XXXVI.   SANCTIFICATION, PAUL ENTIRELY SANCTIFIED   

A       I could examine many other considerations, and fill a book with scriptures, arguments, and demonstrations, proving that we can attain entire sanctification during our lifetime. 
     But I will only consider one thing that is very important to some people.  It is a very important question, whether anyone has actually ever reached this state of sanctification during their lifetime.  Many, who believe that we can achieve sanctification, don’t think that it’s very important to show that someone has actually lived a sanctified life.  Now I freely admit, that sanctification may be attainable, even if no one has ever achieved it.  Yet, it appears to me that, as a source of encouragement to the church, it is very important to know if anyone has ever reached a state of entire and continued holiness here on earth.  This question covers a lot of ground.  But, to keep this brief, I will only examine one person, and see whether there is reason to believe that he achieved sanctification before he died.  I am talking about the life of the apostle Paul.  And I propose to examine the passages that speak about him so we can determine whether there is evidence that he truly reached this state of sanctification during his lifetime. 
     Please let me say here that it seems clear that Paul and John, to say nothing about the other apostles, expected the church to understand that they were speaking from experience.  They taught us that we can receive that same fullness that they received, which we can find in Christ and His gospel. 
     And I would also like to say that I do not base whether reaching a state of entire and continued holiness is practical or possible on the question of whether anyone has ever reached it, any more than I would base the question of whether the world will ever be converted on the fact that some have been converted.  I am surprised that, when the fact, that a state of entire holiness has been reached, is used as one argument among a great many to prove that it can be reached, that it is used simply as an encouragement for Christians to receive this blessing.  At the same time, those who believe that no one can live a holy life while on earth focus on this particular question as if, by throwing this question into doubt, they could overthrow all the other proofs that we can live a holy life.  Now this is completely absurd.  When I examine the character of Paul, if it does not appear clear to you that he reached this state, don’t ignore the fact that other arguments prove that we can attain this state.  Other arguments are based on grounds that are completely independent of the question of whether sanctification has ever been reached or not.  I simply want to share this argument because, to me, it appears impressive enough to provide a lot of encouragement to Christians to press after holiness.

1   Let me first make some statements as to how we should understand Paul when he talks about himself.  Then, we will examine those passages that speak about his Christian character. 
     Paul’s character, as revealed in the Bible, demands that we should understand him to mean exactly what he says when he speaks in his own favor.  I am sure the Holy Spirit would guard him against lying or even exaggerating when he talks about himself.  No one ever appeared to possess greater modesty, and to feel more unwilling to exalt his own attainments than Paul.  If Paul thought that he never reached a state of entire sanctification, and that he was often falling short of his duty, we can expect that he would mention this when he honestly describes himself.  If he was living in sin and if he was wicked in anything, we can expect him, when writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to condemn himself in those things as if he really was guilty.

2   Now, in view of these facts, let us examine those scriptures where Paul talks about himself, and where others talk about him.  

a       “You are witnesses, and God also, how devoutly and justly and blamelessly we behaved ourselves among you who believe” (1 Thess. 2:10) 
     Here Paul asserts his own holiness.  This language is very strong, “how devoutly and justly and blamelessly”.  If to be devout, just, and blameless is not entire sanctification, then what is sanctification?  Paul appeals not only to the heart‑searching God for the truth of what he says, but also to their own observation, calling on both God and others to bear witness that he has been holy and without blame.  Here we have the testimony of an inspired apostle, in the most unqualified language, asserting his own total sanctification.  Was Paul deceived?  Could Paul possibly have known all that time that he was living in sin?  If this language does not amount to an unqualified assertion that he had lived among them without sin, what can we know by the use of such words?          

b       “We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed.  But in all things we commend ourselves as ministers of God: in much patience, in tribulations, in needs, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in sleeplessness, in fasts; by purity, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Spirit, by sincere love, by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left” (2 Cor. 6:3‑7) 
     Here Paul states that he gave no offence in anything, but in all things, he approved himself as a minister of God.  Among other things, he did this “by purity, by knowledge, by longsuf­fering, by kindness, by the Holy Spirit, by sincere love, by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left.”  How could a modest man like Paul speak about himself this way unless he knew that he was in a state of entire sanctification, and he thought that it was very important for the church to know it?

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

d       “This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.”  (Acts 24:16)  Paul had an enlightened conscience at this time.  If an inspired apostle could proclaim that he had a “conscience without offense toward God and men”, doesn’t he have to be  in a state of entire sanctification?

e       “Thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day.”  (2 Tim. 1:3)  Here again Paul tells us that he serves God with a pure conscience.  Could this be true if he was often, perhaps daily, violating his conscience?

f     “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Gal. 2:20)  This passage does not say, but it strongly implies that Paul lived without sin, and also that he considered himself dead to sin in the sense that he was permanently sanctified.            

g       “But God forbid that I should glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”  (Gal. 6:14)  This text also suggests that Paul was permanently sanctified.

h       “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”  (Phil. 1:21)  Here Paul tells us that for him to live was as if Christ lived again in him, and preached His own gospel to sinners and to the church.  For Paul to live was to make Christ known just as if Christ was alive to make Himself known.  How could he say this, unless his example, and doctrine, and spirit, were the same as Christ?                  

i     “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men.”  (Acts 20:26)  This passage clearly reveals the impression that Paul wanted to make on the minds of his readers.  Paul could not have been “pure from the blood of all men”, unless he had done his whole duty.  If he had been sinfully lacking in any grace, virtue, or labor, could he have said this?  Certainly not.

j     “Therefore I urge you, imitate me.  For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church” (1 Cor. 4:16‑17)  Here Paul sets himself up as an example to the church.  How could he do this if he was living in sin?  He sent Timothy to them to refresh their minds concerning his doctrine and practice; implying that he practiced what he taught in every church.

k        “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.”  (1 Cor. 11:1)  Here Paul commands them to imitate him “as he imitates Christ”; not just as far as he imitates Christ, as some seem to understand it, but to imitate him because he imitates Christ.  How could Paul so unhesitatingly command the church to copy his example unless he knew that he was blameless?                              

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

m     “The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.”  (Phil. 4:9), the Philippians were commanded to do those things which they had learned and received from Paul, and seen Him do.  Then, Paul adds, that if they do those things, the God of peace shall be with them.  Now can it be, that Paul meant that they should understand anything less than that he lived without sin among them?         

B       It’s now time for me to examine those passages that some say implies that Paul was not in a state of entire sanctification.

1   “Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, ‘Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.’  Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark.  But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work.  Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another.  And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God.”  (Acts 15:36‑40)
  This contention between Paul and Barnabas came from the fact that John, who they called Mark and who was a nephew of Barnabas, had once abruptly left them in their travels, it would seem without any justifiable reason, and returned home.  It appears that the confidence Barnabas had in his nephew was restored.  But Paul was not yet satisfied of the stability of John’s character, and felt that it was dangerous to trust him as a traveling companion and fellow laborer.  Nowhere does the Bible suggest, nor does it even infer, that either of them sinned in this contention.  If you had to point your finger at somebody, it seems as if Barnabas was the one in fault, rather than Paul, because Barnabas determined to take John with him, without even consulting Paul.  Barnabas persisted in this determination until he met with such firm resistance on the part of Paul, that he took John and sailed abruptly for Cyprus; while Paul chose Silas as his companion.  The brethren then recommended Paul to the grace of God, and Paul and Silas departed.  Now, there is nothing that we can discover in this transaction that Paul, or any good man, or an angel under the circumstances, needs to be ashamed of.  There is nothing to suggest that Paul did not act from a regard to the glory of God and the good of religion in this transaction.  And I would humbly ask, what kind of spirit, finds enough evidence in this situation to charge an inspired apostle with rebelling against God?            

2    “Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, ‘Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.’  And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth.  Then Paul said to him, ‘God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!  For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?’  And those who stood by said, ‘Do you revile God's high priest?’  Then Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people.’”  (Acts 23:1‑5)  Many say that Paul was sinfully angry in this passage; but, as far as I can see, there is no just reason for saying that.  To my mind, it seems clear that this passage suggests the opposite.  It appears, that Paul did not know who was the new high priest in Jerusalem.  And as soon as he was told that he rebuked the high priest he displayed the utmost regard for the authority of God by quoting from the Old Testament, “You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people”.  This implies that Paul would not have made his reply if he had known that he was the high priest.

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

1   The connection and drift of Paul’s reasoning shows that Paul was using the situation he was talking about, whether it was his own or the situation of someone else, to illustrate the influence of the law on the carnal mind.  Sin had entire dominion, and overcame all his efforts to obey in this situation.

2   Just because Paul uses the singular pronoun in the first person does not prove, whether or not he was talking about himself, for it was common to use this type of language when using illustrations.  He continues using the personal pronoun into the eighth chapter; when, at the beginning, he represents himself, or the person he is speaking about, as being in an opposite state of mind.  Now, if the seventh chapter contains Paul's experience, then whose experience is this in the eighth chapter?  Are we to understand that both these experiences are is Paul’s experience?  If so, we must understand Paul as first speaking about his experience before he was sanctified, and then after he was sanctified.  He begins the eighth chapter by saying, “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit”.  (Romans 8:1), and he gives the reason: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.”  (Romans 8:2)  The law of sin and death was the law in his members (flesh) that he so bitterly complained about in the seventh chapter.  But now, it appears that he passed into a state where he was free from this influence of the flesh.  He was set free and became dead to the world and to the flesh.  He was now in a state in which “there is no condemnation.”  Now, if there is no condemnation in the state he was now in, then it must have been either because he did not sin, or, if he did sin, there was no condemnation either because the law did not condemn him or because the law of God was repealed or revoked.  Now, if the penalty of the law was so set aside that Paul could sin without condemnation, the law would have to be revoked.  But since the law was not revoked, and cannot be set aside, its penalty and condemnation cannot be set aside.  If Paul lived without condemnation, it must be because he lived without sin.

3   Personally, it does not look like Paul is speaking about his own experience in the seventh chapter of Romans, but that he was simply illustrating a situation using the first person and the present tense because it was convenient and suitable for his purpose.  Paul’s purpose was to contrast the influence of the law and the gospel.  His purpose was to describe, in the seventh chapter, the state of a man who was living in sin, and everyday condemned by the law, convicted and constantly struggling with his own corruptions, but continually overcome.  Then, in the eighth chapter, Paul describes a person enjoying the freedom of the gospel, where the Grace of Christ fulfills righteousness of the law in the heart.  The seventh chapter can apply to either someone in a backslidden state, or to someone under conviction who was never converted.  The eighth chapter can only apply to those who are in a state of entire sanctification.

4   I already said that the seventh chapter contains the history of one dominated by sin.  To believe that this was the experience of Paul at the time he wrote his epistle, or of any one who is walking in Christ, is absurd and contrary to the experience of every person who ever enjoyed the freedom of the gospel.  Furthermore, the sixth chapter where Paul says, “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for you are not under the law, but under grace” contradicts the belief that Paul is talking about his own experience in the seventh chapter (Romans 6:14)  Yet, the seventh chapter describes a person that sin has dominion over.  Even if Paul was speaking about himself in the seventh chapter of Romans, and really giving a history of his own experience, it proves nothing at all concerning his subse­quent sanctification; for the eighth chapter shows conclusively that chapter seven was not his experience at the time he wrote the epistle.  The fact that this section of Paul’s letter was divided into two chapters hundreds of years after it was written, has led to a lot of error in understanding this passage.  Nothing is more certain, than that these two chapters were designed to describe not only different experiences, but experiences that were opposite to each other.  That both these experiences should belong to the same person at the same time is clearly impossible.  Therefore, if Paul is speaking about his own experience, the eighth chapter describes his experience at the time he wrote the epistle, and the seventh chapter describes a former experience.

5   Now, if any one thinks that the seventh chapter describes a Christian experience, he must understand that it describes someone in a very imperfect state; and the eighth chapter describes a soul in a state of entire sanctification.  So that this epistle, instead of supporting the idea that Paul was bound by sin, fully establishes the fact that he was in a state of sanctification.  What right do we have to take the latter part of the seventh chapter and completely separate it from everything that comes before and after it, so that it becomes a sad story about the legal and sinful bondage of an inspired apostle?  Is there anything that we cannot prove from the Bible once we take Scriptures out of context?  Is it not a sound and indispensable rule of biblical interpretation, that a passage must be taken in context, and that the scope and leading intention of the writer must be continually before our mind when we decide on the meaning of any passage?  Why then, I ask, do so many people completely overlook the verses that come before and the verses that immediately follow, when they examine this important passage?

6   “That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.  Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.  Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.”  (Phil 3:10-15)
  Here is a clear allusion to the Olympic games, in which men ran for a prize.  Many ran in the marathon, but they did not receive their crown until after they completed the race, no matter how well they ran.  Paul speaks of two kinds of perfection here, the first perfection he claims to have reached, and the second he had not.  The perfec­tion, which he had not reached, was the perfection he did not expect to attain until the end of His race, which is when God resurrects him from the dead.  Until then he was not, and did not expect to be perfect in the sense that he should “lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me”.  But all this does not imply that he was not living without sin, any more than it implies that Christ was living in sin when he said, “Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.”  (Luke 13:32)  Here Christ also speaks about a perfection that He had not attained.
  Now it is obvious, that Paul had not reached his glorified state.  This glorified state was the perfection that he was pressing after.  However, in the fifteenth verse, he speaks about another kind of perfection, which he says that he attained.  “Let us therefore,” he says, “as many as are mature, have this in mind”; that is, “let us be pressing after this high state of perfection in glory, if by any means we may attain unto the resurrection of the dead.”  We need to keep the Olympic games in mind when we interpret this passage.  The prize in those games was a crown.  They only gave this prize after the race was over.  Besides, a man was not crowned unless he ran according to the rules.  Paul was running for the prize, which was the crown.  He was not running for entire sanctification, but for a crown of glory.  He did not expect to receive this until he had completed his race.  He exhorts those who were perfect, that is, those who were running lawfully, to forget the things that were behind, and press to the mark, that is, the goal, for the prize, or the crown of glory, which the Lord, the righteous judge who was witnessing his race, would give him on that day. 
     In this passage, Paul does not teach that he was living in sin.  Instead, Paul again suggested that he was un-blamable concerning sin.  But in this passage, Paul was aspiring after higher attainments, and meant to be satisfied with nothing short of eternal glory. 
     Again, “Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content.  I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound.  Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.  I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”  (Phil. 4:11‑13) 
     Here Paul undoubtedly meant to affirm, not merely his abstract ability to do all his duty, but that he had learned by experience that he was able to do everything that was required of him. 

D       Concerning the character of Paul, let me say: If Paul was not sinless, he was an extravagant boaster, and if any minister uses the same words today that Paul used, he would be considered an extravagant boaster.  The way he sets himself up so frequently and fully as an example, without any caution or qualification, would be highly dangerous to the interests of the church if Paul was not in a state of entire sanctification. 
     The words Paul uses when he appeals to God, that in his life and heart he was blameless, would be blasphemy unless he really was what he said he was; and if Paul was what he claimed to be, he was in a state of entire sanctification.  It is doing dishonor to God to maintain, under these circumstances, that Paul had not attained the blessing of entire sanctification.  Nowhere, did Paul confess sin after he became an apostle, but he always justified himself, appealing to man and to God, for his total integrity and blamelessness of his heart and life.  To claim that Paul remained sinful is to deny the grace of the gospel, and charge God foolishly.  I cannot but ask why there is such a great effort in the church today to maintain that Paul lived in sin, and was never wholly sanctified until he died?  Two things baffle me:  

1   The fact that so many professing Christians think that they highly honor God by acknowledging the claims of the law, while they deny that the grace of the gospel is sufficient to meet the demands of the law, baffles me.  

The fact that so many people seem to have an entirely self‑righteous view of the subject of sanctifica­tion baffles me.  They spend a lot of time and effort trying to understand all the claims of God’s law.  They, preach about its exceeding and infinite strictness, and the great length, and breadth, and height, and depth of its claims.  They defend the claims of the law as if they greatly fear that someone may defile the purity of the law, as if people may overlook its strictness and spirituality, set aside its high and holy claims, or somehow fritter the law down to the level of human passion and selfish­ness.  But, even while they zealously defend the law, they talk, preach, and write as if they must deny the grace and power of the gospel in order to perpetuate the high claims of the law.  They preach as if the gospel is not sufficient to enable human beings to comply with the require­ments of the law.  Thus, they unknowingly, and as seriously as possible, deny that the grace of Christ is sufficient to overcome sin and fulfill in us the righteousness of the law.  Yes, in their zeal for the law they appear to me either to overlook, or flatly to deny, the grace of the gospel. 
     Let us exalt the law.  Let us magnify the law make it honorable.  Let us show that the law is as strict, as pure, and as perfect as its Author.  Let us spread the claims of the law over the whole field of human and angelic accountability.  Let us carry the claims of the law like a blaze of fire into the deepest recess of every human heart.  Let us exalt the law as high as heaven, and thunder its authority and claims to the depths of hell.  Let us stretch out its line upon the universe of the mind; and let it thunder death and terrible damnation against every kind and degree of iniquity.  Yet, let us never forget, that the grace of the gospel is just as extensive as the claims of the law.  Therefore, let no one, in his desire to maintain the authority of the law, insult the Savior, exercise his unbelief, or fritter away and drown the faith of the church by holding on to corrupt ideas that the glorious gospel of our blessed God, which is made manifest in our hearts by the effective application of the Holy Spirit, is not sufficient to fulfill in us “the righteousness of the law,” and cause us “to stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.” 
     Concerning this second thing that baffles me, namely, that so many seem to have an entirely self‑righteous view of the doctrine of sanctification, let me say, that they seem afraid to admit that anyone is entirely and perfectly sanctified in this life, lest that person should become proud.  It appears that they take it for granted, that, if someone becomes entirely sanctified, they would have a reason to become proud, as if they had done something that made them better than anyone else.  But, the doctrine of entire sanctification totally hates the idea of human merit.  The doctrine of entire sanctification disclaims and repudiates pride as an abomination to God and the sanctified soul.  This doctrine, as taught in the Bible and as I understand it, is as far as possible from entertaining the idea that there is anything naturally good in saints or sinners.  It gives all the credit and glory for salvation and sanctification, from the beginning to the end, not only until the soul is sanctified, but every moment that the remains sanctified, to the indwelling spirit, and influence, and grace of Christ.