ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION IS A SECOND WORK OF GRACE

A -- OUTLINE

Scripture Reading:-- I Thessalonians 1:1-10; 5:14-28

Introduction

1. The five essential factors in the doctrine of entire sanctification are: That entire sanctification is a second work of grace, instantaneous, frees from inbred sin or the principle of sin, is attainable in this life, and is simultaneous with the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

2. Each of these five cardinal elements in the doctrine of entire sanctification is opposed by an erroneous view as follows: The first one locates sin only in the will and thus excludes the necessity for a second work of grace which cleanses the heart from inherited sin; the second one advocates entire sanctification by growth instead of by an instantaneous act of God; the third theory holds that the carnal mind or the inborn principle of sin is suppressed rather than eradicated by the baptism with the Holy Spirit; the fourth erroneous position claims that entire sanctification is consummated at death or after death in purgatory and is, therefore, not attainable in this life; and the final false view makes the baptism with the Holy Spirit a third blessing which comes after entire sanctification.

3. There are three types of arguments which will be used in these lessons. These are: authority, reason, and experience. This means that we believe what we do on the word or teaching of someone, because we arrive at it through the process of reasoning, or because we have experienced it to be a fact.

I. The Arguments from Authority

1. The testimony of others. I have heard hundreds testify to the fact that they were entirely sanctified as a second work of grace or subsequent to regeneration.
2. The great creeds of the Christian Church teach that we are not sanctified when we are converted. They may not agree as to when we are sanctified, but they do agree that we are not sanctified when we are saved.
3. The teaching of the Bible, the supreme authority.
   1. In I Thessalonians Paul asks God to entirely sanctify those to whom he was writing; and they were undoubtedly Christians. They could not have been what they were described as being in the first chapter, if they were not Christians (I Thess. 1 and 5:23, 24).
   3. In Ephesians 5:17, 18, Paul tells us that Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of the water by the word. Here we find Christ giving himself for Christians that they might be entirely sanctified.
   5. In the Gospel of John 14:16-18 we are told that the world cannot receive the Comforter whom Jesus prays to His Father to give to His disciples.
   7. Jesus also definitely declares in His great high priestly prayer in John 17:9-17 that He is not praying for the world but for His disciples. And the petition which He sends up to the Father is that these disciples may be sanctified.

II. The Arguments from Reason

1. There are two forms of sin-an act and a principle or inborn tendency. We must repent and believe in order to be forgiven of the guilt of actual transgressions, and we as Christians must consecrate and believe in order to be entirely sanctified. These different types of conditions cannot be met at one and the same time. This necessitates a second blessing.
2. Not only is it difficult to find anyone who will profess that he was entirely sanctified when he was saved, but also there are few if any who are willing to claim that such is possible. The very hesitancy at this point is itself a proof against such a possibility.
3. Entire sanctification at conversion is a legal impossibility. The sinner is under the death penalty and does not belong to himself. Therefore, he cannot give or consecrate himself to God. However, if he is pardoned and thus released from the death penalty, he then belongs to himself again and can make the necessary consecration for entire sanctification.
4. Entire sanctification at conversion is a psychological impossibility. One cannot take care of more than one major issue at a time. This is mentally impossible. The sinner's consciousness is filled with the business of escaping from the clutches of everlasting death. The all-engaging act of consecration or making a will as to himself and his possessions, at the same time, is psychologically excluded.

III. The Arguments from Experience

1. We have already discussed the testimony of others and have found that it overwhelmingly supports the theory that entire sanctification is subsequent to regeneration. This is an argument from authority for you and me, but for those who give the testimonies it is an argument from experience.
2. Next, the writer takes the witness stand and testifies. He received the experience of entire sanctification after he was saved.
3. There is a sense in which the argument from experience is the most important of all of the three types of proof. However much authority and reason might substantiate the fact that entire sanctification is subsequent to regeneration, such a contention would not be tenable if no one ever got it after conversion. But thank God, that is the way people who have it claim to have received it.

Conclusion

1. It has been said that entire sanctification is a second work of grace because of man's and not God's limitation. This, at least, is one of the underlying reasons why men cannot be wholly sanctified when they are saved. Man as a finite being cannot meet the conditions for both conversion and entire sanctification at one and the same time. God's plan of salvation, to some extent at least, has been made to fit man's finiteness since salvation is a co-operative affair.

B -- LESSON ONE STUDY

Scripture Reading:

1 Thessalonians 1:1-10 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; 3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; 4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. 5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. 6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: 7 So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia. 8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. 9 For they themselves show of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

1 Thessalonians 5:14-28 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. 15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. 16 Rejoice evermore. 17 Pray without ceasing. 18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 19 Quench not the Spirit. 20 Despise not prophesyings. 21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. 25 Brethren, pray for us. 26 Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss. 27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren. 28 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

The five essential elements in the doctrine of entire sanctification may be stated thus: It is subsequent to regeneration, instantaneous, frees from sin, is attainable in this life, and is simultaneous with the baptism with the Holy Spirit. To deny any one of these five claims is to depart definitely from the teaching of John Wesley as to entire sanctification; and in so doing, of course, we reject the position of the Church of the Nazarene as to this doctrine. As a church, we hold that Wesley's interpretation of the Bible as to these factors in the doctrine of entire sanctification is correct. It is with the first of these five beliefs that this discussion is concerned.

Each of these cardinal points in the doctrine of entire sanctification is opposed by a specific error. The first belief which is necessary to a clear and full statement of this great truth, the fact that it is subsequent to regeneration, has set over against it the false view that denies the fallen or sinful nature of man. According to this erroneous notion, sin resides only in the will. This departure from traditional orthodoxy has not appeared often in the history of the Christian Church and seldom has it affected the theological position of a whole denomination. However, one can readily perceive that such a dogma cuts the ground from under the doctrine of entire sanctification. If man is afflicted only with the acts of sin and their consequent guilt, he surely has no need for the cleansing away of the inherited nature of sin.

Why do I believe that entire sanctification is a second definite work of grace? The answer can be approached from only three angles -- authority, reason, and experience -- since everything that one believes is accepted as an article of faith on one of these three grounds. There are many facts or truths which people receive wholly on the basis of some other person's word. Children and young people are constantly taking up beliefs which have been handed down to them by their parents, teachers, or friends. Thus they come to believe certain things because they are asserted to be true by other persons for whom they have high regard and in whom they have great confidence. Then, they have beliefs which are based on authority. But this method does not account for every item of one's theology. In fact, the older we get and the more we think for ourselves, the fewer the tenets that we accept in this way. More and more we base the elements of our system of religious thought on reason. This means that I come to a conclusion through the interpretation of certain truths to which I assent or of experiences which I have had.

For instance, you may infer that a thief has been in your house while you have been away by the fact that some things are gone and others are out of place. Some of the arguments for believing that entire sanctification is a second work of grace are of this order. There is still another type of proof for the conviction that this blessing is subsequent to regeneration. This arises from experience. I may know that a red hot stove will burn or that Elberta peaches when fully ripe are delicious because I have been burned by the red hot stove or have tasted ripe Elberta peaches. As a rule, this last form of argument is the most convincing. Surely this is the case except when the authority upon which you receive a belief is of an extraordinarily high character. Men may cause you to doubt what you believe on authority or through reasoning but when it comes to experience it is not so easy to introduce skepticism. You were there when it happened and you ought to know, or, to state the same idea in another way -- whereas you were blind, now you see.

A few words more must be added as to these three kinds of arguments for one's beliefs. The line between them is not absolute. They overlap and interpenetrate to some extent. For instance, some of the points under authority have a bearing on the argument from experience, and vice versa. Further, there is a sense in which reason is involved in each of these three forms of establishing theological tenets. Nevertheless, there is an irreducible uniqueness about each of these methods, a status or function of which it cannot be robbed. This will be evidenced as we proceed in the consideration of the subject before us.

Now we are ready to present the proofs for our belief that entire sanctification is a second definite work of grace. We shall appeal first to authority. There are hundreds whom I have heard testify that they received this blessing after they were converted. Most of them were men and women of intelligence and character, whose word would have been accepted as to other matters. Over against this great number I have only one to present who openly and above board testified to the fact that he was sanctified at the same time that he was saved. But someone may say that the writer has not often been in the company of those who might have testified thus. In answer to this, I can affirm that I have many times been thrown with religious groups other than my own. Again, I have not only heard just one testify to being sanctified when he was converted but I have also seldom heard of any one who was willing to make such a claim. Further, the great majority of those who have testified to this experience as a second work of grace in my presence have proved by their lives that they had it. On the other hand, this one man to whom I referred above who claimed publicly that he was sanctified when he was saved was thought by some not to be too careful in his living. Even his friends were not inclined to think of him as manifesting a high state of grace.

Another argument from authority is found in the great creeds of the Christian Church. They either specifically state or clearly imply that entire sanctification is not obtained when a person is saved. They may not agree with us in holding that the blessing comes in this life as a crisis after conversion, but they certainly do not champion the position that it is received when one is converted. These creeds, which are the voices of the various denominations, constitute an authority which is worthy of consideration.

The supreme authority for man is the Bible. Its teaching is emphatic at this point. Let us begin with some of Paul's writings. In I Thessalonians 5:23, Paul prays for the sanctification of the Thessalonian Christians. No one who takes the trouble to read the first chapter of this book can doubt that they were Christians. There, in almost every verse, Paul so speaks of the Thessalonians as to indicate that they were Christians. In the face of this he prays to God that they might be sanctified. Here then, at least, were some people who were saved and not sanctified. Further, in Ephesians 5:17, 18, Paul tells us that Christ gave himself for the Church that He might sanctify and cleanse it. It is the Church, those who are saved, that Christ died to sanctify.

Let us turn now to Jesus' teaching along this line. Two instances will be considered. In the Gospel of John 14:16-18 Jesus declares that He will pray the Father and He shall give another Comforter, even the Spirit of Truth, to His disciples. And He makes it clear in the same connection that the world cannot receive this Comforter. It is He who comes in sanctifying power as He did at Pentecost. In the seventeenth chapter of John, the high priestly prayer of Christ, the Master reaches the zenith of His sublime utterances. Here, as He stands under the very shadow of the cross itself, He calls on His Father to sanctify His disciples. We know that they were His disciples because He says several times that they are not of the world even as He is not of the world. This prayer was answered on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was given in all of His fullness to the one hundred and twenty. Some have tried to tell us that those who were in that upper room on that day were backslidden, if they had ever been Christians. There are several arguments that might be given which would prove that they were Christians, but we can take time to give only one.

Anybody who can get one hundred and twenty unsaved people to voluntarily inaugurate a prayer meeting and keep it going for ten days would perform an unbelievable miracle. The hundred and twenty must have been Christians, and they were sanctified by the baptism with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. This was a direct answer to the prayer of Christ in the seventeenth chapter of John.

Next we shall consider the basis for this belief as found in reason. The first argument from this standpoint will be the twofold character of sin. The Bible teaches that we not only commit acts of sin but that we are also born in sin because we are a part of a fallen race. Experience also confirms the fact that we not only commit acts of sin, but we are also sinful in nature. Again, there are many who are ready to admit the universality of sin who appear to be satisfied to believe only in acts of sin. However, this does not seem logical. If men are not born in sin, why is it, then, that none of them escape sinful acts? Therefore, if men are afflicted with two types of sin, it would seem natural and logical to hold that the inborn nature of sin is not dealt with when a man is saved from the guilt of his actual transgressions. There are two conditions which man must face, one that he is not individually responsible for -- a sinful nature, which is his because he is a son of Adam who fell -- and his acts of sin with their consequent guilt, for which he is responsible. Because of this, there must be two experiences, two ministrations of divine grace. The double situation cannot be met by a single divine act or experience -- the acts of sin must first be dealt with and then the sinful nature.

Not only have people usually refused to claim that they received entire sanctification when they were saved, but they have also largely refrained from contending that it is possible to get sanctified when saved. Men have generally seemed to think and feel that the two blessings could not be obtained in one and the same experience. One can infer, then, from this almost universally negative attitude on this point, that such a position is untenable.

Years ago I heard a preacher of holiness argue that entire sanctification is a second blessing and he offered the following as a proof for the same: The state in which he lived would not permit a man who had been condemned to die to make a will. He no longer belonged to himself. He was the property of the state. He was already under the condemnation of death. However, if the governor of that state should see fit to pardon that condemned criminal, he would then belong to himself and could, of course, thereafter make a will. Such an argument at least has suggestive or illustrative value for us today in connection with our present discussion. The sinner is under the death sentence. He is not going to be condemned to die, he has already been adjudged worthy of death. He is now only awaiting the execution of the penalty.

Being in such a state, he could not consecrate himself to God. He must first be pardoned or saved. The death sentence must be remitted. His guilt must first be forgiven, and then he would be ready to come and give himself to God forever and be sanctified entirely. Then he could sing:

The cleansing stream I see, I see! I plunge, and oh, it cleanseth me!

Closely akin to the preceding argument is the thought that it is a psychological impossibility to get saved and sanctified in the same moment. Consciousness can be focused on only one thing at a time. Psychologists once thought otherwise; and Julius Caesar, who was said to have been able to concentrate on doing five things at the same time, was cited as the classical example. However, we know now that Caesar did not really give attention to five activities at the same time. What he did was to center his consciousness on first one and then another of these tasks. He surpassed the ordinary person in that he could swiftly move from one point of concentration to another. The same is true of John Dewey, for instance, who, while riding with you in a car, is said to be able to carry on a conversation, work out a crossword puzzle, and at the end of the journey tell you more about the scenery along the road than you could recall. His mind is far above the average and can, therefore, very rapidly pass from one thought to another.

Now, let us make the application to the subject under discussion. A sinner is concerned with just one thought. He is convicted of sin and realizes that he has broken the law of God. He knows that he is under the sentence of death. He also realizes that the brittle thread of life alone stands between him and the execution of the sentence. The one thing that holds his attention is that he must be rescued, saved from the impending penalty of death. This realization of his untoward condition on the part of the seeking sinner is of such tremendous significance that it completely fills his consciousness. It is psychologically impossible for him to focus consciousness on this transaction and at the same time meet the all-important demand of consecration, which is essential to the reception of the blessing of entire sanctification.

A man who is drowning and knows it, and at the same time realizes that his only hope is to lay hold on the life-line which has finally been thrown to him, could certainly not concentrate on making his will. The human mind cannot meet two supreme and differing calls at one and the same moment. Let the man who has been rescued from drowning get over the crisis and fully recover from the crucialness of such an experience, and then he can consciously and deliberately formulate and write out a will. He can concentrate then on a legal document in which he states what is to be done with his earthly possessions after his death. Likewise, the sinner who has been saved, rescued from the penalty of everlasting death, can then come to the altar a second time and consecrate his all to God. By that time he is in a position, psychologically, to meet the chief condition which is absolutely necessary if one would receive the experience of entire sanctification. Thus we reason that entire sanctification must be subsequent to regeneration.

The last of the three grounds upon which all beliefs are based is experience. What does experience have to say about entire sanctification as subsequent to regeneration? Already, under the proofs from authority, we have discussed the experience of others. As we said there, we have heard many witness to the fact that they had received this blessing as a second work of grace. This becomes authority for me when I accept their testimony. However, their word in this case is based upon experience rather than reason. Primarily, then, it is an argument from experience for them, while for me it is secondarily, an argument from experience. This means that the main argument from experience is always personal.

The real question is, what is the writer's testimony on this debated matter? Do I have this blessing, and if I do, how did I come into possession of it? The answer to this question is, that I have the blessing of entire sanctification, and that I received it after I had been saved. This testimony I give humbly, realizing that what I am, I am by the grace of God. He alone is to be praised. Further, I can keep and live this blessing only as God continues to help me moment by moment.

The above argument from experience is so important that I must give a description of what happened in more detail. I was first saved when I was in my middle teens. After a time I backslid. It was in this backslidden state that I entered Peniel College at Peniel, Texas. There I was soon blessedly reclaimed. And then near the close of this same school year I was wonderfully sanctified wholly. This came only after quite a period of struggle as to a full and complete consecration. It was not difficult for me to believe after I had placed everything on the altar for time and eternity.

When I was reclaimed, as well as when I was saved the first time, the great issue was not consecration, it was repentance for sins which had been committed. My guilt and the consequent penalty of death were in the limelight of my consciousness. When I faced entire sanctification, it was very different. There was no feeling of guilt as to actual sins committed. The great problem, then, was in consecrating wholly to God this self which had before been freed from the guilt and burden of committed sins. This absolute surrender was necessary in order for God to fully and freely cleanse me from the sinful nature with which I was born. This cleansing was wrought by the baptism with the Holy Spirit and was entire sanctification. Altogether, it was a glorious experience, going beyond anything that had ever happened to me before. How well do I remember that night! The most noticeable effect was a peace that I had never known before. It was not peace with God, I had already experienced that when I was saved; it was the peace of God, a peace that passeth all understanding. It seemed that God had turned a veritable Amazon River of peace into my soul.

In a sense there is no more important argument for anything than the one which we have just given from experience. For after all, if the truth which I have accepted on the basis of authority and reason will not work for me in experience, it will be very difficult to persuade me to continue to hold to it. On the other hand, if experience substantiates authority and reason, one has placed the capstone on the temple of truth which he is building. He has come to know for himself what the word of others and the Word of God, as well as his own reasoning, have already confirmed. The inner experience, or revelation, cannot be surpassed as an instrument for convincing a person of the truth.

So much for the main body of this discussion -- which has been a consideration of the arguments from authority, reason, and experience, for the fact that entire sanctification is subsequent to regeneration. In conclusion, let me call attention to a basic principle which I believe underlies this whole truth of entire sanctification as a second crisis in Christian experience. It has to do with the reason why God does not entirely sanctify at one and the same time. God is omnipotent, and surely He could do it all at once. In answer to such questionings, which naturally arise in the mind of man, let me say that I believe that the limitation is not on God's side but on man's. God could do the work all at once, but man cannot meet the necessary conditions all at once -- as we have already indicated above. Salvation is a co-operative affair -- God has something to do, and so does man. The working out of the plan of God is never arbitrarily limited by God, but it is often necessarily conditioned by man's finiteness.

The most accomplished theologian living could not teach an average five-year-old child the doctrine of the Trinity with all of its intricate depths of truth. Learning is a two-way process, a co-operative affair, and either party involved in the learning process may limit its functioning. In this case, the theologian, the teacher, does not limit its functioning, but the learner, the five-year-old child, does. Similarly, it is man and not God who limits the functioning of the co-operative salvation process and makes it necessary for man to be saved in one crisis experience and entirely sanctified in another. The two works of grace, then, are not an arbitrary arrangement made by God, but an adjustment which God has made because of the limitations of finite human beings.