XXXV.    SANCTIFICATION                                                                                     

A       Let me mention some things that this course of study has settled. 

1   We discussed the true intention and meaning of the law of God in our studies on moral government.

2   We also saw in those studies, what is, and what is not implied in complete obedience to the moral law.

3   In those studies, and in the studies on justification and repentance, we saw that nothing is acceptable to God as a condition of justification and of consequent salvation, except a repentance that implies a return to full obedience to the moral law.  

4   We also learned that nothing is holiness that falls short of complete present obedience to the moral law.  

5   I also showed you that regeneration and repentance consists in our heart’s return to a full obedience of the moral law.

6   We also examined the doctrine of depravity, and saw that moral depravity, or sin, consists in selfishness, and not in our constitution.  We say that selfishness does not consist in involuntary appetites, passions, or tendencies, but that selfishness consists in committing our will to the gratification of our selfish appetites. 

7   We saw that holiness does not consist in the constitution of our body or mind, but that it belongs to our will or heart, and consists in willful obedience to the law of God as it lies revealed in our mind; that holiness is expressed in one word, love.  We learned that this love is identical with the entire consecration of our whole being to the glory of God, and to the highest good of the universe; or in other words, that this love consists in unselfish benevolence.  

8   We came to the conclusion that, as long as God accepts us, we render, for the time being, full obedience to all the known requirements of God; that is, that, for the time being, we do everything that God presently requires of us.  

9   We learned that we couldn’t be obedient without depending on the grace of God, but the indwelling spirit of Christ that we receive by faith influences us, and reigns in our heart.  Today, we will examine this fact in greater detail. 

B       Let me define the main words we will use in today’s discussion. 
     Here let me say, that in any discussion, a proper definition of words is very important.  This is especially true of sanctification.  I have observed that, almost without an exception, those who have written different views of sanctification do so with different definitions of sanctification and Christian perfection then what I will present here.  Everyone states his definition, and then goes on to oppose the doctrine, as I will define here.  Now, this is not only completely unfair, but this is also absurd.  If I oppose any doctrine taught by another man, I have to oppose what he believes.  If I misrepresent his statements and opinions, “I fight as one that beats the air.”  (1 Cor. 9:26)  The variety of definitions that have been given for such terms as Christian perfection and sanctification astonishes me.  I am amazed when I hear so many different opinions as to what these terms do and don’t mean.  One person completely objects to the use of the term Christian perfection, because he believes it implies this, or that, and even something else, which may not even have anything to do with it.  Another objects that we use the term sanctification, because it implies, according to how he understands it, certain things that render its use improper. 
     Now, I am not here to argue over words.  I must however use words; and I should be allowed to use Bible language in its scriptural sense, as I understand it.  If I should sufficiently explain my meaning, and define the way I use these words, and how the Bible uses them, this should suffice.  And I beg you, please understand only what I profess to mean by what I say, no more no less.  Others may, if they want to, use the same words, and give different definitions of them.  But, I have a right to hope and expect, if they feel like the have to oppose what I say, that they will remember my definition of the terms, and not pretend, as some have done, to oppose my views, while all they have really done is differ from me in their definition of the words they use.  They have their own definition, which varies basically and, maybe, infinitely from the way I use the same terms.  And then, they array their arguments to prove, that according to their definition of it, sanctification cannot really be attained in this life, when no one here or anywhere else that I ever heard of ever pretended that, using the way they defined sanctification, anyone could ever reach it in this life, and I might add, or in the life which is to come.
  Sanctifica­tion is a term that the Bible uses frequently.  Its simple and primary meaning is a state of consecration to God.  To sanctify means to set apart for a holy use, to consecrate something to the service of God.  This is clearly how the Old and the New Testaments use this term.  The Greek word ‘hagiazo’ means ‘to sanctify, to consecrate, or devote a person or thing to a particular, especially to a sacred, use’.  This word is synonymous with the Hebrew word ‘kaudash’.  The Old Testament uses this last word to express the same thing that the Greek word ‘hagiazo’ expresses, namely, ‘to consecrate, devote, set apart, sanctify, purify, or to make clean or pure’.  ‘Hagiasmos’, a substantive from ‘hagiazo’, means ‘sanctification, devotion, consecration, purity, holiness’.          

C       From how the Bible uses the Hebrew word ‘kaudash’ and its Greek counterpart ‘hagiazo’ it is clear:

1   That sanctification does not imply any constitutional change of our soul or body.  It consists in the consecration or devotion of the constitutional powers of our body and soul to God, and not in any change that our constitution itself produces. 

2   It is also clear from how the scriptures use sanctification, that sanctification is not a phenomenon, or state of our intellect.  It doesn’t belong to our reason, conscience, or understanding.  In fact, it cannot consist in any state of our mind whatever.  All the states of our mind are passive, and so they are not the basis for holiness.

3   It is just as clear that sanctification, in the scriptural and proper sense of the term, is not a mere feeling of any kind.  It is not a desire, an appetite, a passion, a tendency, an emotion, nor any kind or degree of feeling.  It is not a state or phenomenon of our emotions.  Our emotional states, like our mind, are purely passive states of our soul.  They can have no moral character all by themselves.

4   When the Bible applies sanctification to people, it does not consist in any involuntary state or attitude of mind whatever. 

5    The inspired writers use the terms, that we translate as ‘sanctify’, to designate a phenomenon of our will, or a willful state of mind.  They use the term ‘hagiazo’ in Greek, and ‘kaudash’ in Hebrew, to represent the act of consecrating one’s self, or anything else to the service of God and to the highest good of the universe.  Sanctification obviously not only speaks of an act of our will, but also an ultimate act or choice, as distinguished from a simple decision.  Thus, the terms rendered sanctified are used synonymously with loving God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves.  The Greek ‘hagiasmos’, that we translate as ‘sanctification’, expresses a state or attitude of voluntary consecration to God, a continued act of consecration; or a state of choice rather than just a mere decision, an abiding act or state of choice, a standing and controlling preference of mind, is a continuous committing of our will to the highest good of God and of the universe.  Sanctification is a state of obedience, or a state of conforming to the law of God.  Our will is the executive or controlling faculty of our soul.  Sanctification consists in our will devoting or consecrating itself and our whole being, all we are and have, to the service of God, or to the highest interests of God and His created universe.  Sanctification, then, is nothing more or less than complete obedience to the moral law, at least for the time being. 

D        Sanctification may be entire in two senses:

1   In the sense of current, full obedience, or total consecration to God; and

2   In the sense of a continued, abiding consecration or obedience to God.  When we use the term, entire sanctification, this way, it consists in being established, confirmed, preserved, and continuing in a state of sanctification or of total consecration to God.  

E       In today’s discussion, then, I will use the term entire sanctification to designate a state of entire consecration of our body, soul, and spirit, or of our whole being to God.  I do not use this term in the sense:

1   That an entirely sanctified soul cannot sin, in the sense that we do not and will not sin.

2   Nor do I use the term entire sanctification to imply that the entirely sanctified soul does not need the thorough use and application of all the means of grace to prevent him from sinning, and to secure his continued sanctification.

3   Nor, do I mean that in which there will be no further struggles or battles with temptation.  Entire sanctification is not a state where Christian warfare ceases.  This warfare certainly did not cease for Christ until the end of His life, nor will it cease in our lives.

4   Nor do I use the term to imply a state where no further progress in holiness is possible.  No such state is, or ever will be, possible for any creature because we all must increase in knowledge; and increasing knowledge implies increasing holiness.  The saints will surely grow in grace and holiness throughout all eternity.

5   When I use the term entire sanctification, I don’t mean that the entirely sanctified soul no longer needs the continuous grace and indwelling Spirit of Christ to preserve him from sin, and to make sure he continues in a state of consecration to God.  It is remarkable that such men like Dr. Beecher claim that a state of entire consecration implies that the entirely sanctified soul no longer needs the grace of Christ to preserve it.  Entire sanctification, instead of implying no further dependence on the grace of Christ, implies the constant appropriation of Christ by faith for the sanctification of the soul.  

F       Sanctification

1   Sanctification does not depend on whether we can achieve a state of present full obedience to God’s law in this life.

2   Sanctification does not depend on whether any saint on earth has ever accomplished a state of permanent, full obedience.

3    Sanctification can be reached in this life.  If I insist that sanctification has been reached, please understand that the fact, that sanctification has been accomplished, can only be used as an example to help prove that sanctification can be reached­; that this is only one of the arguments we can use to prove that we can attain sanctification in our lifetime.  Now, if you feel that there is a defect in proving that someone has attained this state, this will still not affect the integrity and conclu­siveness of the other arguments that support the argument that we can attain sanctification in this life.  We can abundantly establish the fact that we can reach this state of sanctification in this life without even addressing the question whether anyone has ever achieved this state. 
     The true question is, can we reach a state of entire, established, and abiding consecration to God in this life, in such a sense that we may reasonably expect or hope to become sanctified before we die?  Are the conditions of becoming sanctified in the grace and love of God such that we may reasonably expect or hope to fulfill them, and thus become sanctified in this life?  This is a very important question to settle.  

G      We can achieve entire sanctification in this life.  

1   Total obedience to God’s law is possible on the ground of our natural ability.  To deny this, is to deny that we are able to do as well as we can.  The Bible words moral law in such a way that it levels its claims to the ability of the subject, no matter how great or small that ability may be.  “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.”  (Deut. 6:5)  Here it is clear that the only thing the law demands is the exercise of whatever strength we have in the service of God.  Since entire sanctification consists in perfect obedience to the law of God, and since the law requires nothing more than simply the right use of whatever strength that we have, therefore, a state of entire sanctifi­cation is naturally possible in this life. 
     Many Christians today would rather throw away the doctrine of natural ability, and take refuge in the doctrine of a constitutional depravity, than to admit that they can achieve a state of entire sanctification in this life.  But, let people take refuge wherever they want to, they can never escape from the simple letter, spirit, and meaning of the law of God.  Notice what it says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.”  (Deut. 6:5)
  This is its solemn injunction, whether it is given to an angel, a man, or a child.  An angel must exercise an angel’s strength; a man, a man’s strength; and a child, a child’s strength.  This scripture applies to every moral being in the universe, just as he is, and where he is.  God’s law does not require that man should create new powers, or possess any other powers than he has, but that he should properly use whatever talents he has for God.

2   The provisions of grace are sufficient to make sanctification something that we can reason­ably pursue in this life.  We admit that the entire sanctification of the church must be accom­plished.  We also admit that “sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” must accomplish this work.  (See 2 Thess. 2:13)  We also agree that this work must begin here; and that it must be completed before the soul can enter heaven.  Then, can we attain a state of sanctification before death?            

H       Bible argument. 
     Let us now turn to the Bible to determine whether it would be reasonably worth our while to pursue entire sanctification in this life.

1   It is clear that it would be reasonably worthwhile to pursue entire sanctification from the fact that God provides abundant means to accomplish this end.  “(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) 
     On this passage let me say:

a       What this passage says only applies to this life.  It is in this life that the apostles, evangelists, prophets, and teachers, exercise their ministry.  Therefore, these means, as far as we know, only applies to this life.

b       Here Paul teaches us that God designed these means to adequately 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.”  (Eph. 4:13)  Now observe: 

c        These means are for perfecting the saints, until the whole church, as a perfect man, comes “to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”.  If this is not entire sanctifica­tion, what is?  That this must take place in this world is clear from what follows.  For Paul adds, “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.”  (Eph. 4:14)

d       Please notice that this is a very strong passage supporting the doctrine of sanctification, because it states that God provides abundant means to sanctify the church in this life.  And, since the church includes all its members, there must be plenty of provisions to sanctify each individual.

e       If this work must take place, it is by these means.  But these means are used only in this life.  Entire sanctification then must take place in this life.

f     If this passage does not teach a state of entire sanctification, you won’t be able to find entire sanctification in your Bible.  If, from this passage, you can’t believe that believers are wholly sanctified by these means in this life, no scripture anywhere will convince you.

g       But suppose we turn this passage into a command, how would we understand it?  Suppose God commands the saints to be perfect, and to “grow up to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”.  (Eph. 4:13)  Can you understand anything less than entire sanctification by such a command?  Then by what rule of sober criticism, I would ask, can these words,, used in context, mean anything less than entire sanctification?  

2   Now let us look into some of the promises.  It is not my purpose to examine many promises, but simply to show that those I do examine fully support the position I take.  One scripture should be sufficient, if it is thorough and its application just, to settle this question forever.  I could examine many passages because there are many passages which are full and to the point.  But my purpose today is to examine somewhat critically only a few of the many available passages.  This will enable you to apply the same principles when you study other scripture promises on your own.

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

1)         It sums up our whole duty to God, to fear and love Him with all our heart and all our soul.  

2)         Although God spoke this to Israel, it applies to all men.  This command is equally binding on everyone.  This command is all that God requires of any man concerning Him. 

3)         Continued obedience to this requirement is entire sanctification.  

b       “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.”  (Deut. 30:6)  Here we have a promise that is worded the same way as the command I just quoted.  On this passage, let me say: 

1)          It promises just what the law requires.  If the law requires a state of entire sanctifica­tion, then this is a promise of entire sanctification.  Since this command applies to everybody, so this promise universally applies to all who will receive it.  Faith is an indispensable condition of the fulfillment of this promise.  It is impossible for us to love God with all our heart if we have no confidence in Him.  God produces love in us by revealing Himself to us in such a way that it inspires confidence in us, a confidence that works by love.

2)         Now there is no reason why we should not understand that the words of the promise means just as much if we used these words in a command.  This promise appears as if God designed it to completely cover His requirement.  Suppose that this promise was a command, or suppose that the form of this promise was in the form of a command.  Suppose God should say here as He says elsewhere, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5), who would doubt that God requires a state of entire sanctification or consecration to Himself?  Then how are we to understand it when God states it as a prom­ise?  If His bountifulness equals His justice, we must understand that His promises of grace must mean as much as the requirements of His justice.  If He delights in giving as much as in receiving, His promises must mean as much as His requirements.

3)         We expect to see this promise fulfilled in this life.  This is what the passage implies: “I will circumcise my heart, and the heart of my seed, to love the Lord my God with all my heart, and with all my soul.”  To some degree, this takes place in regeneration, but it seems like God promises more than simple regeneration here.  I think it is clear that this promise relates to a state of mind, and not merely to some outward act.

4)         Concerning the Church, this promise must be absolute and certain some day.  So someday, God will produce this state of mind in the church.  But to who and what genera­tion this promise will be fulfilled, depends on their faith in the promise.  

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

1)         Now the time when they expected the fulfillment of this passage was when Christ came to earth.  This conclusion comes from Heb 8:8‑12, where Paul quotes this entire passage and tells us that this passage applies to the gospel age. 

2)         This is undeniably a promise of entire sanctification.  It is a promise that the “law shall be written in the heart”.  This means that God will place the very temper and spirit that the law requires in the heart.  Now, if the law requires entire sanctification or perfect holiness, this is certainly a promise of it; for this is a promise of everything that the law re­quires.  Saying that this is not a promise of entire sanctification, is just as absurd as saying that perfect obedience to the law is not entire sanctification; and this is just as absurd as saying that something more is our duty than what the law requires.  In other words, this is a round about way of saying that the law is imperfect and unjust.

3)         This promise clearly implies a permanent state of entire sanctification.  The reason for setting aside the first covenant was that it was broken: “Which My covenant they broke.”  The beautiful thing about the new covenant is that it will not be broken, for then it would be no better than the first.  This statement suggests that God must engrave the new covenant permanently in our heart.  The statement that God will remember their sin no more also clearly implies that this new covenant is permanent.  In Jer. 32:39, 40, where the same promise is basically repeated, you will find it clearly stated that the covenant must be an “everlasting” covenant, and that He will “put His fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from Him.”  Did you notice that this passage clearly states that this covenant is permanent?

4)         Suppose this promise was in the form of a command.  Suppose God said, “Let My law be within your hearts, and let it be in your inward parts, and let My fear be so within your heart, that you shall not depart from Me. Let your covenant with Me be everlast­ing.”  If this were a command, would any man in his right man doubt that it meant that God requires perfect and permanent sanctification?  If not, by what rule of sober interpretation does one make it mean anything else?  It seems like it’s not a big deal to make a passage mean much less when it appears as a promise rather than a command.

5)         This promise as it relates to the eternal church is unconditional, and its fulfillment is certain.  But concerning any particular individuals or any generation of the church, its fulfillment is conditioned by their faith.  The church, as a body, has certainly never received this new covenant.  Yet, many individuals in every age of the Christian dispensation have received it.  And God will hasten the time when it will be so fully accomplished, that there will be no need for one man to say to his brother, “Know the Lord, for all shall know Him from the least to the greatest” (Heb. 8:11)

6)         Please understand that God made this promise to the Christian church, not to the Jewish church.  The saints under the old dispensation had no reason to expect God t fulfill this and similar promises, because the fulfillment of these scriptures was deferred until the beginning of the Christian dispensation.

7)         Some say that nothing more is promised here than regeneration.  But, weren’t the Old Testament saints regenerated?  Yet, it the Bible clearly says that they did not receive the promises.  “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.”  “And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us” (Heb. 11:13, 39, 40)

8)         Here we see that the Old Testament saints did not receive these promises.  Yet, they were regenerated. 
     Some say that the promise only applies to the final perseverance of the saints.  But, I would ask; didn’t the Old Testament saints persevere?  Yet, we have just seen that the Old Testament saints did not receive the fulfillment of these prom­ises.

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

1)          This promise was written within nineteen years of the previous passage that we have just examined in Jeremiah.  It refers to the same time, and promises the same blessing. 

2)         This is a promise of entire sanctification.  The language is very definite and full.  “Then,” refers to some future time when it will come to pass, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean” Notice the first promise, “you shall be clean.”  If to be “clean” does not mean entire sanctification, what does it mean? 
     The second promise is, “I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.”  If cleansing you “from all your filthiness and all your idols,” is not a state of entire sanctification, what is? 
     The third promise is, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.”  If to have a “new heart,” a “new spirit,” a “heart of flesh,” as opposed to a “heart of stone,” is not entire sanctification, what is? 
     The fourth promise is, “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.” 

3)         Let us turn the words of these promises into a command, and understand God as saying, “Make yourselves a clean heart, a new heart, and a new spirit; put away all your iniquities, all your filthiness, and all your idols; walk in My statutes, and keep My judgments, and do them.”  Now what reasonable person would doubt that God requires a state of entire sanctification in these commands?  That is how we would understand God if we used the rules of legitimate interpretation. 
     If this is true, what is the fair and proper construction of this same passage when the Bible states it as a promise?  In these promises, there should be no doubt left in our mind that God would mean the same as if it was a command: for example: “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin.  Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.  For why should you die, O house of Israel?”  (Ezek. 18:30‑31)  Every sober rule of interpretation demands that the promise in Ezekiel 36: 25-27 means as much as this command.  And who here thinks, that when God required His people to put away all their iniquities, He only meant that they should only put away some of them. 

4)         This promise is for the church, and we cannot pretend that the promise was fulfilled sometime in the past.

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

6)         It clearly applies to Christians under the new dispensation, rather than to the Jews under the old dispensation.  The sprinkling of clean water, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, indicates that the promise belongs to the Christian dispensation.  It belongs to the same group of promises as in Jer. 26:31‑34; Joel 2:28, and many other scriptures that look forward to the gospel‑day as the time when it shall happen.  Since these promises have never been completely fulfilled, the church as a body is still waiting for the complete fulfillment of these promises.  And those individuals and that generation will take possession of the blessing, who understand, and believe, and appropriate these scriptures into their own lives.

e       I will next examine this promise: “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)  On this I remark:

1)         This is a prayer for, and a promise of entire sanctification.

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

3)         This is a prayer of inspiration, with a clear promise that God will do it.

4)         Its fulfillment depends on our faith since sanctification without faith is naturally impos­sible.  

5)         Now, if this promise, along with the other passages we have examined, does not fully settle the question that we can reach entire sanctification in this life, it is difficult to understand how we can settle anything by an appeal to scripture.  There are many promises just as important, which, when we examine them in the light of the standard rules of interpretation, would add evidence upon evidence that this is a doctrine of the Bible.  Examine them in the light of these plain, self‑evident principles, and it seems to me that they must produce conviction. 
     Having examined a few of the promises to prove the position that we can reach a state of entire sanctification in this life, I will now mention some other things that support this doctrine.

3   The apostles expected Christians to reach a sanctified state in this life.  “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.”  (Col. 4:12)  It was the object of the efforts of Epaphras, to be instrumental in causing those Christians to be “perfect and complete in all the will of God”. 

a       If this passage does not describe a state of entire sanctification, I don’t know what would.  If to “stand perfect and complete in all the will of God”, is not Christian perfection, what is?  

b       Paul knew that Epaphras was working towards this goal; and with this expectation, he informed the church about it in a way that showed he approved of the views and the conduct of Epaphras. 
     Here is another passage that shows that the apostles expected Christians to achieve this state: “There­fore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”  (2 Cor. 7:1) 
     Now, Paul is talking as if he really expected those he wrote to, to perfect “holiness in the fear of God”.  Notice how strong and full his 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?  That Paul expected this to take place during our lifetime is clear from the fact that he requires us to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh as well as of the spirit.  This passage deals with more than just an act of consecration or sanctification; it expresses the idea of complete, continuous sanctification.

4   Since we can take all the intermediate steps, we can reach the end.  There is certainly no reason to strive for entire sanctification if we can only go so far.  Some believe that, although we can take all the intermediate steps, we can never reach the goal during our lifetime, just as we can divide five by three and carry out the fraction indefinitely, without exhausting the fraction.  Now this illustration deceives the minds of those that use 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, for the plain reason that you can carry out the division forever.  There is no end.  In this situation, you cannot take all the intermediate steps, because they are infinite.  But in the case of entire sanctification, you can take all the intermediate steps because there is an end.  That end is a state of entire sanctifi­cation, and the steps end at a point infinitely short of infinite. 

5   That we can reach this state in our lifetime, I argue from the fact that God has made provisions against every occasion of sin.  We sin only when the world, the flesh, or the devil tempts us.  And the Bible clearly states that, in every temptation, God makes provision for our escape.  Certainly, if it is possible for us to escape every temptation without sin, then we can achieve a state of entire and permanent sanctification.  God makes full provision for overcoming the three great enemies of our souls, the world, the flesh, and the devil.  

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

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

c        Satan “above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one” (Eph. 6:16)  “God shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20)  

6   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)  Let me comment on this passage:  

a       Here, Paul prays for the entire sanctification of believers in this life.  This is implied when he prayed that we be “rooted and grounded in love”, and that we may be “filled with all the fullness of God, that we might be as perfect in our measure and according to our capacity as He is.”  If being filled with the fullness of God does not imply a state of entire sanctification, what does?  

b       That Paul did not see any difficulty in the way God accomplishes this work, is clear from what he says in: “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” (Eph. 3:20) 

7   The Bible nowhere represents death as the end of sin in the saints, which it would do if it were true that saints do not stop sinning until they die.  It has been the custom of the church for a long time, to console individuals facing death with the consolation that it will be the end of all their sinning.  The universal custom today, in consoling the friends of deceased saints, is to mention that they now have ceased from sin!  Now, if death is the termination of sin in the saints, and if they never stop sinning until they die, we could never put too much stress on that fact; and yet it seems utterly incredible that not one inspired writer has ever even noticed that fact.  In fact, the scriptures are all directly opposed to that 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)  This passage does not say that they rest from their sins, but they rest from their good works in this life, and their works will follow them, not to curse, but to bless them.  The scripture represents death as the termination of the saint’s sufferings and labors of love in this world.  But, nowhere in the Bible does it even suggest that the death of a saint is the end of his serving the devil. 
     The way the Bible represents death indicates that death is totally inconsistent with it being an indispensable means of sanctification.  The Bible represents death as an enemy.  But, if death was the only way we could be brought into a state of entire sanctification, death would be as important and as indispensable as the influence of the Holy Ghost.  When the Bible represents death as anything other than an enemy, it is because death cuts short the sufferings of the saints, and introduces them into a state of eternal glory, not because it breaks them off from communion with the devil!  How shocking is the difference between what the Church cays and what Scripture says on this subject!  When a Christian becomes concerned about death, the church consoles him, saying that death will mark the end of his sinning and that he will no longer serve the devil and his own lusts.  On the other hand, inspiration tells the saint that, when he dies, he will cease, not from wicked deeds, but from good works, labors, and sufferings for God in this world.  The church says that not until he dies, will the saint enter into a life of unalterable holiness.  He shall not be sanctified until then.  The Bible says that because he is sanctified, death shall be an entrance into a state of eternal glory.  

8   Ministers certainly must set up some definite standard, to which, as ministers of God, they insist that everybody conforms to that standard.  Now I would ask, what other standard can they set up than sanctification?  To insist on anything less than this is to turn pope and grant an indul­gence to sin.  But to set up sanctification as the standard, and then suggest that you can’t become sanctified in this life is to take the side of sin against God.  It would be like insisting on repentance in theory, and then claiming that you can’t repent in practice.  And here, let me ask you, what do you expect ministers to preach?  Do you think they have a right to tolerate and support any sin in you, or to insist on anything else as a practical fact other than the fact that you should abandon every iniquity?  I ask, by what authority can a minister preach anything less?  And how shall any minister dare to teach this duty as a theory, and yet not insist that sanctification is a practical matter, that it is something that every member of God’s kingdom can and should expect.

9   Denying this doctrine has the natural tendency to give birth to the apathy that we see throughout the church today.  Professing Christians go on sinning, with little conviction of its wickedness.  Sin unblushingly stalks abroad even in the church of God, and it fails to fill Christians with horror because they expect sin to exist in their lives as a matter of fact.  Tell a young convert that he should expect to backslide, and he will certainly backslide, and with comparatively little remorse, because he looks on it as something he should expect to do.  And being told to expect it, you will find him only a few months after his conversion, away from God, and not at all horrified with his state.  If you impress the idea among Christians that they shouldn’t expect to abandon all sin, they will go on sinning with comparative indifference.  Reprove them for their sin, and they will say, “Oh, we are imperfect creatures; we do not pretend to be perfect, nor do we expect that we shall ever be perfect in this world.”  Many answers like these will show you at once the God‑dishonoring and soul‑destroying tendency of denying this doctrine.

10        Denying this doctrine prepares the minds of ministers to compromise, and to wink at so many sins that are committed in their churches.  Once they believe that they should expect a certain amount of sin in believers, their preaching, and spirit, and demeanor, will be such that it produces a lot of apathy among Christians concerning their abominable sins.  

11        If sanctification 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 upon 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, righteously, and Godly, in this present world” (Titus 2:12)  Now, if attaining entire sanctification in this life is not true, this covenant becomes a mockery!  This 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 distributing the bread and wine.  Now what right does any minister on earth have to require anything less than this?  And again, what right does any minister have on earth to require this unless it is practical, and unless the one who makes the vow expects this? 
     Suppose, a minister proposes this covenant to a convert about to join the church.  He takes it home to his prayer closet, and he spreads it out before the Lord, and asks whether it would be 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 live habitually violating it as long as he lives, and that God’s grace was not sufficient to enable him to keep it?  Would that young convert, under these circumstances, have any right to make this covenant?  No, no more than he would have a right to lie to the Holy Ghost. 
     Most theological scholars today maintain that a person who does not aim to live without sin is not a Christian, that unless he aims at perfection, he consents to live in sin and is therefore impenitent.  If a man does not, in his heart, aim at total abstinence from sin and being wholly conformed to the will of God, he is not yet regenerated, and does not have any intention to stop sinning against God.  In Barnes’ Notes on 2 Cor. 8:1, we have the following:  “The unceasing and steady aim of every Christian should be perfection in all things in the love of God, of Christ, of man; perfection of heart, and feeling, and emotion; perfection in his words, and plans, and dealings with men; perfection in his prayers, and in his submission to the will of God.  No man can be a Christian who does not sincerely desire perfection, and who does not constantly aim at it.  No man is a friend of God who can acquiesce in a state of sin, and who is satisfied and contented that he is not as holy as God is holy.  And any man who has no desire to be perfect as God is, and who does not make it his daily and constant aim to be as perfect as God, may set it down as demonstrably certain that he has no true religion.”  Now if what Barnes says is true, I would ask how can we aim at, and intend to do, what we know is impossible?  Isn’t it a contradiction to say that we can intend to do what we know we cannot do?  Many believe that if what Barnes says 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 that a man may believe in what is really a state of entire sanctification, and aim at it, although he may not call it by that name.  This I believe to be true with Christians.  Christians would more frequently receive what they aim at, if they know how to appropriate the grace of Christ to their own circumstances.  Mrs. President Edwards, for example, firmly believed that she could reach a state of entire consecration.  She aimed at, and achieved it, and yet, such were her views of constitutional depravity, that she did not call her state a state of entire sanctification.  It has been common for Christians to believe that we can achieve a state of entire consecra­tion; but because they believe in the sinfulness of their natures, they will not call their entire consecration, entire sanctification.  Mrs. Edwards believed in, aimed at, and attained, entire consecration.  She aimed at what she believed to be attainable, and she could aim at nothing more.  She called it by the same name her husband used, and he was opposed to the doctrine of Christian perfection as held by the Wesleyan Methodists, basically because of his ideas 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 conditions of attaining it.  Call it whatever you want to.  Call it Christian perfection, heavenly mindedness, the full assurance of faith or hope, or a state of entire consecration; by all these, I understand the same thing.  And it is certain, that no matter what name you use, you must aim at it to reach it.  You must admit that it is practical for you to attain it, or you won’t aim at it.  And now I would humbly ask, isn’t preaching anything short of this giving sanction to sin?  

12        Another argument in favor of the doctrine of sanctification is that the gospel has often, permanently, and effectively, overcome every form of sin in different individuals.  Who has not seen the most beastly lusts, drunkenness, lasciviousness, and every kind of abomina­tion, long indulged and fully ripe, entirely 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 the death of Christ sustained to that sin. 
     Nothing is lacking to slay any and every form of sin, except that our mind needs to be fully baptized into the death of Christ, and see the bearings of one’s own sins on the sufferings, and agonies, and death of our blessed Lord.  Let me state a fact to illustrate what I mean.  I knew a habitual and most deeply rooted smoker who had been hounded with almost every argument to persuade him to quit smoking.  Every argument was a waste of time.  Then one day, he lighted his pipe, and was about to put it to his mouth, when a question popped into his mind, Did Christ die to purchase this vile indulgence for me?  The perceived relationship of the death of Christ to this sin instantly broke the power of the habit, and since that day, he has been free.  I could share 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 a moment, not only broken the power of the habit, but also destroyed it entirely and forever.  And in many situations when the appetite has not been entirely slain, the will has been endowed with enough power to effectively control it.  If the most addictive sinful habits, those that involve physical consequences and have deeply debased the physical constitution, and rendered it a source of overpowering temptation, can be (and often has been) broken up and forever slain by the grace of God, why should we doubt that by the same grace, a man can triumph over all sin forever?  

13        If sanctification is not true, then what is the truth?  It is very important that ministers are definite in their instructions; and if we cannot expect Christians to be completely conformed to the will of God in this life, how much can we expect of them?  Who can say, “You can come, you must come, but only so far?”  It is absurd for ministers to always be pressing Christians up to higher and higher attainments, saying at every step, “you can and must go higher”, and yet all along they tell them that they should expect to fall short of their whole duty, that they can, as a matter of fact, be better than they are, far better, indefinitely better; but still they should not expect to do their whole duty. 
     I have often been in agony listening to ministers preach, who were afraid to commit themselves in favor of the whole truth; and yet, they were afraid of falling short in instructing men that they should stand “perfect and complete in the whole will of God” (Col. 4:12)  They are perplexed because there is no consistency in their views and teachings.  Because they do not teach the fact that men should do their whole duty, they are sadly at a loss to know exactly what to teach.  They have many misgivings about insisting on anything less than entire sanctification, but they are afraid to go all the way and preach this subject like the apostles preached it.  And when they attempt to throw in qualifying terms and cautions, to avoid the impression that they believe in the doctrine of entire sanctification, they place themselves in a truly awkward position.  Many times, people have asked these ministers, “how far can we go, how far must we go, and how far should we expect to go, in depending on the grace of Christ?  How holy should we expect to be, and must be in this life”?  The only reply those ministers could give was “well, you can be a lot better than you are”.  Now this vagueness is a great stumbling block to the church.  It cannot be according to the teachings of the Holy Ghost.  

14        The tendency to deny this doctrine is, to my mind, conclusive proof that the doctrine itself must be true.  Many developments in the recent history of the church shed light on this subject.  Who does not see that the facts developed in the temperance reformation had a direct and powerful bearing on this question?  The only way the temperance reformation could have been successful would have been by adopting the principle of total abstinence from all intoxicating drinks.  Instead, temperance lecturers went forth as an evangelist, to promote revivals on the subject of temperance.  They railed against drunkenness, while at the same time, they allowed and defended the moderate use of alcohol, or insinuated, at least, that total abstinence is not expected or practical.  At this point in the temperance reformation, everyone could see that these men could make no progress; that they worked like children building dams of sand to try to stop mighty rushing waters.  And as certain as the law of cause and effect, no permanent reformation could have happened, without adopting and insisting on the principle of total abstinence.
  Now, if this is true concerning the temperance reformation, it is also true when we apply this principle to the subjects of holiness and sin.  A man could possibly, even in his own strength, overcome his drinking habits, and still maintain, what we might call, a temperate use of alcohol.  However, no such thing is possible in a reformation from sin.  There is no temperate indulgence in sin.  In fact, a man, in his own strength, never overcomes sin.  If he allows any degree of sin into his creed, he becomes impenitent.  He consents to live in sin, and of course, he grieves the Holy Spirit.  Before long, he will fall into a state of legal bondage to sin.  And this is probably what happens to many professing Christians in the church today.  This is just what we should expect today from the views and practices that the church has on this subject. 
     The reason for so much backsliding is that Christians do not carry their reformations deep enough.  Ministers do not encourage Christians to aim at a speedy deliverance from all sin with all their hearts, but instead they leave countless Christians in sin, and in many instances teach them to indulge in the expectation that they will sin as long as they live.  I probably will never forget the effect that reading the diary of David Brainerd had on me when I was a young convert.  David Brainerd said that he never expected to make any considerable attainments in holiness during his lifetime.  I can now see that he came to this conclusion because he believed in the theory of a physical sinfulness.  But, because I did not see this back then, his views damaged me for many years.  It led me to conclude that if such a man as David Brainerd did not expect to make much progress towards holiness in this life, how could I expect holiness. 
     The truth is, if there is anything that you must have to attain holiness, and to make a lot of progress in the work of sanctification during our lifetime, it is adopting the principle of total abstinence from sin.  Total abstinence from sin must be our motto, or sin will sweep us away like a flood.  No true principle in temperance leaves those causes that allow drunkenness to operate in its full strength.  Yet, the holiness that most ministers preach today is a holiness that leaves the root deep in the ground, and it is the cause of much of the spiritual decline and backsliding that is at work in the very heart of the church today.  I am fully convinced that until evangelists and pastors adopt and carry out, in practice, the principle of total abstinence from all sin, they will find themselves every few months, called to do their work all over again, just like a temperance lecturer who allows the moderate use of alcohol. 
     Again, who does not know that if you call on sinners to repent, and at the same time, you tell them that they will not and cannot repent, and they shouldn’t expect to repent, they will never repent?  Suppose you say to a sinner, “You are naturally able to repent; but I’m sure you will never repent in this life, either with or without the Holy Spirit”.  Who does not see that such teaching will prevent his repentance the minute he believes you?  Now, suppose you say to a professing Christian, “You are naturally able to conform to God’s will; but you will never conform to His will during your lifetime, either in your own strength, or by the grace of God”.  If he believes what you are saying, it will just as certainly prevent his sanctifica­tion, as what you said to the sinner prevented his repentance.  I can speak from experience on this subject.  When I taught these common views of Christianity, I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under a lot of conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith.  But, because I fell short of urging them to the point where they would become so familiar with Christ that they would abide in Him, they would soon fall back again into their former sinful state.  I seldom saw, and now I can understand, that I had no reason to expect to see, because of the instructions I used to give, such a precious and solid state of religious principle, such steady and confirmed walking with God among Christians, as I have seen since I changed my views and instructions.