The Oberlin Evangelist

LECTURE VI.

March 11, 1840

SANCTIFICATION.--No. 6

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)

VII. In continuing this subject, I will answer some objections to the doctrine of entire sanctification.

In answering some of the more important objections to the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life, I will begin with those passages of scripture that are supposed to contradict it.

1. “When they sin against You (for there is no one who does not sin), and You become angry with them and deliver them to the enemy, and they take them captive to the land of the enemy, far or near (I Kings 8:46)

(1.) This sentiment, using almost the same words, is repeated in 2 Chron. 6:26 (When heaven is shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against You), and in Eccl. 7:20 (For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin.), where the same original words are used in the same form.

(2.) These are the strongest passages I know of in the Old Testament, and the same remarks apply to all three.

(3.) I will quote, for the satisfaction of the reader, the note of Adam Clarke on this passage, and also Barclay’s comments. Barclay is the celebrated and highly spiritual author of “An Apology for the True Christian Divinity”. And let me say, that they appear to me to be satisfactory answers to the objection based upon these passages.

CLARKE: “When (if) they sin against You.” This must refer to some general defection from truth, perhaps to some species of false worship, idolatry, or corruption of the truth and ordinances of the Most High. As a result, it mentions that they are delivered into the hands of their enemies, and carried away captive, which was the general punishment for idolatry; and what is called, acting perversely (done wrong – NKJV), and committing wickedness. (See I Kings 8:47)

“When (if – KJV) they sin against You (for there is no one who does not sin).” The second clause, in parentheses, invalidates the supposition in the first clause. If there is no one who does not sin, it is useless to say, “IF they sin”. However, this contradiction is taken away by referring to the original “ki yechetau lak”, which should be translated ‘should they sin against You’, and “ki ein Adam asher lo yecheta”; “For there is no one that may not sin”. In other words, there is no man impeccable, none infallible; none that is not liable to transgress. This is the true meaning of the phrase in various parts of the Bible. Even in the 31st verse of this chapter, they have translated yecheta, IF a man TRESPASS. This certainly implies he might or might not do it: and in this way they have translated the same word, IF a soul SIN, in Lev. 5:1, and 6:2, 1 Sam. 2:25, 2 Chron. 6:22, and in several other places. This is how our translators (KJV) have understood the original. The truth is, the Hebrew has no mood to express words in the permissive or optative way, but to express this sense it uses the future tense of the conjugation kal.

“This text has been a wonderful stronghold for all who believe that there is no redemption from sin in this life; that no man can live without committing sin: and that we can’t be entirely freed from sin until we die. 1. The text supports no such doctrine, it only speaks of the possibility of every man sinning; and this must be true in a state of probation. 2. There is not one other text in scripture that is more to the purpose than this. 3. The common doctrine today is clearly in opposition to the design of the gospel; for Jesus came to save his people from their sins, and to destroy the works of the devil. 4. It is a dangerous and destructive doctrine, and should be blotted out of every Christian’s creed. There are too many who are seeking to excuse their crimes by every means in their power; and we don’t need to embody their excuses in a creed, and complete their deception by stating that their sins are unavoidable.”

BARCLAY: “Secondly, Another objection is from two places of scripture that are very significant. The first is, 1 Kings 8:46: For there is no one who does not sin. The second is Eccl. 7:20: For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin.

"I answer: 1. These passages say nothing about a daily and continual sinning, so that they never can be redeemed from it; but only that all have sinned, or that there is no one that does not sin, though not always, so as to never cease to sin; and in this lies the question. In fact, in the next two verses in 1 Kings chapter 8, he speaks of the returning of such with all their hearts and souls; which implies the possibility of abandoning sin. 2. There is a respect to be had to the seasons and dispensations; for even if we consent that in Solomon’s time there were none who did not sin, it would not follow that there are none such today, or that it can’t be attained by the grace of God under the gospel. And finally, 3, this whole objection hangs on a false interpretation; for the original Hebrew word may be read in the Potential Mood, just as well as in the indicative: There is no man who may not sin. This is how the Old Latin, Junius, and Tremellius, and Votablus, translate it; and the same word is used. Psalm 119:11: ‘Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You’. This is in the Potential Mood, and not in the Indicative; which agrees more with the universal scope of the scriptures, the testimony of the truth, and the sense of almost all interpreters. This is how it should be understood, and the other interpretation should be rejected as spurious.”

(4.) Whatever you may think of the views of these authors, to me it is a simple and satisfactory answer to the objection based on these passages. Their objection could be true under the Old Testament dispensation, and still prove nothing concerning the ability to attain a state of sanctification under the New Testament dispensation. What? Does the New Testament dispensation have no advantages over the Old for acquiring holiness? Even if nobody under the comparatively dark dispensation of Judaism attained a state of entire and permanent sanctification, that does not prove such a state can’t be attained under the Gospel. The Epistle to the Hebrews clearly says that “the Old Covenant made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did”. Under the Old Covenant, God promised that He would make a new covenant with the house of Israel by “writing the law in their hearts”, and by “engraving it in their inward parts”. This New Covenant was to be made with the house of Israel under the Christian dispensation. What then, do all such passages in the Old Testament prove concerning the privileges and holiness of Christians under the New Testament?

(5.) Whether or not any of the Old Testament saints received the New Covenant by way of anticipation, and entered into a state of entire and permanent sanctification, is not my present purpose to determine. Nor will I determine, whether, admitting that Solomon said in his day, “there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin”, (Eccl 7:20) we could say that about every generation under the Jewish dispensation.

(6.) The Bible says that Abraham and multitudes of Old Testament saints “died in faith, not having received the promises”. (Hebrews 11:39) Now what can this mean? It can’t mean that they didn’t know the promises, because the promises were made to them. It can’t mean that they did not receive Christ, for the Bible clearly says that they did. Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day! (John 8:56) In fact, Moses, as well as all the Old Testament saints, had enough knowledge of Christ, as a Savior to be revealed, to bring them into a state of salvation. But they did not receive the promise of the Spirit as it is poured out under the Christian dispensation. They did not receive the light and the glory of the Christian dispensation, nor the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Not only that, the Bible says, that “apart from us” that is, without our privileges, they should not be made perfect. (Hebrews 11:40)

2. The Lord’s prayer is the basis for our next objection. In this passage, Christ taught us to pray, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”. Some object that if a person becomes entirely sanctified, he can no longer pray this clause of this prayer, which they say, was clearly designed to be used by the Church to the end of time. (Matt 6:12)

(1.) Christ has taught us to pray for entire and permanent sanctification, which is part of God’s will for us that we utter when we pray “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” (V.10)

(2.) God wants us to expect that He will answer this prayer, or we will mock God by asking what we don‘t believe agrees with His will or what we know can’t be consistently granted, and then repeating this insult to God as often as we pray.

(3.) The prayer for forgiveness of our trespasses must apply to our past sins, and not to sins we are committing at the time we make the prayer; for it would be absurd and abominable to pray for the forgiveness of a sin we are in the act of committing.

(4.) This prayer cannot properly be made concerning any unrepented sin; for it would be highly abominable in the sight of God, to pray for the forgiveness of any unrepented sin.

(5.) If there is any hour or day when no actual sin was committed, we could not consistently make this prayer in reference to that hour or that day.

(6.) But at the same time, it would be highly proper for us to make this prayer concerning all our past sins, even if we have repented of them, confessed them, and prayed for their forgiveness a thousand times before.

(7.) Although God may forgive our sins; we should always feel penitent in view of them. We should repent of them both in this world and in the world to come as often as we remember them. As long as we live in this world, there is nothing wrong with repenting and repeating our request for forgiveness. As for myself, I don’t see why this passage should become an obstacle for so many people; for if it is improper to pray for the forgiveness of past sins that we have repented of, then it is improper to pray for forgiveness at all. And if this prayer can’t be used properly in reference to our past sins, of which we have already repented, it cannot properly be used at all, except on the absurd assumption that we must pray for the forgiveness of sins we are now committing; sins of which we have not repented. And if it is improper to use this form of prayer in reference to all past sins of which we have repented, it is just as improper to use it in reference to sins committed today or yesterday, of which we have repented.

3. Another objection comes from James 3:1, 2: “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. For we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body.” (James 3:1-2)

(1.) The word teachers here can mean critics, or censors, and we can understand it in either a good or a bad sense. The Apostle exhorts the brethren that not many of them should become teachers, because teachers, because of their position, will receive a stricter judgment; “for”, James says, “we all stumble in many things.” The fact that we all stumble is used as a reason why not many of us should be teachers; which shows that the word teachers is used in a bad sense in this passage. “Let not many of you become teachers”, for if we become teachers, “we shall receive a stricter judgment,” because we all stumble in many things. This passage simply means this: not many [or any] of you should become teachers, censors, or critics, and set yourselves up to judge and condemn others. For inasmuch as you have all sinned yourselves, and all of us have stumbled, we will receive the greater condemnation if we set ourselves up to judge others. “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you.” (Matt 7:1-2)

(2.) I don’t see where the Apostle says anything about the present character of himself or of those he was writing to. Nowhere does he even hint that he is talking about the doctrine of entire sanctification. James simply states a well-established truth in applying it to a particular sin; that if they become censors, and harmfully condemn others, inasmuch as they all had committed many sins, they would receive the greater condemnation.

(3.) That James did not plan to deny the doctrine of Christian perfection or entire sanctification, as maintained in these lectures, seems clear from the fact that he immediately adds, “If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body.”

4. Another objection is based on 1 John 1:8 “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

(1.) The statement that “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” comes right before verse 8. Now it would be very remarkable, if immediately after this statement, the Apostle meant to say that the blood of Christ does not cleanse us from all sin, and if we say it does we deceive ourselves. But if this objection is true, it involves the Apostle in as obvious a contradiction as you could imagine.

(2.) If the Apostle meant to say that we deceive ourselves if we think that we are in a state of entire sanctification, his statement in the next verse is another contradiction. “If”, he continues, “we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”. In another place he says, “All unrighteousness is sin”. (1 John 5:17) Now, if it is true that God is really just to forgive and cleanse us from all unrighteousness or from all sin, and “the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us”, not shall, but actually does cleanse us “from all sin”, then how remarkable it would be, if, between two such statements as these, the Apostle wanted to teach that if we say His blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness, we deceive ourselves!

(3.) But the tenth verse clearly shows what the Apostle meant, for he merely repeats what he had said in the eighth verse: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.”

This is the meaning of the whole passage: If we say that we are not sinners, that is, we have no sin to need the blood of Christ, that we have never sinned, and consequently need no Savior, we deceive ourselves. For we have sinned, and nothing but the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin. Now, if we will not deny but confess that we have sinned, “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”. “But if we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us”.

5. Some object to the view I have given of Jeremiah 31:31-34, that if that passage is a promise of entire sanctification, this proves too much. Because it says that, “they shall all know the Lord from the least to the greatest”, therefore, it would prove that the Church has been in a state of entire sanctification ever since the beginning of the New Testament dispensation. To this objection I answer:

(1.) I trust that I have already shown that this promise is conditioned on faith, and that the blessing can’t possibly be received but by faith.

(2.) Many have received this covenant in its fullness.

(3.) A promise may be unconditional or absolute, and certain to be fulfilled by the whole Church, as a body, in some period of its history. However, this depends on individuals or a generation of individuals applying this promise to their lives by faith.

(4.) I think you will completely agree with these prophecies if you understand that this passage clearly promises to the Church a day when all her members will be sanctified, and when “holiness to the Lord shall be written on the horses’ bells”. In fact, it appears to be clearly foretold that the Church, as a body, will enter into a state of complete sanctification in some period of her history here on earth; and that this will fulfill these promises of the New Covenant, as I have mentioned. But, just because the Church has not yet entered into this state does not contradict the view of this subject presented in this series of messages.

Many maintain that this promise in Jeremiah has been fulfilled already. This has been argued--

(1.) From the fact that the promise has no condition, expressed or implied, and the responsibility therefore, rests with God.

(2.) That the Apostle, in his Epistle to the Hebrews quotes it as fulfilled when Christ came. Now to this I answer:

They might as well argue that the rest of the promises and prophecies relating to the gospel day were fulfilled because the time has passed when those promises were due. Suppose they deny that the world will ever be converted, or that there will ever be any more piety in the world than there is now. Then, when the promises and prophecies concerning the latter day glory and the conversion of the world are quoted to prove that the world must be converted, they reply that these promises were unconditional, and had already been fulfilled when Christ came. But suppose you respond by pointing out that nothing has yet to occur in the history of this world that seems to fulfill the meaning of these promises and prophesies. The world has never been in the state described by these promises and prophecies, and nothing the world has yet experienced is what is meant by the words that are used in the Bible concerning the future state of this world. Now suppose they reply that we are to interpret what the promises and prophecies really meant by the fact that, since the promises and prophecies are unconditional, and the gospel day has already come when they were supposed to be fulfilled, the promises cannot mean anything more than what the world has already realized. This is the reasoning of some persons concerning Jeremiah 31:31-34. They say--

(a) The promises are without condition.

(b) The time for their fulfillment has passed. Therefore, the world has realized their fulfillment, and everything that was intended by them. The facts settle the question of construction and interpretation; and we know that they never intended to promise a state of entire sanctification, because the Church has never realized such a state.

Indeed! If what they say is true, then the Bible is the most exaggerated, not to mention, the most ridiculous book in the universe. If the extent and prevalence of the Redeemer’s kingdom here on earth is what the world sees, and what we see is all that the promises relating to these events really mean, then the Bible, of all books in the world, is the most deceptive book ever written. But who, in their right mind, will admit to this kind of reasoning? Who doesn’t know, or may not know, if he uses common sense, that, although these promises and prophecies are unconditionally stated, they are actually conditioned on the right exercise of our free will. Who doesn’t know that a time will come when the world shall be converted? Who doesn’t know that the conversion of the world implies a much higher state of religious feeling and action than the Church has ever witnessed; and that the promise of the New Covenant will still be fulfilled in a higher sense than it ever has been? If anyone doubts this, I have to believe that he does not understand his Bible.

Faith, then, is an indispensable condition of the fulfillment of all the promises of spiritual blessings, and we must exercise our free will in order to receive each Biblical promise.

It is interesting that those people who give this interpretation to these promises imagine that they see a very close connection between our views and those of modern Antinomian Perfectionists. This is one of the leading peculiarities of that sect. The Armenians insist that these are promises without condition, and, as a result, their own watchfulness, prayers, exertions, and the right exercise of their own agency, has nothing to do with their perseverance in holiness. The responsibility is thrown completely on Christ, since, they believe, His promises are without condition. They say that what He has promised has no condition. He will keep them in a state of entire sanctification. Therefore, for them to confess sin is to accuse Christ of breaking His promises. For them to make any efforts to persevere in holiness is to set aside the gospel and go back to the law. For them even to fear that they shall sin is to fear that Christ will tell a lie.

All this, plus the fact that they set aside the moral law, are the two great errors of their whole system. It would be easy to show, that adopting the feeling that these promises are without condition, has led to some of their most fanatical and absurd opinions and practices. They take the ground that no condition is expressed, and therefore none is implied; overlooking the fact that the very nature of the thing promised implies that faith is the condition on which its fulfillment must depend. Therefore, I hope that our brethren, who charge us with perfectionism, will be led to see that this charge belongs to them, and not to us.

These are the most important passages that come to my mind, and those I believe on which many who oppose this doctrine have used to defend their cause. And since I don’t want to spend too much time on this discussion, I will not examine other passages. In future lectures, I will answer other important objections. I plan to do this without either the spirit or the form of controversy, noticing and answering objections that come to me or are suggested by others.