includes all its parts, there must be sufficient provision for sanctifying each individual.

(4.) If we are to achieve sanctification, it is by these means. However, these means are used only in this life. Therefore, entire sanctification must take place in this life.

(5.) If this passage does not teach a state of entire sanctification, such a state can’t be in the Bible. And, if these means can’t sanctify believers in this life, I don’t know where sanctification is taught.

(6.) Suppose we put the words of this passage into the form of a command. How would we understand it? Suppose God commanded the saints to be perfect, and to “grow up to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”, can we understand anything less than entire sanctification by such requirements? Then, by what rule of sober interpretation, can the words used in this passage mean anything less than what I have said?

13. God is able to perform this work in and for us. “For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” (Eph 3:14-19)

(1.) Paul clearly prays here for the entire sanctification of believers in this life. It is implied in our being “rooted and grounded in love”, and being “filled with all the fullness of God”, to be as perfect in our measure and according to our capacity, as He is. If “filled with the fullness of God” does not imply a state of entire sanctification, what does?

(2.) Paul did not see any problems preventing God from accomplishing this work. This is clear from what he says in the 20th verse “Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us”.

14. Nowhere, does the Bible represent death as the termination of sin in the saints, which it would do if death were the only way a saint could be set free from sin. For a long time, a custom in the Church has been to console individuals concerning death, by assuring them that death will be the termination of all their sin. Consoling the friends of a deceased saint by saying that he is now free from sin has become almost a universal custom. Now, if death is the termination of sin in the saints, and if they never stop sinning until they pass into eternity, you could never place too much importance on such a statement. Doesn’t it seem completely incredible that not one inspired writer ever noticed this fact? The Bible even teaches against this idea. The Bible says, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on. ‘Yes’, says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them’.” (Rev 14:13) Here, John does not say one word about rest from their sins, but from their good works in this life; and these works follow them, not to curse but to bless them. The Bible represents death as the termination of the saint’s suffering and labors of love for the good of humanity and the glory of God in this world. But, nowhere does the Bible even hint that the death of a saint is the termination of his serving the devil.

But if it is true that Christians continue to sin until they die, and death is the termination, and the only termination of their sin, it seems impossible that the scripture represents this subject the way it does.

15. The way the Bible represents death is inconsistent with death being an indispensable means of sanctification. The Bible represents death as an enemy. But, if death is the only condition where men are brought into a state of entire sanctification, death would be is as important and as indispensable as the influence of the Holy Ghost. The only time the Bible represents death as anything other than an enemy, is when death cuts short the sufferings of the saints, and introduces them into a state of eternal glory; not because death breaks them off from communion with the devil! How striking is the contrast between the language of the Church and the word of God on this subject! The Church is consoling the Christian in view of death, saying that it will terminate his sins and that he will then no longer serve the devil and his own lusts. The language of inspiration, on the other hand, says that the saint will cease, not from wicked deeds, but from good works, labors, and sufferings for God in this world. The language of the Church is that he will then enter into a life of unalterable holiness; that then, and not until then, will he be entirely sanctified. The language of inspiration is that, because he is sanctified, death shall be an entrance into a state of eternal glory.

16. Ministers certainly must set up some definite standard, to which, as the ministers of God, they must insist that others completely conform to this standard. However, what other standard can they set up other than obedience? To insist on anything less than this, is to turn Pope and grant an indulgence to sin. But, to set up this standard, and then suggest that conforming to this standard is impossible in this life, is taking the side of sin against God, because it insists on repentance in theory, but says that it can’t be done in practice.

Fellow Christian, what do you expect ministers to preach? Do you think they have a right to wink at any sin in you, or to insist on any other fact than that you should abandon every iniquity? Someone said that, with us, entire sanctification is a hobby. But, I would humbly ask, what else can we preach? Shouldn’t every minister insist, in every sermon, that people should wholly obey God? And if they will not compromise with any degree or form of sin, should we reproach them for making the subject of entire obedience so important? I ask, by what authority can a minister preach anything less? And how can any minister dare to present our duty as a theory, and not insist that it is practical and something that every subject of God’s kingdom should expect?

17. Denying this doctrine has the natural tendency to produce the apathy that we see in the Church today. Professing Christians go on in sin with little conviction of its wickedness. Sin unblushingly stalks abroad, even in the Church of God, and it does not fill Christians with horror because they expect sin’s existence as a matter of fact. Tell a young convert that he should expect to backslide, and he will backslide with little remorse, because he looks on it as a kind of necessity. And, because he expects to backslide, you find him, a few months after his conversion, away from God, and not horrified about his condition. In the same way, if you indoctrinate the idea that you don’t expect Christians to abandon all sin, and they will go on sinning with comparative indifference. You reprove them for their sins, and they will say, “Oh we are imperfect creatures; we do not pretend to be perfect, nor do we expect we ever shall be perfect in this world”. Many answers like these will immediately show you the God dishonoring and soul-ruining tendency of denying this doctrine.

18. Denying this doctrine prepares the minds of ministers to compromise and wink at iniquity in their churches. Feeling, as they certainly must if they do not believe this doctrine that believers should expect, in fact, to sin a lot; their preaching, spirit, and demeanor, will be such that these ministers will produce a lot of apathy among Christians concerning their abominable sins.

19. If this doctrine is not true, how profane and blasphemous is the covenant of every church of every evangelical denomination. Every church requires its members to make a solemn covenant with God and with the church, in the presence of God and angels, and with their hands on the emblems of the broken body and shed blood of the blessed Jesus, “to abstain from all ungodliness and every worldly lust, to live soberly and righteously in this present world”. (See Titus 2:9-12) Now if the doctrine of the attainability of entire sanctification in this life is not true, this covenant is a mockery! It is a covenant to live in a state of entire sanctification, made under the most solemn circumstances, enforced by the most awful sanctions, and insisted on by the minister of God standing at the altar. Now, what right does any man have on earth to require less than this?

Again, what right does anyone on earth have to require this unless sanctification is a practical doctrine?

Suppose someone proposes this covenant to a convert about to join a church. He takes it to his closet, spreads it before the Lord, and asks whether it is right for him to make such a covenant, and whether the grace of the gospel can enable him to fulfill it. Do you suppose the Lord Jesus would reply, that if he made that covenant, he certainly would and must habitually violate it as long as he lives; and that God’s grace was not sufficient to enable him to keep it? In this case, would he have any right to accept this covenant? No, no more than he would have a right to lie.

20. Many orthodox theologians maintain that a person is not a Christian if he does not aim at living without sin; that unless he aims at perfection, he clearly consents to live in sin, and is therefore unrepentant. If a man does not, in the fixed purpose of his heart, aim at total abstinence from sin, and at being wholly conformed to the will of God, he is not yet regenerated, and has no intention to refrain from abusing God.

Now if this is true, how can someone aim at and intend to do what he knows is impossible. Isn’t it a contradiction to say that someone can intend to do what he knows he cannot do?

Some object saying, that if this is true, it proves too much; that it would prove that no man ever was a Christian who did not believe in this doctrine. To this I reply:

A man may believe in the attainability of and aim at attaining what is really a state of entire sanctification, although he may not call it by that name. I believe this is true with Christians: and they would attain what they aim at more frequently if they knew how to appropriate the grace of Christ to their own circumstances. For example, Mrs. President Edwards firmly believed that she could attain a state of entire consecration. She aimed at and attained it, and yet her views of physical depravity were such that she did not call her state one of entire sanctification. It has been common for Christians to believe that a state of entire sanctification is attainable; but because they believe in physical depravity, they would call it entire consecration instead. Mrs. Edwards believed in, aimed at, and attained entire consecration. She aimed at what she believed she could attain and nothing more. She called it by the same name that her husband called it; and he was opposed to the doctrine of Christian perfection, as held by the Wesleyan Methodists, mainly because of his concept of physical depravity. I don’t care what you call this state, as long as you fully explain and insist on it, together with the means of attaining it. Call it what you please, Christian perfection, heavenly mindedness, or a state of entire consecration; by all these, I understand the same thing. And it is certain, no matter what you call it; you must aim at it to attain it. You must admit that you can attain it, or you will not even aim for it.

Isn’t preaching anything short of this recognizing and allowing sin?

21. Another argument in favor of entire sanctification is that the gospel has often overcome every form of sin in different individuals permanently and perfectly. Who has not seen the most beastly lusts, drunkenness, lasciviousness, and every kind of abomination, long indulged and fully ripe, completely and forever slain by the power of the grace of God? Now how was this done? Only by bringing this sin fully into the light of the gospel, and showing the individual, the relationship that sin sustained to the death of Christ.

The only thing needed to slay any and every sin is for our mind to be fully baptized into the death of Christ, and to see the bearings of one’s own sins on the sufferings, agonies, and death of the blessed Jesus. Let me state a fact to illustrate my meaning. I knew a habitual smoker who was harassed with almost every argument to force him to break the power of his habit, and give up smoking. All was in vain. One day, he lighted his pipe and was about to put it to his mouth, when he asked himself, “did Christ die to purchase this vile indulgence for me”? He hesitated, but the question pressed him, “Did Christ die to purchase this vile indulgence for me”? The relationship of this conduct to the death of Christ instantly broke the power of the habit, and from that day, he has been free.

I could relate many other facts more striking than this, where a similar view of the relationship of a particular sin to the atonement of Christ, has in one moment, not only broken the power of the habit, but also destroyed it completely forever.

The most entrenched sinful habits, even sinful habits that involve physical consequences and have severely damaged the sinner and made his body a source of overpowering temptation to him, can be completely broken up and slain forever by the grace of God. Why then, should we doubt that, by the same grace, a man can triumph over all sin forever?

22. If this doctrine is not true, what is true? It is very important that ministers should be definite in their instructions, and if we can’t expect Christians to conform to the will of God in this life, how much can we expect from them? Who can say, “You can go so far, but no further”? It is ridiculous for ministers to urge a Christian up to higher and higher attainments, saying at every step “you can and must go higher”. Yet, all along they are telling him that he will fall short of his whole duty. They say he can be better than he is, far better, indefinitely better; but he shouldn’t expect to do his whole duty. I have often been grieved to hear men preach, who are afraid to commit themselves in favor of the whole truth, but are afraid that their instructions will fall short of insisting that men shall stand “perfect and complete in all the will of God”. They have many doubts about their consistency, and they should have, because their views and teachings are not consistent. If they do not teach that men can and should do their whole duty, they are sadly at a loss to know what to teach. They have many misgivings about insisting on less than this, but they are afraid to fully teach what the apostles taught on this subject. And in their attempts to throw in qualifying terms and explanations to avoid the impression that they believe in the doctrine of entire sanctification, they place themselves in a truly awkward position. Many times, ministers have been asked, “how far can we go, must we go, and are expected to go in depending on the grace of Christ; and how holy should we be, and are expected to be, and must be, in this life”? Their answer: “well, you can be a lot better than you are”. Now this nonsense is a great stumbling block to the Church. It can’t be the teaching of the Holy Ghost.

23. The tendency to deny this doctrine is, to my mind, conclusive proof that the doctrine itself must be true. Many recent developments in the Church throw light on this subject. Who doesn’t see that the facts developed in the temperance reformation, have a direct and powerful bearing on this question? We can’t successfully complete the temperance reformation, unless we adopt the principle of total abstinence from all intoxicating drinks. Let a temperance lecturer go forth, as an Evangelist, to promote revivals on the subject of temperance. Let him speak against drunkenness, but admit and defend the moderate use of alcohol, or insinuate that total abstinence is not expected or practical. Everyone will see that such a person can make no progress; that he would be like a child building dams of sand to stop the rushing mighty waters. It is as certain as the law of cause and effect, that we can’t produce any permanent reformation without adopting a principle of total abstinence.

Now, if this is true concerning the temperance reformation, it is also true when we apply this principle the subjects of holiness and sin. Even in his own strength, a drunk could overcome his drunkenness, and retain, what we might call, the temperate use of alcohol. However, no such thing is possible in a reformation from sin. Nobody can overcome sin in his own strength. If his religion allows for any degree of sin, or if, in practice, he allows any degree of sin, he becomes impenitent. He consents to live in sin and therefore the Holy Spirit must abandon him. As a result, he will relapse into a state of legal bondage to sin. This is probably what happens to ninety out of one hundred people in the Church today. What else can you expect from the views and practices of the Church on this subject?

The reason for so much backsliding is that reformations don’t go deep enough. Christians don’t aim at a speedy deliverance from all sin with all their hearts. Instead, they avoid deliverance. Ministers teach them to expect to sin as long as they live. I will never forget the effect produced on my mind by reading, when I was a young convert, in the diary of David Brainerd, that he never expected to make any considerable attainments in holiness in this life. I can now easily see that this was a natural conclusion from the theory of physical depravity that he believed. But, because I didn’t know any better, his views had a very damaging effect on me for many years. It led me to reason that, if such a man as David Brainerd did not expect to make much advancement in holiness in this life, it is useless for me to expect such a thing.

The fact is, if there is anything that is important to high attainments in holiness, and to the progress of the work of sanctification in this life, it is adopting the principle of total abstinence from sin. Total abstinence from sin must be everyone’s motto, or sin will certainly sweep him away as a flood. You can’t possibly have a true principle in temperance that leaves the causes that produce drunkenness operating at full strength. You can’t have a true principle in holiness that leaves the causes of spiritual decline and backsliding at work in the very heart of the Church. And I am fully convinced that until Evangelists and Pastors adopt and carry out, in principle and in practice, the principle of total abstinence from all sin, they will certainly find themselves, every few months, called to do their work all over again.

24. Again, the tendency of the opposite view of sanctification shows that that view can’t be true. Who doesn’t know, that calling on sinners to repent, and at the same time telling them that they will not repent, they cannot repent, and they are not expected to repent, would forever prevent their repentance. Suppose you say to a sinner, you are naturally able to repent; but it is certain that you never will repent in this life, either with or without the Holy Ghost. Who does not see that such teaching would surely prevent his repentance if he believed what you say? In the same way, say to a professing Christian, “you are naturally able to completely conform to God’s will; but you never will conform to God’s will in this life, either in your own strength or by the grace of God”. If that Christian believes this teaching, it will just as certainly prevent his sanctification as the other teaching would prevent the repentance of the sinner. I can speak from experience on this subject. While I taught what was commonly taught, I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith. But, falling short of urging them up to a point where they would become so acquainted with Christ that they would abide in Him, they would soon relapse again into their former state. I never saw, and I now understand why I had no reason to expect to see under the instructions I gave back then, such a state of religious feeling, such steady and confirmed walking with God among Christians, as I have seen since the change in my views and instructions.

.