XXXVIII.    OBJECTIONS TO SANCTIFICATION  

A       Objections answered. 
     I will consider those passages of scripture which some believe contradict the doctrine that we have been considering.  “When they sin against You (for there is no one who does not sin), and You become angry with them and deliver them to the enemy, and they take them captive to the land of the enemy, far or near;” (1 Kings 8:46), etc.  On this passage, I remark:  

1   That this sentiment, using almost the same words, is repeated in 2 Chron. 6:26.  (“When heaven is shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against You, when they pray toward this place and confess Your name, and turn from their sin because You afflict them,”)  It is also repeated in Eccl. 7:20.  (“For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin.”).  In these three passages, the same original word is used in the same form.  

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

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

a       CLARKE: “When they sin against You.”  This must refer to some general defection from truth; to some species of false worship, idolatry, or corruption of the truth and ordinances of the Most High.  Because of it, they are here stated to be delivered into the hands of their enemies, and carried away captive, which was the general punishment of idolatry, and what is called, (verse 47), acting perversely and committing wickedness.  “When they sin against You, (for there is no one that does not sin).”

b        “The second clause, as it is translated here, negates the supposition in the first clause.  Because if there is no man that does not sin, it is useless to say, if they sin.  But this contradiction is taken away by reference to the original ‘ki yechetau lak’, which should be translated, ‘if they shall sin against Thee’; or ‘should they sin against Thee’, ‘ki ein adam asher lo yecheta’.  ‘For there is no man that may not sin;’ that is, there is no man impeccable, none infallible; none that is not liable to transgress.  This is the true meaning of the phrase in various parts of the Bible, and that’s how translators have understood the original.  Even in the thirty‑first verse of this chapter, they have translated ‘yecheta’, ‘if a man trespass’; which certainly implies he might or might not do it; and in this way they have translated the same word, ‘if a soul sin’, in Lev. 5:1, 6:2, 1 Sam. 2:25, 2 Chron. 4:22; and in several other places.  The truth is, the Hebrew has no mood to express words in the permissive or optative way, but to express this sense it uses the future tense of the conjuga­tion kal. 
     “This text has been a wonderful stronghold for all who believe that there is no redemption from sin in this life; that no man can live without committing sin; and that we cannot be entirely freed from sin until we die.”  

1)         “The text speaks of no such doctrine; it only speaks of the possibility that every man can sin; and this must be true in a state of probation.”  

2)         “There is no another text in the Divine records that is more to the purpose than this.”

3)         “The doctrine that we can never be totally free from sin is flatly opposed to the design of the gospel; for Jesus came to save His people from their sins, and to destroy the works of the devil.”  

4)         “It is a dangerous and destructive doctrine, and should be blotted out of every Christian’s creed.  There are too many who are seeking to excuse their crimes by every means in their power; and we must not embody their excuses in a creed, to complete their deception, by stating that their sins are unavoidable.” 

c         BARCLAY: “Secondly, another objection is from two passages of scripture that mean the same.  One is: ‘For there is no man that sins not’ (1 Kings 8:46)  The other is: ‘For there is not a just man upon earth, that does good and sins not’ (Eccl. 7:20)  “I answer”:  

1)         “These do not affirm a daily and continual sinning, that we can never be redeemed from it; but only that all have sinned, that there is no one that does not sin, but they don’t continually sin so that they can never stop sinning; and in this lies the question.  Yes, within two verses in Kings he speaks of the returning of such with all their souls and hearts, which implies a possibility of leaving off sin.” 

2)         “There is a respect to be had to the seasons and dispensations; for if it should be granted that in Solomon’s time there was no one that had not sinned, it would not follow that there is no one now, or that it is something that cannot be attained by the grace of God under the gospel.”  

3)         “And lastly, this whole objection hangs on a false interpretation; for the original Hebrew word may be read in the potential mood, as well as in the indicative, thus saying, there is no man who may not sin.  That’s how the old Latin scholars, Junius, Tremellius, and Vatablus use it, and the same word is also used in the potential mood, and not in the indicative mood in Psalm 118:11, ‘Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against Thee’.  Since it is more answerable to the universal scope of the scriptures, the testimony of the truth, and the sense of almost all interpreters, it no doubt should be understood this way. We should reject the other interpretation as wrong.”  

4   No matter what you may think of the views of these authors, I see this as a simple and satisfactory answer to the objection that they base on these passages.  Now this objection might be strictly true under the Old Testament dispensation, yet it proves nothing concerning the attainability of a state of entire sanctification under the new dispensation.  What!  Is there no difference between the Old and the New Testament dispensations for acquiring holiness?  If this is true, then no one under the comparatively dark dispensation of Judaism ever reached a state of permanent sanctification.  But does that prove that such a state cannot be reached under the gospel?  The Epistle to the Hebrews clearly says that “the old covenant made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did” (Heb. 7:19)  Under the old covenant, God promised that he would make a new covenant with the house of Israel, “writing the law in their hearts”, and “engraving it in their inward parts”.  God was going to make this new covenant with the house of Israel under the Christian dispensation.  What then do all such passages in the Old Testament prove, in relation to the privileges and holiness of Christians under the new dispensation? 
     It is not my purpose here this morning to try to determine whether any of the Old Testament saints received the new covenant by way of anticipation, and entered into a state of permanent sanctification.  Nor will I debate whether any just men on earth ever lived without sin.  Scripture mentions that Abraham and many Old Testament saints “died in faith, not having received the promises” (Heb. 11:13)  Now what can this mean?  It cannot mean that they did not know the promises because they did received the promises and they wrote them down.  It cannot mean, that they did not receive Christ, for the Bible clearly states that they did, that “Abraham rejoiced to see Christ’s day” (John 8:56), that Moses, and indeed all the Old Testament saints, had enough knowl­edge of Christ as a coming Savior revealed to them, to bring them into a state of salvation.  Still they did not receive the promise of the Holy Spirit, since He is poured out under the Christian dispensation.
  This was the great thing that was promised all along:

a       First the promise of the Holy Spirit was made to Abraham, or to his seed, which is Christ.  “That the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.  Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made.  He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your Seed,’ who is Christ.”  (Gal. 3:14, 16),

b       Later God promised the Holy Spirit to the Christian church.  “But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days’, says God, ‘that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams.  And on My menservants and on My maidser­vants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; and they shall prophesy.  I will show wonders in heaven above and signs in the earth beneath: blood and fire and vapor of smoke.  The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and notable day of the Lord. And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’”  (Acts 2:16‑21)  
  “Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”  (Acts 2:38, 39) 
     “Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days.”  “To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”  (Acts 3:24, 26),

c        Finally, Christ Himself promised the Holy Spirit, “And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, ‘which,’ He said, ‘you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.’”  (Acts 1:4, 5) 
     The Old Testament saints did not receive the light and the glory of the Christian dispensation, nor the fullness of the Holy Spirit.  And, the Bible says, “they without us,” that is, without our privileges, “could not be made perfect.”

5   The next objection is based on the Lord’s Prayer.  In this prayer, Christ has taught us to pray, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” (Matt. 6:14)  Some claim that if a person becomes entirely sanctified, he could no longer pray this part of the Lord’s Prayer, and they believe the church, to the end of time, must pray this prayer.  However:

a       Christ has taught us to pray for perpetual sanctification.  “Thy will be done on earth, as it is done in heaven” (Matt. 6:10)  

b       Christ desires that we should expect God to answer this prayer.  Otherwise, we mock Him by asking what we do not believe is His will, what we believe could not consistently be granted; and we will repeat this insult to God every time we pray. 

c        The petition for the forgiveness of our trespasses must apply to past sins, and not to sins we are committing at the time we pray.  It would be absurd and abominable to pray for the forgiveness of a sin that we are committing.

d       This prayer cannot properly be made concerning any unrepented sin; for it would be highly abominable in the sight of God for us to pray for the forgiveness of a sin that we will not repent of.

e       If there is any hour or day in which we have committed no actual sin, we could not consis­tently make this prayer in reference to that hour or that day.

f     But at the same time, it would be highly proper for us to pray this prayer in relation to all our past sins, even though we may have repented of and confessed them, and prayed for their forgiveness a thousand times before.  This does not imply that we doubt that God has forgiven our repented sins.  This prayer is only a renewal of our grief and humiliation for our sins, and a fresh acknowledgment of, and casting ourselves on His mercy.  God may forgive us when we repent even before we ask Him, and while we may hate ourselves so much that we may have no heart to ask for forgiveness, His having forgiven us does not make the prayer improper.  

g       And although our sins may be forgiven, we should still confess them, and repent of them, both in this world and in the world to come.  And there is nothing wrong with this, as long as we live in this world, to continue repenting, and repeat our prayer for forgiveness.  For myself, I am unable to see why this passage should be made a stumbling block; for if it is improper to pray for the forgiveness of sins that we have repented of, then it is improper to pray for forgiveness at all.  And if this prayer cannot be properly used in reference to past sins which we have already repented of, we cannot properly used this prayer at all, except on the absurd supposition that we are to pray for the forgiveness of sins which we are now committing, and haven’t repented of yet.  And, if it is improper to use this form of prayer in reference to all past sins we have repented of, it is just as improper to use it in reference to sins committed today or yesterday, which we have repented of.  

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

a       The term ‘teachers’, ‘critics’, or ‘censors’, can be understood either in a good or bad sense.  The apostle says that not many brethren should become teachers, because if they do they may receive a stricter judgment: “for,” says he, “we all stumble in many things.”  The fact that we all stumble is suggested as a reason why not many should be teachers; which shows that the term ‘teachers’ is used in a bad sense in this passage.  “Let not many of you become teachers”, for if we become teachers, “we shall receive a stricter judgment,” because we all stumble or offend.  Now I understand that the simple meaning of this passage is this: not many (or any) of you should become teachers, or censors, or critics, and set yourselves up to judge and condemn others.  For inasmuch as you have all sinned yourselves, and we are all great sinners, we shall receive the greater condemnation, if we set ourselves up as censors.  “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you.”  (Matt. 7:2)

b       I don’t see where James planned to affirm anything at all of his present character or the character of those he wrote to.  James did not refer to the doctrine of entire sanctification, but James simply affirmed a well‑established truth in its application to a particular sin; that if they became teachers, and harmfully criticize or condemn others, because they all have committed many sins, they should receive the greater condem­nation.

c        It was not James’ purpose to deny the doctrine of Christian perfection or entire sanctification.  This is clear from the fact that he immediately says, “If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body.”  (James 3:2)  

7   We can find another objection in: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8)  On this I remark:  

a       Those who use this passage to object to the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life, assume that the apostle is speaking here of sanctification instead of justification.  An honest examination of this passage reveals that the apostle in not alluding to sanctifica­tion, but he is talking about justification.  A little attention to the context that this verse is in will clear up this passage. 
     Let us consider this scripture the way they understand it.  They understand John as saying, that, if we say we are in a state of entire sanctification and do not sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  Now if this was what John meant, he makes two obvious contradictions. 

b       John says in the verse before this verse that the “blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin.”  Now it would be very remarkable, if immediately after this statement John really meant to say that the blood of Jesus does not cleanse us from all sin, and if we say that it does, we deceive ourselves because John had just declared that the blood of Jesus Christ does cleanse us from all sin.  If this was his meaning, he obviously contradicted himself.

c        This view of the subject then correctly says that John ends the seventh verse by saying, “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin;” but in the eighth verse, they see John as saying, that if we believe we are cleansed from all sin, we deceive ourselves.  Thus, they flatly contradict what John had just said in the previous verse.  In the ninth verse, John goes on to say, “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”.  But they twist it to say, “the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin; but if we say it does, we deceive ourselves”.  “But if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9)  Now, unrighteousness is sin.  If we are cleansed from all unrighteousness, we are cleansed from all sin. 
     Suppose a man confesses his sin, and God, in faithfulness and justice, forgives his sin, and cleanses him from all unrighteousness, and then that man proclaims that God has done this; are we to understand, that John would then say that he deceives himself because he believes that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses him from all sin?  But, I have already said that John is not affirming anything concerning the present moral character of anybody.  He is talking about the doctrine of justification. 
     This is what John was trying to say: “If we say that we are not sinners, that is, that we have no sin to need the blood of Christ; that we have never sinned, and as a result, we don’t need a Savior, we deceive ourselves.  For we have sinned, and nothing but the blood of Christ cleanses from sin, or procures our pardon and justification.  Now, if we will not deny, but confess that we have sinned, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. But if we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.”
  These are the principal passages quoted by those who oppose the doctrine of sanctifica­tion. 

B       There are many objections to the doctrine of entire sanctification besides those I just mentioned.  Some of these objections appear honest, and we should consider them.

1   Some believe that the doctrine of entire and permanent sanctification in this life leads to the errors of modern perfectionism.  Many good men insist on this objection, but I still can’t believe that they have thoroughly studied the matter.  It seems to me, that one fact will set aside this objection.  Most of us know that many prospering churches today, from their very beginning, have maintained the doctrine of sanctification in all its length and breadth.  Now if this is the tendency of this doctrine, it is very strange that this tendency has never developed itself in these churches.  As far as I can see, these churches have been largely, if not completely, free from the errors held by modern perfectionists.  Perfectionists, with very few exceptions, have all come from those denominations that deny the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life. 
     When professing Christians, who have been subject to bondage their whole life, begin to seriously seek for deliverance from their sins, they find neither sympathy nor instruction, concerning the prospect of being set free from their sins in this life.  Then they turn to the Bible and find throughout its pages Christ presented as a Savior from their sins.  But as soon as they proclaim this truth, those in their church treat them as heretics and fanatics, until they are overcome by evil and become highly critical.  Then, finding the church so decidedly and so completely wrong in her opposition to this one great important truth, they lose confidence in their ministers and their church.  Because a wrong spirit influences them, Satan takes advantage of them and drives them to the extreme of error and delusion.  This I believe is the true history of many of the most pious members of many denominations.  On the contrary, some churches are very secure against these errors.  In these churches, they teach 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. 
     It is my full conviction that only two ways exist, that ministers today can use to prevent members of their churches from becoming perfectionists.  One way is to allow them to live so far from God that they will not seek after holiness of heart.  The other way is to earnestly impress on the mind the glorious doctrine of complete consecration; and that it is the high privilege, as well as the duty of every Christian to live in a state of total consecration to God. 
     Some people think that sanctification is identical with perfectionism; and they make all kinds of attempts to show how antinomian perfectionism and our views are the same.  Let me say this:  

a       There seems to be a favorite policy of certain controversial writers for a long time, instead of meeting a proposition in the open field of fair and Christian argument, to give the proposition they disagree with a bad name.  Then they try to put it down, not by force of argument, but by showing that it is identical with, or perpetuates a close relationship to such philosophies as Pelagianism, Anti­nomianism, Calvinism, or some other ism, against which many people are deeply prejudiced.  In the controversy between what was called old and new school divines, who has not seen, with pain, the many ways the old school scholars used to try to put down the new school divinity, as it was called, by calling it Pelagianism, and quoting certain passages from Pelagius and other writers, to show that the sentiment that exists between them is the same.   (Pelagianism: the teaching of the denial of original sin, the assertion that each individual has free will to choose not to sin [what man ought to do, he can do] and the avowal that each person’s free will includes the unassisted initiating power to move toward salvation and to appropriate the divine grace necessary to do it.)
  This is a very unsatisfactory method of attacking or defending any doctrine.  There are many points of agreement between Pelagius and all truly orthodox believers, but there are also many points of disagreement between them.  There are also many points of agreement between modern perfectionists and all evangelical Christians, and there are also 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.  And that we totally disagree concerning those points that constitute their great peculiarities is also true, if I understand them.  But even if I agreed in all points with Augustine, or Edwards, or Pelagius, or the modern perfectionists, neither the good nor the ill name of any of these would prove that my statements were either right or wrong.  You would still have to prove that those who I agreed with were either right or wrong, in order to either prove or disprove my beliefs.  Often, it is more convenient to give a doctrine or an argument a bad name than it is to satisfactorily reply to it.

b       Isn’t it strange, that they should accuse us of agreeing with the beliefs of the perfectionists; and yet they seem to be more violently opposed to our views, now that they have come to understand our views, than almost any other people whatever?  One of their leaders told me, that he regards me as one of the master‑builders of Babylon.

1)         With respect to the modern perfectionists, those who are acquainted with their writings know that some of them have strayed much farther from the truth than others.  Some of their leading men have stopped far short of adopting some of their most abominable errors.  These leaders still maintain the authority and perpetual obligation of the moral law; and thus they were spared from going into many of the most objectionable and destructive notions of the sect.  There are many more points of agreement between those perfectionists and the orthodox Church, than between the church and the others.  And there are still a number of important points of disagreement, as every one knows who has correct information on this subject.       

2)         I hate the practice of denouncing a whole group of people because of the errors of some of them.  I am well aware that many perfectionists truly hate the extremes that lead many of their fellow perfectionists into error.

2   Another objection is that people could not live in this world if they were entirely sanctified.  Strange.  Does holiness harm and ruin people?  Does conforming to all the laws of life and health, both physical and moral, make it impossible for someone to live?  If a person stops rebelling against God, will it kill him?  Is there anything in Christ’s holiness that is inconsistent with life and health?  The fact is, these people base their objection on an error that deals directly with what constitutes entire sanctification.  Those who support this objection believe that this state implies a continuous and most intense degree of excitement, and many other things that total sanctification never really implied.  I suspect that they see sanctification as more like a glorified than a sanctified state.  When Christ was on earth, He was in a sanctified state but He was not in a glorified state.  “It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master.”  (Matt. 10:25)  Now, what do we see in the moral character of the life of Jesus that we shouldn’t copy, that shouldn’t to be fully copied into the life of every Christian?  I am not talking about His knowledge, but about His spirit and temper.  Think about every circumstance in His life that has come down to us and tell me, my friends, what is there in His life that you should not copy into your own life by the grace of God?  And do you think that imitating Him, in everything that relates to His moral character, would make it impossible for you to live in this world?  

3   Again, some object, saying that if we became sanctified, there is no way we could know it, and we wouldn’t be able to intelligently explain our experience it.  I answer:  All that a sanctified soul needs to know or profess is that the grace of God in Christ Jesus is sufficient for him.  The sanctified soul discovers the same thing that Paul discovered, that he can do all things through Christ who strengthens him, and that he does not expect to sin, but rather, he is enabled through grace “to reckon himself dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:11)  A saint may not know whether he will ever sin again; but he can expect freedom from sin, not because he trusts in his resolutions, but because of his confidence in God.  He can have confidence that he will not sin, not because he trusts in his strength, or his accomplishments, but simply because he trusts in the infinite grace and faithfulness of Christ.  He may look on, regard, account, and even reckon himself, as being dead in deed and dead to sin.  He has done away with sin.  Now, he is alive to God, and from now on, he expects to live completely for God.  It is possible that he will live the rest of his life for God without being able to say that he knows that he is sanctified.  He doesn’t need to know this, but he may rely on such promises as: “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)  It is also true that a Christian may reach a state where he will no longer fall into sin, even though he may not be able to positively declare that he will never fall again.  All he may be able to say might be: “God knows I hope to sin no more, but only time will tell.  May the Lord keep me!  I trust that He will.”

4   Another objection is that this doctrine leads to spiritual pride.  Is it true that becoming humble leads to pride?  But perfect humility is implied in sanctification.  Then, is it true that you must remain in sin and cherish pride in order to avoid pride?  Are you more secure against spiritual pride by refusing to receive Christ as your helper, than you would be by immediately embracing Him as a full Savior?   

a       I saw several remarks in the papers lately, and heard several suggestions from various quarters, which have only increased the fear I’ve had for some time, that most Christians, and indeed many ministers, have radically defective views of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.  Many of these ministers have recently objected to the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life that I believe and teach, saying that prayers offered according by a sanctified soul who believes in this doctrine of sanctification, would reek of spiritual pride and self‑righteousness.  I saw this objection stated in full force recently in a religious periodical, in the form of a supposed prayer by a sanctified soul.  The purpose of publishing this so-called prayer was to expose the shocking absurdity, self‑righteousness, and spiritual pride, of such a prayer, supposedly made by one who was entirely sanctified.  Now, I must confess, that I find this suggestion alarming.  I am afraid that many of our theologians, in contending for the doctrines of grace, have completely lost sight of the meaning of the words they use, and really have very little practical understanding of what salvation by grace, as opposed to salvation by works, really means.  If this is not true, I do not know how to account for their feeling, and why they published such a ridiculous objection to the doctrine of entire sanctification.      

b       Now, if I understand the doctrine of salvation by grace, The Grace of God works both sanctification and justification into us through faith, and not by any works or merits of our own.  If this is the real doctrine of the Bible, what earthly objection can there be for us to confess, profess, and thank God for our sanctification, any more than we confess, profess, and thank God for our justification?  It is true that in our justification, our own agency is not concerned, while in our sanctification it is.  Yet, if I understand the doctrine of the Bible, grace, through faith, brings both justification and sanctification about.  In fact, we can no sooner be sanctified without the grace of Christ, than we should be justified without it.  Now, who pretends to deny this?  Yet, if this is true, what happens to their argument?  Their objections turn on the latent and deep-seated idea that the real holiness of Christians is attributable to some goodness that originates in them, and not in the grace of God.  But let me ask you, how can people, who entertain the right views of this subject, possibly feel that to profess and thank God for their sanctification must be conclusive proof of self‑righteousness and Pharisaism?  Don’t they understand that sanctification is by grace, and that the gospel has made abundant provision for the sanctification of all men?  Even those who state this objection admit that.  Now, if this is true, which is more honorable to God; to confess and complain that our sins triumph and gain dominion over us, or to be able to truly and honestly thank Him for having given us the victory over our sins?  God says, “Sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14)     

c        Now, in view of this and many similar promises in scripture, suppose we come to God, and say: “O Lord, You have made these great and precious promises, but, as a matter of fact, they do not line up with our own experience.  For sin continually has dominion over us.  Your grace is not sufficient for us.  Temptation continually overcomes us in spite of Your promise that in every temptation You will make a way for us to escape.  You have said, ‘the truth shall make us free’, but we are not free.  We are still the slaves of our own appetites and lusts.”  Now let me ask you what is more honorable to God, to go on with a string of confessions and self‑accusations that flatly contradict the promises of God and insult the grace of the gospel, or to be able, through grace, to confess that we have found, in our own experience, that His grace is sufficient for us, and that sin does not have dominion over us, because we are not under the law, but under grace?                                 

d       Now, I know that some will disagree with what I just said.  They will argue that, in confessing our sins, we do not call on the grace of God because faith conditions these promises, and as a result, the reason why we remain in sin is our unbelief, and therefore, the fact that we remain in sin, does not belittle the grace of Christ.  However, if you use this line of reasoning, you can also say that grace produces faith; and therefore the fact we must confess our unbelief is a dishonor to the grace of Christ.  Now, is it honorable or dishonorable to God, to confess that even our unbelief is overcome, and that we are able to testify from our own experience that the grace of the gospel is sufficient for our present salvation and sanctifica­tion?  There is, no doubt, a lot of self‑righteousness in the church, which, while it talks about grace, what it says really has no meaning.  For anyone to go any farther than to hope that he is converted seems, to many minds, to reek of self‑righteousness.  Now why would they do this, unless they themselves entertain self‑righteous ideas about their own conversion?  Many people would be shocked to hear a man honestly and seriously thanking God that he had been converted and justified.  And, based on this same principle, they may be even more shocked if he honestly thanked God that God’s grace had sanctified him.       

e       Please, let me remind you once again, that the very fact that someone feels shocked to hear a converted or a sanctified soul honestly thank God for the grace he received, shows that, down deep in that person’s heart, lies, concealed, a self‑righteous view of the way of salvation.  In his mind, all holiness in Christians is a ground for boasting; and that, if anyone becomes truly and fully sanctified, that person will boast before God.  I don’t know how else to account for this prejudice.  As far as I am concerned, I don’t think that a person shows the least evidence of self‑righteousness when I hear him sincerely and heartily thank God for converting and justifying him by His grace.  Nor should I feel either shocked, horrified, or disgusted, to hear a man thank God that He had been sanctified by His grace.  If, in either or both situations, I had seen some supporting evidence that he lives an apparently holy life, I would bless God, take courage, and feel like calling everybody around to glorify God for such an example of God’s glorious and excellent grace.   

f     There is a general feeling that such a prayer is similar in principle to that prayer of the Pharisee that our Savior mentions.  But, what reason is there for this assumption?  The Bible clearly tells us that that prayer was the prayer of a Pharisee.  The Pharisees were self‑righteous, and they clearly and openly rejected the grace of Christ.  The Pharisee, that Jesus mentioned, boasted of his own righteousness, which originated in, and was consummated by his own goodness, and not in the grace of Christ.  As a result, he did not thank God that the grace of Christ had made him different from other men.  Now, Jesus used this prayer to teach us the abominable folly of any man’s claim to righteousness and true holiness without the grace of God through Jesus Christ.  But this is a completely different thing when it comes from a thankful soul of one who fully recognizes the grace of Christ, and attributes his sanctification completely to that grace.  And I cannot see how anyone who has completely stripped himself of Pharisaical notions concerning the doctrine of sanctification, can think that these two prayers are similar in their principle and spirit.