The Oberlin Evangelist

The Oberlin Evangelist

LECTURE V.

February 26, 1840

SANCTIFICATION--No. 5

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)

I could present many other considerations, and, as I have said, fill a book with scriptures, arguments, and demonstrations, to prove that we can attain entire sanctification in this life.

However, I won’t. Today, we will look at one very important question, which is, has anyone ever attained a state of entire sanctification. Some, who believe that it is attainable, don’t think that it’s very important to show that it has been attained. Now I freely admit, that it may be attainable, even if it never has been attained. Yet, it appears to me, that as a matter of encouragement to the Church, it is very important whether a state of entire holiness has actually been attained in this life. This question covers a lot of ground. But, to make this short, I plan to examine one case, and see whether there is reason to believe that, in this one instance, sanctification has been attained. The case I refer to is that of Paul. And I propose to examine the passages that speak about him, to determine whether there is evidence that he lived a sanctified life.

Let me begin by saying that I am convinced that Paul, John, and the other Apostles, expected the Church to understand them as speaking from experience, and as having received that fullness that they taught to be in Christ and in His gospel.

And, I want to emphasize that the possibility of attaining a state of complete holiness does not depend on whether anyone has ever attained it. In the same way, the possibility that the world will ever be converted does not depend on whether it ever has been converted. That a state of entire holiness has been attained is urged as one argument among a many to prove that it can be attained. This argument can encourage Christians to grab a hold of this blessing. However, I am surprised that objectors and reviewers fasten on this one facet of the doctrine of sanctification, as if by calling this particular question into doubt, they can overthrow all the other proofs of its attainability. Now this is completely absurd. When we examine the character of Paul with this object in view, if it doesn’t appear clear to you that he attained this state, don’t overlook the fact that its attainability is settled by other arguments, on grounds completely independent of the question of whether it has been attained or not. I merely use this as an argument, because to me it is somewhat persuasive, and it provides a lot of encouragement to Christians to press after this state.

I will first make some remarks concerning how we should understand Paul’s words when he talks about himself; and then I will proceed to examine the passages that speak about his Christian character.

1. Paul’s revealed character demands that we should understand him to mean everything he says when he speaks in his own favor.

2. The Spirit of inspiration would guard him against speaking too highly of himself.

3. No man ever seemed to possess greater modesty, and felt more unwilling to exalt his own attainments.

4. If Paul felt that he fell short of attaining a state of entire sanctification, we can expect him to acknowledge this with deep humility.

5. If he is charged with living in sin, and with being wicked in anything, we can expect him, when speaking under inspiration, not to justify, but condemn himself for those things.

Now in view of these facts, let us examine those scriptures where he speaks about himself and scriptures where others speak about him.

(1.) “You are witnesses, and God also, how devoutly and justly and blamelessly we behaved ourselves among you who believe.” (1 Thess 2:10)

(a) Here, Paul positively maintains his holiness. He uses very strong words, “How devoutly and justly and blamelessly”. If being devout, just, and blameless, is not entire sanctification, what is?

(b) He appeals to the heart-searching God for the truth of what he says. He also appeals to the Thessalonians; calling on God and on them to bear witness, that he has been holy and without blame.

(c) Here, we have the testimony of an inspired Apostle clearly asserting his own entire sanctification. Was he deceived? Could Paul knowingly be living in sin when he said this? If such language as this is not an unqualified assertion that he lived among them without sin, what can we know by the use of this language?

(2.) “We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed. But in all things we commend ourselves as ministers of God: in much patience, in tribulations, in needs, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in sleeplessness, in fastings; by purity, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Spirit, by sincere love, by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left.” (2 Cor 6:3-7)

Paul says that he gives no offence in anything, but in all things, he approves himself as a minister of God. Among other things he did this “by purity”, “by the Holy Spirit”, “by sincere love”, “and by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left”. How could Paul, who is so modest, speak like this, unless he knew that he was in a state of entire sanctification, and he thought that it was very important for the Church to know it?

(3.) “For our boasting is this: the testimony of our conscience that we conducted ourselves in the world in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom but by the grace of God, and more abundantly toward you.” (2 Cor 1:12) This passage implies the same thing. Paul said this for the same reason: to declare the greatness of the grace of God that Paul manifests.

(4.) “I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.” (Acts 24:16) At this time, Paul must have had an enlightened conscience. If an inspired Apostle can affirm that he “always” strived to have a conscience without offence toward God and men”, he must have been in a state of entire sanctification.

(5.) “I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day.” (2 Tim 1:3) Here again Paul affirms that he serves God with a pure conscience. Could he say this, if he was often and perhaps every day violating his conscience, as some believe?

(6.) “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” (Gal 2:20) This does not say, but it does strongly imply, that Paul lived without sin.

(7.) “But God forbid that I should glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” (Gal 6:14) This passage leads to the same conclusion as the previous one.

(8.) “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Phil 1:21) How could Paul say this, unless his example, doctrine, and spirit, were those of Christ?

(9.) “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men.” (Acts 20:26)

(a) This passage, clearly reveals the impression that Paul wanted to make on the minds of those he was speaking to.

(b) It is certain that he could not be “innocent of the blood of all men”, unless he had done his whole duty. If he had been sinfully lacking in any grace, virtue, or labor, could he have said this? Certainly not!

(10.) “Therefore I urge you, imitate me. For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.” (1 Cor 4:16-17)

(a) Here, Paul clearly sets himself up as an example to the Church. How could he do this, if he were living in sin?

(b) Paul sent Timothy to the Corinthians to refresh their memories concerning his doctrine and practice. This implies that Paul practiced everything he taught in every Church.

(11.) “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.” (1 Cor 11:1) Here Paul commands us to imitate him as he imitated Christ. Not as far as he imitated Christ, as some understand it, but to imitate him because he imitates Christ. How could he command the Church to copy his example unless he knew that he was blameless?

(12.) “Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern.” “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Phil 3:17,20) Here again, Paul calls on the Church to follow him, and particularly to notice those who copied his example, and the reason he provides is that “our citizenship is in heaven”.

(13.) “The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.” (Phil 4:9) Paul commanded the Philippians to do those things that they learned, received, heard, and SEEN in him. Then Paul adds that if they do those things, the God of peace shall be with them. Paul could not have meant anything less than he was living among them without sin.

Now I will examine those passages that seem to suggest to many that Paul was not in a state of entire sanctification.

(14.) “Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, ‘Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.’ Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God.” (Acts 15:36-40)

(a) This contention between Paul and Barnabas was based on the fact that John, who was a nephew of Barnabas, had abruptly left them in their travels, apparently without any justifiable reason, and returned home.

(b) It appears that Barnabas’s confidence in his nephew was restored.

(c) Paul was not yet satisfied of the stability of Mark’s character, and felt that it was dangerous to trust him as a traveling companion and fellow-laborer. Nowhere is it hinted or implied that either Paul or Barnabas sinned in this contention.

(d), The fact, that they disagreed in their views over the wisdom and appropriateness of taking Mark with them, sufficiently accounts for what happened.

(e) Being men of principle, neither of them felt it was his duty to yield to the opinion of the other.

(f) If you had to blame somebody, it seems that Barnabas was in fault, rather than Paul, since he determined to take Mark with him without consulting Paul. Then, he persisted in this determination until he met with such firm resistance from Paul, that he took Mark and sailed abruptly for Cyprus. Meanwhile, Paul chose Silas as his companion. The brethren recommended both of them to the grace of God, and departed. Now certainly, there is nothing in this transaction that Paul, or any good man under the same circumstances, needs to be ashamed about. In this passage, it does not appear that Paul ever acted outside of a regard for the glory of God and the good of religion. And, I would humbly ask, what kind of spirit would find sufficient evidence in this situation to charge an inspired Apostle with rebellion against God? But, even if Paul did sin in this case, where is the evidence that he wasn’t sanctified when he wrote the epistles? This incident took place before Paul wrote any of his epistles!

(15.) “Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, ‘Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day’. And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, ‘God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?’ And those who stood by said, ‘Do you revile God’s high priest?’ Then Paul said, ‘I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, you shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people’.” (Acts 23:1-5) In this case, they accused Paul of the sin of anger; but as far as I can see, there is no just reason to say this. In my mind, it seems clear that examining this passage will lead us to the opposite conclusion. It appears that Paul did not know who the new high priest was. And as soon as he was informed, he showed the utmost regard for the authority of God when he quoted from the Old Testament, “You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people”. This implied that, even after the abuse he received, Paul would not have said what he did if he had known who the high priest was.

(16.) “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me, (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin that is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.” (Romans 7:14-25) There is a lot to say about this passage

(a) The context and drift of Paul’s reasoning shows that the situation he is discussing, whether it is his own or someone else’s situation, was used by him to illustrate the influence of the law on the carnal mind.

(b) This is a situation where sin has complete dominion over a person, and overcomes every resolution to obey.

(c) Just because Paul used the singular pronoun in the first person, does not prove anything concerning whether or not Paul was speaking about himself, for this is common with him, as well as other writers, when using illustrations.

(d) Paul uses the personal pronoun all the way to the beginning of the eighth chapter. At the beginning of chapter eight, he represents himself, or the person he represents, as being in an opposite state of mind. Now if the seventh chapter contains Paul’s experience, whose experience is this in the eighth chapter? Are we to understand that both of these experiences is the experience of Paul? If so, then chapter seven must be his experience before he was sanctified, and chapter eight must be his experience after he was sanctified.

Paul begins the eighth chapter by saying, “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit”. Paul then gives the reason. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.” The law of sin and death was that law in his members, the influence of the flesh that Paul had so bitterly complained about in the seventh chapter. But, now it appears that he has passed into a state where he is free from this influence of the flesh. He is emancipated and dead to the world, and to the flesh, and he now lives in a state in which “there is no condemnation”. Now if there is no condemnation in his new state, it must either be because he isn’t sinning; or, if he is sinning, it is because the law does not condemn him; or because the law of God was repealed or abolished. Now if the penalty of the law was so set aside, that Paul can sin without condemnation, then the law has been abolished. However, a law without any penalty is no law. If the law is set aside, there is no longer any standard to determine sinfulness or holiness, and Paul can neither be sinful or holy. But, since the law was not and cannot be set aside, its penalty was not and cannot be so abolished that it no longer condemns sin. If Paul lived without condemnation, it must be because he lived without sin.

I don’t believe Paul describes his own experience in the seventh chapter of Romans, but he merely uses an illustration, and speaks in the first person and in the present tense, simply because it is convenient and suitable to his purpose. To contrast the influence of the law and of the gospel, Paul uses the seventh chapter to describe the state of a person who was living in sin, everyday condemned by the law, convicted, and constantly struggling with his own corruptions, but always losing. In the eighth chapter, Paul describes a person enjoying gospel freedom, where the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the heart by the grace of Christ. The seventh chapter can apply to a person in a backslidden state, or to a convicted person who never was converted. The eighth chapter can only apply to those who are in a state of entire sanctification.

Now, the seventh chapter contains the history of one over whom sin has dominion. Now, to think that this was Paul’s experience when he wrote his epistle, or of anyone who lives in the liberty of the gospel, is absurd and contrary to the experience of every person who ever enjoyed gospel liberty. There is more. The thought that this is Paul’s experience is clearly contradicted in the sixth chapter where it says, in the 14th verse, “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace”.

Finally, if Paul was speaking about himself in the seventh chapter of Romans, and really giving a history of his own experience, it proves nothing at all concerning his subsequent sanctification; for,

(e) If this were his experience at the time he wrote His epistle, it would prove nothing concerning what afterwards transpired in his own experience.

(f) The eighth chapter shows conclusively, that the seventh chapter was not his experience at the time he wrote the epistle. The fact that the translators have separated the seventh and eighth chapters has led to a lot of error in understanding this passage. Nothing is more certain than that the two chapters were designed to describe not only different experiences, but experiences opposite to each other. It is impossible that both these experiences should belong to the same person at the same time. Therefore, if Paul is speaking about his own experience, we must understand that the eighth chapter describes his experience at the time he wrote the epistle; and the seventh chapter describes a former experience.

Therefore, if any one understands the seventh chapter as describing a Christian experience, he must understand that it presents the behavior of one in a very imperfect state. He must also understand that the eighth chapter describes a soul in a state of entire sanctification. So that this epistle, instead of arguing against the idea of Paul’s entire sanctification on the supposition that he was speaking about himself, fully establishes the fact that he was in a state of entire sanctification.

(17.) “That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things that are behind and reaching forward to those things that are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.” (Phil 3:10-15)

(a) Here is an allusion to the Olympic games, in which men ran for a prize, and were not crowned until the end of the race, no matter how well they might run.

(b) Paul speaks about two kinds of perfection here, one kind of perfection he claims to have attained, but the other perfection he had not attained. The perfection which he had not attained, was that which he did not expect to attain until the end of his race, nor indeed until he had attained the resurrection from the dead. Until then, he was not and did not expect to be perfect, in the sense that he should “lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me”. But all this does not imply that he was not living without sin, any more than it implies that Christ was living in sin when he said, “Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected”. (Luke 13:32) In this, Christ speaks of a perfection that He had not attained.

Paul had not attained the glorified state. Paul was pressing after the perfection of glory. But in the 15th verse, he speaks of another kind of perfection that he professed to have attained. “Therefore, let us”, he says, “as many as are mature (perfect), have this mind”; that is, let us be pressing after this high state of perfection in glory, “if by any means (we) may attain to the resurrection from the dead”. (V.11)

Now, nowhere in this passage does Paul even suggest that he was living in sin. Paul teaches the direct opposite. He meant to say as he had said in many other places, that he was not blameworthy concerning sin, and he was determined to strive after higher attainments, and would be satisfied with nothing short of eternal glory.

Concerning the character of Paul, let me say:

(a) If Paul was not sinless, he was an extravagant boaster, and any minister using such language today would be considered an extravagant boaster.

(b) Setting himself up as an example, so frequently and fully, without any caution or qualification, was highly dangerous to the interests of the Church, if Paul was not in a state of entire sanctification.

(d) His language in appealing to God, that in his life and heart he was blameless, was blasphemous, unless he really was what he claimed to be; and if he was what he claimed to be, he was in a state of entire sanctification.

(e) There is no reason to doubt that he attained this state.

(f) It is dishonoring God, to maintain, under these circumstances, that Paul never attained the blessing of entire sanctification.

(g) Paul nowhere confesses sin after he became an Apostle, but continuously justifies himself, appealing to man and to God, for his entire integrity and blamelessness of heart and life.

(h) To accuse him of sin in these circumstances, without evidence, is not only highly damaging to him, but disgraceful to the cause of religion.

(i) To charge him with sin, when he claims to have been blameless, accuses him of either falsehood or delusion.

(k) To maintain Paul’s sinfulness is to deny the grace of the gospel, and charge God foolishly. And I cannot but ask, why does the Church make such a great effort to maintain that Paul lived in sin, and was never wholly sanctified until death?