Theology Thursday - "Entire Sanctification" & the Christian Life
Image
John Wesley
What is “sinless perfection?” What do the so-called “holiness churches” believe about growth in Christ and sanctification? Is there really a difference between, say, a Nazarene church and a Baptist congregation about the Holy Spirit’s work in a believer’s life? Today, we allow a Nazarene theologian, H. Orton Wiley, to explain for himself.
In this excerpt, Wiley explains what “Christian perfection” means:1
Christian perfection in the critical sense, represents the more positive aspect of the one experience, known theologically either as entire sanctification or Christian perfection. Entire sanctification, however, is a term which applies more to the aspect of a cleansing from sin, or the making holy; while Christian perfection emphasizes especially the standard of privilege secured to the believer by the atoning work of Jesus Christ.
“We give the name of Christian perfection,” says Mr. Fletcher, “to that maturity of grace and holiness which established adult believers attain to under the Christian dispensation; and thus we distinguish that maturity of grace, from both the ripeness of grace which belongs to the dispensation of the Jews below us, and from the ripeness of glory which belongs to departed saints above us.
Hence it appears that by Christian perfection, we mean nothing but the cluster and maturity of graces which compose the Christian character in the Church militant.
In other words, Christian perfection is a spiritual constellation, made up of these gracious stars: perfect repentance, perfect faith, perfect humility, perfect meekness, perfect self-denial, perfect resignation, perfect hope, perfect charity for our visible enemies, as well as our earthly relations; and, above all, perfect love for our invisible God, through the explicit knowledge of our Mediator, Jesus Christ.
And as this last star is always accompanied by all the others, as Jupiter is by his satellites, we frequently use, as St. John, the phrase ‘perfect love’ instead of the word ‘perfection’; understanding by it the pure love of God shed abroad in the hearts of established believers by the Holy Ghost, which is abundantly given them under the fullness of the Christian dispensation.”
Here the word perfection, used in connection with the graces of the Spirit, must be understood to refer solely to their quality, as being pure and unmixed, not to their quantity, as precluding further growth and development.
Later in his discussion, Wiley anticipated a question about how a Christian who is “entirely sanctified” handles temptation from sin, or if such a thing is even possible:2
Temptation is reconcilable with the highest degree of evangelical perfection. Jesus was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, but was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. Temptation seems to be necessarily involved in the idea of probation. No temptation or evil suggestion becomes sin, however, until it is tolerated or cherished by the mind. As long as the soul maintains its integrity, it remains unharmed, however protracted or severe the temptation may be.
Several questions arise in this connection:
When does temptation become sin?
To this most difficult question Bishop Foster replies, “Sin begins whenever the temptation begins to find inward sympathy, if known to be a solicitation to sin. So long as it is promptly, and with full and hearty concurrence of the soul, repelled, there is no indication of inward sympathy, there is no sin” (FOSTER, Christian Purity, p. 55).
What is the difference between the temptations of those who are entirely sanctified, and those who are not?
The difference lies in this, that in the latter, temptation stirs up the natural corruption of the heart with its bias toward sin; while in the former, the temptation is met with uniform resistance.
But how may I distinguish the temptations of the enemy, from the carnal mind or corruption of my own heart?
Mr. Wesley admits that sometimes “it is impossible to distinguish, without the direct witness of the Spirit.” In general, however, there need be no confusion. In the sanctified soul there is a fullness of love, humility and all the graces of the spirit, so that a temptation to pride, anger, or any of the works of the flesh is met with the instant recoil of the whole being. Holiness in man, as in Christ, is found in that fundamental ethical nature which loves righteousness and hates iniquity.
Temptation and trial may appear to be evils, but in reality they are God’s method of establishing the believer in holiness and preparing him for the life to come. By them, God empties the appeals of the world of their urgency, and strengthens the motives of faithfulness in the kingdom of God. Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him (James 1:12; Heb. 12:11).
What does “Christian perfection” actually look like, in real life? Wiley tackles this question:3
It is the uniform testimony of those who believe and teach the Wesleyan doctrine of Christian perfection, that the Spirit bears witness to this work of grace in the heart, exactly as He bears witness to Christian sonship.
“None, therefore, ought to believe that the work is done,” says Mr. Wesley, “till there is added the testimony of the Spirit witnessing his entire sanctification as clearly as his justification. We know it by the witness and by the fruit of the Spirit.”
Dr. J. Glenn Gould says that “This inner assurance is made up of three distinct phases. That is, they are logically distinct, though the sinner’s experience of them may seem to be instantaneous. They are (1) the witness of the seeker’s own heart; (2) the witness of God’s Word; and (3) the inner illumination of the Holy Spirit” (GOULD, The Spirit’s Ministry, p. 8).
The sanctified soul may know by the testimony of his own spirit, and the witness of the Holy Spirit, that the blood of Jesus Christ has cleansed him from all sin. Here we have the testimony of consciousness, which we can no more doubt than our own existence. And in addition to this, there is the direct and positive testimony of the witnessing Spirit.
To the scriptural evidences already cited, we may add also, those personal examples which confirm the doctrine of evangelical perfection:
- Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations (Gen. 6:9).
- Job was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil (Job 1:1).
- Zacharias and Elisabeth were both righteous before God walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless (Luke 1:6).
- Our Lord said of Nathanael, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! (John 1:47).
- St. Paul also speaks of those in the apostolic church who were evangelically perfect. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect (I Cor. 2: 6); and Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded (Phil. 3:15).
Were we to attempt to present here, the testimonies of those men and women who have enjoyed the experience of perfect love, our task would be too great. Inspiring as they are, we cannot include them. “A study of the biographies of Christian leaders,” says Dr. D. Shelby Corlett, “reveals the fact that with few exceptions they all had a second crisis experience. While it is true all would not interpret this experience in terms of Wesley’s ‘second blessing properly so-called’; it is also true that this second experience made a distinct change in their lives and ministry. Universally unbiased Christians long for and seek a deeper experience than that which they obtain in regeneration. Thousands have enjoyed a ‘second blessing’ without being instructed in the truth as taught by believers in the Wesleyan emphasis on the doctrine of entire sanctification” (DR. D. SHELBY CORLETT, Herald of Holiness, Vol. 27, No. 11).
Earlier in his discussion on this topic, Wiley helpfully summed up the whole matter:4
We may conclude, then, that nothing is clearer from the Scripture than that there is a perfection which may be attained in this life; that this perfection consists solely in a life of perfect love, or the loving God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength; that this perfection of love has no reference to the degree or quantity of love, but to its purity or quality; that this state of perfect love is a consequence of the purification of the heart from all sin, so that love remains in soleness and supremacy; that this purification is accomplished instantaneously by the baptism with the Holy Spirit; that the resultant state of perfect love is regarded as adulthood in grace, in that the believer enters into the fullness of privilege under the New Covenant; and last, in that love is the fulfilling of the law, this state of pure or perfect love, is known as Christian perfection.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
- 57 views
“nothing is clearer from the Scripture than that there is a perfection which may be attained in this life; that this perfection consists solely in a life of perfect love”
Nothing is clearer from this than that they must have been reading a different Bible than the one I read.
It’s interesting though that today, along with what survives of perfectionism, we have the other extreme: the idea that there is no such thing as maturiy, even. It doesn’t come from theologians in succinct language (that I know of) but it’s a pretty clear assumption in some of the nomophobic pulpit teaching (and popular books) out there.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Wiley’s discussion is difficult to follow. He qualifies himself to death, and you’re left wondering what on earth he does believe - that’s why I felt it was necessary to hunt down the summary paragraph at the end. He also draws a distinction between sin and inclinations (I think he said “inclinations,” but am not completely sure). He says a person can have bad inclinations, and yet not sin. It sounds like a cute attempt to dodge the issue. I’ll hunt down the section when I get home.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I would agree that there is a difference between a sin and an inclination. In believers there are conflicting inclinations (and even in unbelievers as a function of the conscience). Galatians puts it in terms of flesh vs. spirit. But we sin when we make a choice—though it doesn’t have to be a conscious choice or a consciously-wrong choice.
As for who holds to this anymore, I’m not sure, but a popular variant is the idea that believers cross various threasholds in their Christian experience and one of them is a more or less permanent “victorious living” threshold. So the language of “perfection” isn’t used, but after all the qualifying of “perfection” the old time perfectionists did, it ends up being very nearly the same thing. You still have something like a special tier of Christians who have crossed over into “victorious living.”
I don’t want to overcorrect that error. People do mature in the faith and are being changed into the image of Christ. And certainly there can be stretches of time where we’re doing really well. In my experience, though, this just means we’re not yet seeing the flaws we’re going to be working on next. There is real progress but plateaus are really just like that bench half way up the high hill: you rest a bit then know you need to move on.
(I’ve read and heard arguments and counter-arguments that the victorious living plateau idea is the Keswick view of sanctification. I no longer know what to believe about that, but I don’t think it’s particularly important where were we “blame” it in history. The question is whether it fits Scripture well… or where it fits and where it doesn’t.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Wiley distinguished a “sin” from an “infirmity.” He defined “sin” as a voluntary, deliberate transgression. An “infirmity,” on the other hand, is an involuntary transgression. This seems like a very obvious attempt to uphold sinless perfectionism, while acknowledging that people, indeed, do sin. This is a semantics game. Behold his explanation:
Infirmities must be distinguished from sins. Sin in the sense used here is a voluntary transgression of a known law. Infirmities on the other hand, are involuntary transgressions of the divine law, known or unknown, which are consequent on the ignorance and weakness of fallen men. These are inseparable from mortality. Perfect love does not bring perfection in knowledge, and hence is compatible with mistakes in both judgment and practice. There seems to be no remedy for this until the body is redeemed from the consequences of sin, and glorified. Infirmities bring humiliation and regret, but not guilt and condemnation. These latter attach to sin only. Both, however, need the blood of sprinkling (Wiley, H. Orton. Christian Theology, Volume 2 [Kindle Locations 9245-9250]
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
This is a very important article. I believer that the ‘should she walk with a bump’ article IS this article. Because when you say, “X saint isn’t ‘good enough’ you mean that these others are ‘good enough,’ you’re straying into the same territory Wesley and his friends were in. Except Wesley had the guts to label it. You’re basing the standing of ‘good Christians’ on their works. And you do this because they are avoiding some level of sin that would rob them of their standing.
Perfectionism in all it’s strains will necessarily will have a reduction of the ‘perfect’ standard. Either quantitatively (certain moderate forms of a sin are “not sin, but infirmities”) or qualitatively (for the leader, sex with lots of women is ok) sin will be re-defined as not sin.
I grew up in the Church of the Nazarene. In fact, I was fourth generation Nazarene, which takes my family almost all the way back to the formation of the denomination (in 1907 or so, if I remember my church history correctly). My understanding of the teaching of the Nazarene church in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s is exactly what Wiley describes. I recall a pastor of a church our family attended giving his personal testimony that while he was in Bible College he was so desperate for the “second work of grace” that he climbed on a factory conveyor belt that was headed for some machinery that would have killed him if God hadn’t answered his prayer before he got there.
Almost as effective in changing my understanding as the scriptures (properly understood) was my personal experience in high school and the first couple years of college (at BJU). It simply became clear that sinless perfection was wishful thinking that required self-delusion or at least redefinition of sin. Consistent with the latter, in a discussion years later with my dad, he too took the position that many things I thought good theology would call sin were just “mistakes.” Interestingly, he’s now IFB (practically KJVO), but that’s more due to the Nazarene denomination’s looseness re creation/evolution (at least at its colleges) and its widespread adoption of music he doesn’t approve of.
I can’t say what the current teaching of the denomination is. I would assume that it’s formal doctrine (as set out in the church’s Manual) hasn’t changed. Local churches, though, seem largely to have gone generically non-conservative evangelical: sermons on how to (whatever) better, lots of youth and children’s activities, etc. Attractive to young families who aren’t picky about things like theology.
Discussion