The Oberlin Evangelist

LECTURE VII.

March 25, 1840

SANCTIFICATION.--No. 7

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)

There are many objections to the doctrine of entire sanctification, besides those derived from the passages of scripture I have already considered. Some of these objections are honest and sincere, and deserve to be considered. Let us examine some of them.

6. Some people say that the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life leads to the errors of modern perfectionism. Many good and honest men have presented this objection. However, I can’t believe that they have seriously considered the matter. It seems to me that one fact will set aside this objection. It is well known that the Wesleyan Methodists have, as a denomination, always maintained this doctrine in all its length and breadth. Now if the doctrine of sanctification leads to such errors, it is strange that this tendency has never developed itself in that denomination. As far as I know, the Methodists have been perfectly exempt from the errors held by modern perfectionists. Perfectionists as a whole, and I believe with very few exceptions, have come from those denominations that deny the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life.

Now the reason for this is simple. When professing Christians, who have been in bondage their whole life, begin to seriously seek deliverance from their sins, they find neither sympathy nor instruction, concerning the prospect of getting rid of their sins in this life. Then they turn to the Bible, and they find that Christ is presented as a Savior from their sins. But, when they proclaim this truth, their brethren treat them as heretics and fanatics, until, being overcome by the evil around them, they become critical of the Church. Finding the Church so completely wrong in its opposition to this one great important truth, they lose confidence in their ministers and in the Church. Under the influence of a wrong spirit, Satan takes advantage of them, and drives them into error and delusion. I believe that this is the true history of many of the most pious members of the Calvinistic churches. However, Methodists seem somewhat protected against these errors. They are taught that Jesus Christ is a Savior from all sin in this world. And when they seek deliverance, they are pointed to Jesus Christ as a present and all-sufficient Redeemer. Finding sympathy and instruction on this great and agonizing point, their confidence in their ministers and their brethren remains, and they walk quietly with them.

I firmly believe that there are only two ways that ministers today can prevent members of their churches from becoming perfectionists. One is to let them live so far from God that they will not seek after holiness of heart. The other is to frequently place the glorious doctrine, that “the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin” before them; and tell them that it is the high privilege and the duty of Christians to live in a state of entire consecration to God.

To me, it seems impossible that the tendency of this doctrine should be to encourage the peculiar errors of the modern perfectionists. I don’t think there has been one instance like this occurring among all the Methodist ministers, or the thousands of their members, for one hundred years.

I can say from my own experience, that since I have understood and fully taught the doctrine of sanctification, as I now believe it, I see no tendency, among those who listen to my instructions, to fall into these errors. However, in churches not far from here, where they oppose the doctrine we teach here, there seems to be a constant tendency to Antinomian perfectionism among their most pious people. How can we account for this by any other principle than the principle I have just mentioned? I can truly say that those persons here, who have been the first to lay hold of the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life, and who give the highest evidence of enjoying this blessing, have been removed the farthest from the errors of the modern perfectionists. I could state many facts on this subject, but because our time is limited, I won’t.

But, aside from the facts, what is the foundation of all the errors of the modern perfectionists? Everyone who has examined their errors knows that we can sum their errors up in one phrase; they abolish the moral law. I would humbly ask you, what possible tendency could there be to their errors, if the moral law is preserved in their system of truth? In these days a person is ignorant of modern perfectionists, if he does not know that the source from which their errors spring is the setting aside of God’s law. Setting aside the Christian rites of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, proceeds on the same foundation, and clearly grows out of abolishing the law of God. But retain the law of God, as the Methodists have done, and as other denominations have done, who from the days of the Reformation have maintained this same doctrine, and there is certainly no tendency to Antinomian perfectionism.

I have many things to say on the tendency of this doctrine, but for now this must suffice.

Some say that our views are identical with Perfectionism; and they attempt to show where Antinomian Perfectionism and our views are the same. On this I remark:

(1.) Instead of meeting a proposition in the open field of fair and Christian argument, certain writers like to give us a bad name and attempt to put us down, not by force of argument, but by showing that our doctrine of sanctification is identical with or is closely related to Pelagianism, Antinomianism, Calvinism, or some other ism, against which certain groups of people are deeply prejudiced. In the recent controversy between what is called Old and New School Divinity, who has not witnessed with pain the frequent attempts that have been made to put down the New School Divinity, as it is called, by calling it Pelagianism, and quoting certain passages from Pelagius, and other writers, to show the similarity of feeling that exists between them.

This is a very unsatisfactory method of attacking or defending any doctrine. There are, no doubt, many points of agreement between Pelagius and all other orthodox theologians, and there are many points of disagreement between them. There are many points of agreement between modern Perfectionists and all Evangelical Christians, and there are many points of disagreement between them and the Christian Church in general. That there are some points of agreement between their views and my own, is no doubt true. However, we totally disagree about those points that constitute their great peculiarities.

But, even if I agreed, on all points, with Augustine, or Edwards, or Pelagius, or the modern Perfectionists, neither the good or the ill name of any of these people would prove my opinions to be either right or wrong. After all, you would still have to show that those I agreed with were either right or wrong, in order to either establish or condemn my arguments. It is often more convenient to give a doctrine or an argument a bad name, than it is to reply to it soberly and satisfactorily.

(2.) It’s very interesting, that they should charge us with holding the same opinions with the Perfectionists; and yet they seem to be more violently opposed to our views now that they understand them, than with the views of the perfectionists. One of their leaders said that he regards me as one of the master builders of Babylon. And I also understand, that they display a greater hostility to the Oberlin Evangelist than almost any other publication.

(3.) I will not take time, nor do I need to either investigate or deny any of the supposed or alleged points of agreement between the Perfectionists and us. But, for now, I’ll let you read and examine this for yourselves.

Those who have been acquainted with the writings of the modern Perfectionists know that some of them have strayed much further from the truth than others. Some of their leading men, who were with them from the beginning and adopted their name, stopped far short of adopting some of their most abominable errors; still maintaining the authority and perpetual obligation of the moral law, and thus, they have been saved from going into many of the most objectionable and destructive notions of that sect. There are many more points of agreement between those Perfectionists and the orthodox Church, than between other perfectionists and the Christian Church. And there are still a number of important points of difference, as everyone knows who has any correct information on this subject.

I abhor the idea of denouncing any group of people as totally wrong. I am well aware that many Perfectionists truly abhor the extremes of error that many of their fellow Perfectionists have fallen into.

7. Another objection is that people could not live in this world if they were entirely sanctified. Strange! Does holiness harm people? Does perfect conformity to all the laws of life and health, both physical and moral, make it impossible for someone to live? If a person breaks off from his rebellion against God, will it kill him? Does there appear to be anything in Christ’s holiness that is inconsistent with life and health? The fact is, this objection is based on a gross error concerning what constitutes entire sanctification. Those who hold this objection believe that entire sanctification implies a continuous and most intense degree of excitement; and many of those things that I have shown in my first lecture are not even implied in it. I think that most people who consider this subject, think that it is a glorified instead a sanctified state. When Christ was on earth, He was in a sanctified but not a glorified state. “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.” (Matt 10:24) Now what is there in the moral character of Jesus Christ, as represented in His life, aside from His miraculous powers, that should not be fully copied into the life of every Christian? I’m not talking about His knowledge, but about His spirit and His behavior. Consider every circumstance of His life that has come down to us, and say, beloved, what is there in His life that you can’t copy into your own life by the grace of God. And do you think that fully imitating Him in all that relates to His moral character would make it impossible for you to live in this world?

8. Some object to anyone professing a state of entire sanctification, on the ground that it not only implies present obedience to the law of God, but it also implies such a formation and perfection of holy habits, that it makes it certain that we shall never again sin. These people claim that a person can no more tell when he is entirely sanctified, than he can tell how many holy acts it will take to form holy habits that are so strong that he will never again sin. To this I answer:

(1.) The law of God has nothing to do with requiring this formation of holy habits. God’s law is satisfied with present obedience. All God’s law demands is the full devotion of all our powers to God. It never complains that we have not formed such holy habits that we will sin no more.

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

(3.) If this objection is true, there is not one saint or angel in heaven, as far as we can know, that can, properly claim that they are in a state of entire sanctification. How can they know that they have performed so many holy acts, and created such habits of holiness that it is certain that they will never sin again?

(4.) Entire sanctification does not depend on the formation of holy habits; it doesn’t even consist in them. But, both entire and permanent sanctification are based on the grace of God in Jesus Christ alone. Perseverance in holiness is to be ascribed entirely to the influence of the indwelling Spirit of Christ, both now and to the end of our lives. It is not secured by any habits of holiness that we may or ever will form.

9. Another objection is that the doctrine of entire sanctification leads to spiritual pride. Can it be true that becoming perfectly humble leads to pride? But, entire humility is implied in entire sanctification. Is it true that you must remain in sin, and of course cherish pride in order to avoid pride? Is your humility safer in your own hands, and are you more secure against spiritual pride by refusing to receive Christ as your helper, than you would be to immediately embrace Him as a full Savior?

10. Others object that many, who have embraced this doctrine, are spiritually proud. To this I answer:

(1.) Many who believe the doctrine of regeneration, have been deceived and puffed up with the idea that God has regenerated them when He hasn’t. But is this a good reason for abandoning the doctrine of regeneration, or any reason why this doctrine should not be preached?

(2.) Don’t many professing Christians assume that a simple declaration of what God has done for one’s soul is sufficient evidence of spiritual pride on the part of the person who embraces this doctrine, while there is really no spiritual pride at all? With the present views of the Church, it is almost impossible for someone who attains this state to say anything about it without being suspected of enormous spiritual pride. This consideration has been a problem for some who have hesitated and even neglected to declare what God had done for their souls simply to avoid accusations of spiritual pride. And this has caused serious damage to their piety.

11. Some say that this doctrine can make people highly critical. To this I reply:

(1.) I can’t deny that some who profess to believe this doctrine have become critical. But this does not condemn this doctrine any more than it condemns the doctrine of regeneration. And the argument that sanctification makes people highly critical can be applied against every doctrine of the Bible.

(2.) Let any Christian do his whole duty to the Church and the world today. Let him speak to them and about them frankly and honestly, and, I promise you, they will accuse him of being highly critical. Therefore, it is unreasonable to think that the Church, in the condition it is in today, would not accuse any perfect Christian of being proud and critical. Entire sanctification implies doing all our duty. But to do all our duty, we must rebuke sin in high places and in low places. Can we seriously do this without offending many in the church, and being accused of censoring and judging? No! It’s impossible! To believe otherwise, would impeach the wisdom and holiness of Jesus Christ Himself.

12. Some argue that this doctrine lowers the standard of holiness to a level with our own experience. I can’t deny that, in some instances, this may be true. Neither can I deny that the standard of Christian perfection has been elevated above the demands of the law when it is applied to our present state of existence. Many forgot that the question is, “what does the law demand”? What God considers is entire sanctification in the angels is not our standard of Christian perfection. What God required of Adam before he fell, when his powers of body and mind were in a state of perfect health, is not our standard. Our standard is not what the law will demand of us in some future state of existence. Our standard is not what the law may demand of the Church in some future period of its history on earth, when the human constitution, by the universal prevalence of correct and thorough temperance principles, may have acquired its pristine health and powers. The question is, what does the law of God require of us today. What does the law of God require of us in our circumstances today, with all the ignorance and debility of body and mind that has resulted from the intemperance and abuse of the human constitution through so many generations?

The law levels its claims to us as we are, and properly defining and explaining it as it applies to all the present circumstances of our being, is indispensable to understanding what is entire sanctification.

Yes, there may be a danger of frittering away the claims of the law and letting down the standard. But, I would humbly ask whether the error has been on the other side, and whether the law has been so interpreted that it naturally produces the common idea, that if a man becomes holy he won’t be able to live in this world? I recently received a letter from a godly minister who expressed the greatest attachment to the doctrine of entire consecration to God. He said that he preached the same doctrine that we preach to his people every Sunday, but by another name. However, he added that it was revolting to his feelings to hear anyone claim obedience to the law of God. Now let me ask, why should this be revolting to feelings of piety? Isn’t it because the law of God is supposed to require something more from us, which it does not and cannot require? The only way people think such a claim is extravagant, is because they think the claims of the living God are extravagant. If the law of God really requires no more from men than what is reasonable and possible, why should it be revolting to anyone to hear an individual profess, through the grace of God, to have attained that state? I know that the brother I just mentioned, would be almost the last man to deliberately and knowingly give any strained interpretation to the law of God; and yet, I cannot but feel that much of the difficulty that good people have on this subject, has come from comparing the lives of saints with a standard above what the law of God does or can demand from people in their circumstances.

13. Another objection is that the grace of God can’t secure the entire sanctification of saints in this life. Many believe that the question whether entire sanctification can be attained in this life revolves around the question, whether the Church is, and Christians are sanctified in this life. These objectors say that grace is not sufficient if it does not secure the faith, obedience, and perfection of the saints; and therefore, the provisions of the gospel must be measured by the results; and the experience of the Church decides both the meaning of the promises and the provisions of grace. Now to this I answer:

If this objection is good for anything concerning entire sanctification, it is equally true concerning the spiritual state of every person in the world. If the fact that people are not perfect, proves that God did not make sufficient provisions for their perfection; their being no better than they are must prove that there is no provision for their being any better than they are. Otherwise, they would have aimed at being better, if they had any rational hope of success. But who, except a fatalist, will support such a ridiculous conclusion? Yet, this conclusion is inevitable from such premises.

14. Another objection to this doctrine is that it is contrary to the views of some of the greatest and best men in the Church; that such men as Augustine, Calvin, Doddrige, Edwards, and others had different opinions. To this I answer:

(1.) Suppose they did have different opinions. We must not call anyone father in such a sense that we yield to that person the formation of our views of Christian doctrine.

(2.) This objection comes with a very ill grace from those who wholly reject their opinions on some of the most important points of Christian doctrine.

(3.) Those men all defended the doctrine of physical depravity, which was why they rejected the doctrine of entire consecration to God in this life. By maintaining that the constitutional feelings of our body and mind are depraved and sinful, consistency, of course, leads them to reject the idea that anyone can be entirely sanctified while in the body. Now I would ask, what consistency is there in quoting these church fathers as rejecting the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life, while the reason that they rejected sanctification is based on the doctrine of physical depravity, a doctrine which is even denied by those who quote their authority?

15. Another common objection is, even if we attain this state of entire sanctification, we wouldn’t know if we did until the Day of Judgment. Therefore, to say we can be sanctified is silly, since no one can know whether he has attained it or not. To this I reply:

(1.) Our conscience is the highest and best evidence of our present state of mind. Conscience is the state of awareness of our environment and our own existence, sensations, and thoughts. This is the highest possible evidence to us of what takes place in our souls.

(2.) With the law of God before us as our standard, the testimony of our conscience tells us whether our mind conforms to God’s standard or not. This is the highest evidence that we can have that we currently conform to that rule.

(3.) It is a testimony that we can’t doubt any more then we can doubt our existence. How do we know that we exist? By our conscience! How do I know that I breathe, love, hate, sit, stand, lie down, or rise up? How do I know that I am joyful or sorrowful? How do I know that I exercise any emotion, make a conscious decision, or love my neighbor? How do I know that I sin, repent, or believe? By my own conscience! No testimony can be as direct or convincing as this.

Now, in order to know if my repentance is genuine, I must intellectually understand what genuine repentance is. So if I want to know whether my love for God or man, or my obedience to the law is genuine, I must have clearly before my mind the real spirit, meaning, and bearing of the law of God. Having this rule before my mind, my own conscience provides the most direct and convincing evidence possible of whether I conform to God’s rule. The Spirit of God never testifies to what my conscience teaches, but my conscience sets the rule in a strong light, and I am to conform my life to that rule. It is His business to make me understand, to induce me to love and obey the truth; and it is the business of my conscience to testify whether or not I obey the truth when I mentally grasp it. I may not have the correct knowledge of the law or truth of God. Therefore, I may mistake the character of some of my activities. But when God so presents the truth as to give me the assurance, that I understand His mind and will on any subject, my awareness of what I do in view of that truth, is the highest and most direct possible evidence of whether I obey or disobey.

(4.) If a person can’t be aware of the character of his own activities, how can he know when to repent and what he should repent of? If he has committed sin that he is not aware of, how can he repent of it? And if he has a holiness that he is not conscious of, how can he feel that he has peace with God?

But many say that a person can violate God’s law without knowing it, and, as a result, he is not aware that he has sinned, but afterwards, learning about the law may convict him of sin. However, if there was absolutely no knowledge that the thing in question was wrong, doing that thing was not sin because some degree of knowledge of what is right or wrong is indispensable to the moral character of any act. In such a situation, a sinful ignorance can involve the guilt of all those actions that were done because of that ignorance; but the blame lies in the ignorance itself, and not in violating that rule that the mind was entirely ignorant of at the time.

(5.) The Bible everywhere assumes that we are able to know, and certainly requires us to know, what our moral state is. It commands us to examine ourselves, to know and to approve our selves. Now, the only way this can be done is by bringing our hearts into the light of the law of God, and then accepting the testimony of our own conscience, whether we do or don’t conform to the law. But if we don’t receive the testimony of our conscience concerning our sanctification, will we receive it concerning our repentance? The fact is, we can deceive ourselves by neglecting to compare ourselves with the right standard. But when our views of the standard are right, and our conscience is a felt, decided, unequivocal state of mind, we cannot be deceived any more than we can be deceived about our own existence.

(6.) Some say that our conscience does not reveal to us the power and capacities of our minds. Therefore, even if our conscience could tell us about the nature of our activities, it cannot tell us about their degree, whether it is equal to the present capability of our mind. To this I reply:

(a) Our conscience clearly testifies whether we do or do not love God with all our heart, just as it testifies whether we love Him at all. How does a man know that he lifts as much as he can, or runs, or leaps, or walks as fast as he is able? I answer: by his own conscience. How does he know that he repents or loves with all his heart? I answer: by his own conscience. This is the only possible way he can know.

(b) This objection implies that God has not put within our reach any possible means of knowing whether we obey Him or not. The Bible does not directly tell us whether we obey God or not. It reveals our duty, but it does not reveal whether or not we obey. It refers this testimony to our conscience. The Spirit of God sets our duty before us, but He does not directly reveal to us whether we do it or not; for this would imply that every man is under constant inspiration.

Some say that the Bible directs our attention to the fact of whether we obey or disobey as evidence whether we are in a right state of mind or not. But, I would ask, how do we know whether we obey or disobey? How do we know anything about our conduct other than by our conscience? Our conduct, as observed by others, is to them evidence of the state of our hearts. But, being aware that we obey God is the highest and indeed the only evidence of our true character.

(c) If our own conscience is not a witness, either for or against us, no other testimony in the universe can ever satisfy us that God’s dealing with us, on that final Judgment Day, will be appropriate. Let ten thousand witnesses testify that a man committed murder. Still, that man can’t feel condemned for that murder unless his own conscience testifies to that fact. Therefore, if ten thousand witnesses testify that he had performed some good deed, he could not feel satisfied, or sense self-approval, unless his conscience testifies to the same fact. There are cases where the witnesses testify to the guilt or innocence of a man contrary to the testimony of his own conscience. When God convicts a man of sin, it is not by contradicting his conscience; but by placing his conscience in the clear strong light of his memory, causing him to clearly see and remember what light he had, what thoughts he had, and what convictions he had. In other words, God reveals to him, the conscience he had at the time. This is the way, and the only way, in which the Spirit of God can convict a person of sin, and bring him to condemn himself. Now suppose that God testifies against someone, that at a certain time he did a certain thing. Suppose God reveals all the circumstances surrounding that event. Now suppose that, at the same time, the individual can’t remember, and appears as if he was never even aware of what happened. In this situation, the testimony of God would not satisfy that person, or lead him into a state of self-condemnation. The only possible way in which a state of self-condemnation could be induced, would be to arouse the memory of his past conscience, and cause the whole scene to replay itself in living reality before his mind’s eye, as it passed through his conscience at the time it happened. But, if he has no consciousness of what he did, and, as a result, he can’t remember anything about what happened, to convict him of sin is naturally and forever impossible.

(7.) We may overlook the importance of our conscience. We may mistake our rule of duty. We may confuse our conscience with a mere negative state of mind, or that state where we are not aware that we are opposed to the truth. Yet it must forever remain true, that to our own minds “our conscience must be the highest possible evidence” of what passes within us. And if, exercising our conscience, we can’t know whether we are doing the best we can under the circumstances, whether we have a single eye to the glory of God, and whether we are completely consecrated to God, we can’t know it in any way whatever. And no testimony whatever, whether it comes from God or man, could, according to the laws of our existence, satisfy us, and produce in us either conviction of guilt on one hand, or self-approval on the other.

(8.) Finally, let me ask you, how do those people, who make this objection, know that they are not sanctified? Has God revealed it to them? Has He revealed it in the Bible? Does the Bible say to Artie Brown by name, “Artie, you are not in a sanctified state”? Or, does the Bible lay down a rule, in the light of which, people’s own conscience testifies against them? Has God directly revealed to them by His Spirit, that they are not in a sanctified state? Or, does God hold His rule of duty strongly before their minds, and thus awaken the testimony of their consciences, that they are not in this state?

Now in the same way, the conscience testifies to those who are sanctified, that they are sanctified. Neither the Bible, nor the Spirit of God, makes any new or particular revelation to them by name. But the Spirit of God bears witness with their spirits, by setting the standard of sanctification in a strong light before them. Their consciences then declare that they conform to God’s standard. This is as far as possible from setting aside the judgment of God in any situation, for their conscience is, under these circumstances, the testimony of God, and it is the way that He convinces us of sin on one hand, and of entire consecration on the other.

So, we see that, the objection that our conscience can’t determine how strong our powers are, and can’t tell us if we really serve God with all our strength, seems to be based on the false supposition that the law of God requires every power of body and mind to be excited at every moment to its full strength. Such a notion has no regard for the nature of that subject that we focus our powers on, for the time being. In my first lecture on sanctification, I tried to show that perfect obedience to the law of God does not require any excessive amount of strength. Entire sanctification is entire consecration. Entire consecration is simply obedience to the law of God. And all that the law requires is that we simply consecrate our whole being to God. The amount of strength we exert in His service at any time depends on the nature of the subject. Nothing is further from the truth, than that obedience to the law of God requires that we strain every power of our body and mind, and work with the highest possible degree of excitement and activity. This kind of interpretation of God’s law would be completely inconsistent with life and health; and would even condemn the life and conduct of Jesus Christ Himself; because His life shows that He was not in a state of constant excitement to the full extent of His powers.

16. Others object, saying that if we could attain this state during our lifetime, it would be the end of our probation. Since the fall of Adam, we are in a state of probation or trial concerning:

(1.) Whether or not we will repent and believe the gospel; and

(2.) Whether or not we will persevere in holiness to the end of our life.

Some believe that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints sets aside the idea of being in a state of probation after our conversion. This is how they reason: “If we know that the saints will persevere, then their probation is over; because the question is already settled. Not only will God convert them, but that they will persevere to the end, and the whole idea of probation is contingent on not knowing whether we will persevere.” To this I reply:

Something may be contingent with man that is not contingent with God. With God, there is not and never was any contingency concerning the final destiny of any being. But with people, almost everything is contingent. God certainly knows whether He will convert someone, and whether that person will persevere. A person may know that he is converted, and may believe that, by the grace of God, he will persevere. He may have an assurance of this in proportion to the strength of his faith. But the knowledge of this fact is not at all inconsistent with the idea that he must continue in a state of trial until the day of his death; since his perseverance depends on the exercise of his own free will.

In the same way, some say that if we attain a state of entire and permanent sanctification we are no longer in a state of probation. I answer, that perseverance in this state depends on the same promise and grace of God, as the final perseverance of the saints does. In neither case do we have any other assurance of our perseverance than the assurance of faith in the promise and grace of God. Nor do we have any other knowledge of achieving this state, than the knowledge that comes from a belief in the testimony of God, that He will preserve us blameless until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. If this is inconsistent with our probation, the doctrine of the saints’ perseverance should also be inconsistent with probation. If any one claims that any judgment or belief concerning our final perseverance is inconsistent with a state of probation, all I can say is that his views of probation are very different from my views, and as far as I understand, with those of the Church of God.

There is a very high and important sense in which every moral being will remain on probation throughout eternity. While under the moral government of God, obedience must forever remain a condition of God’s favor. The fact of continued obedience will forever depend on the faithfulness and grace of God; and the only knowledge we can ever have of this fact, either in heaven or on earth, must be based on the faithfulness and truth of God.

If entering into a state of permanent sanctification in this life were, in some sense, the end of our probation, that would still not affect the doctrine of sanctification; for there is a sense in which probation often ends long before our life on earth ends. For example, probation ends when a person has committed the unpardonable sin, or when God has given up sinners to fill up the measure of their iniquity. When God withdraws His Holy Spirit from them forever, and turns them over to eternal death; this, in a very important sense, is the end of their probation, and they are as sure of hell as if they were already there.

So on the other hand, when a person has received the sealing of the Spirit for the day of redemption as a guarantee of his inheritance, he must regard this as a solemn pledge, on the part of God, of his final perseverance and salvation, which no longer leaves the final question of his destiny in doubt. (See Eph 1:13-14)

Please remember, that in both cases the results depend on the exercise of our free will. In the case of the sinner given up by God, it is certain that he will not repent, although his unrepentance is willful and not something naturally necessary. So, on the other hand, the perseverance of the saint is certain although not necessary. If, in either case, there should be a radical change of character, the result would differ accordingly.

17. Although some admit that we can achieve entire sanctification in our lifetime, they deny that there is any certainty that anyone will attain sanctification before death. For, they say that, since faith conditions all the promises of entire sanctification, therefore faith cannot secure the entire sanctification of anybody. To this I reply:

Since all the promises of salvation in the Bible are conditioned on faith and repentance, the principle those people support does not guarantee that any one will ever be saved. What does all this arguing prove? The fact is that, while the promises of both salvation and sanctification are conditioned on faith concerning individuals, yet, to Christ and to the Church as a body, these promises are unconditional. Concerning the salvation of sinners, it is promised that Christ shall have a seed to serve Him, and the Bible abounds with numerous promises, both to Christ and the Church, that secure without condition, the salvation of great multitudes of sinners. Therefore, the promises that the Church, as a body, shall be entirely sanctified at some time in her history are unconditional. But, concerning individuals, the fulfillment of these promises must depend on the exercise of faith. Both, in the salvation of sinners and the sanctification of Christians, God abundantly pledges to bring about the salvation of the one and the sanctification of the other, to the extent of His promises. But, concerning individuals, no one can claim the fulfillment of these promises without complying with the conditions.

These are the principal objections that came to my mind, or have been urged by others. I’m sure there will be others that I’ll have the opportunity to refer to later. I’m sure this is enough for now.