Sanctification and Cleansing #

Chapter 1

The heart of the Wesleyan doctrine of Christian holiness is the claim that God can and does actually, in this life, through the gracious gift of His Spirit, render the entirely consecrated believer “holy in all manner of conversation” by reason of being completely cleansed from inherited sin.

No teaching which denies such a cleansing can properly be called holiness in the sense in which we use the term. The essential point of the doctrine of entire sanctification is this fact of heart purity as an actual purging of the soul.

Positional Holiness #

One of the major challenges to which this faith is subjected is from those who assert that no such cleansing is possible, and that the holiness of the New Testament is a positional holiness wherein the believer, who is in Christ, is said to be accounted holy while actually impure.

If I understand their meaning correctly, this is the view espoused by Dr. C. I. Scofield and the scholars who collaborated with him in the preparation of the Scofield Bible. It is the position, by and large, of the Bible institutes which have grown from the monumental work of Dwight L. Moody, and of other outstanding institutions. Its contemporary vogue stems from the influence of the Plymouth Brethren in nineteenth-century England, and the Keswick Conference in this century. I mean no injustice to the varied facets of thought displayed by these different groups in thus lumping them together. They seem, however, to be agreed on the point of positional sanctification—or what is sometimes called the “holy in Christ” theory.

A typical summary of this is the statement of the Scofield Bible or Testament in the helps on Rev. 22:11. Here we are told that sanctification, when used of persons, has a threefold meaning. First, in position, believers are said to be eternally set apart for God by redemption, and “positionally” are saints and holy from the moment of believing. Scripture references for this statement are Phil. 1:1 and Heb. 3:1. Second, experientially, it is claimed that the believer is being sanctified by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures. Third, in consummation, the believer’s complete sanctification is said to await the return of the Lord.

It is the first meaning stated that concerns us here. There is said to be a holiness which is positional, but not experiential. All redeemed souls, we are told, are “saints” and “holy” even though they are still being “sanctified” by the work of the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures and will never be completely sanctified until Christ comes again. The last two claims—that sanctification is progressive in nature and completed only at death or the rapture—will be considered in the next chapter. The doctrine of positional holiness is the point in question for the moment.

If “positional” sanctification in the foregoing statement could be understood as “potential,” 1 should have little argument. The facts are, however, it is not so understood by its authors. There is much underlying this statement which does not appear on the surface. The foundation of this entire school of thought is laid on at least five interrelated theses.

1. The Christian is said to possess two natures throughout his whole earthly Christian life—the seed of God, and the mind of the flesh or the carnal nature. These two natures are said to coexist in such fashion that the believer’s actual conduct may be now under one, now under the other, without in any way affecting his standing with God.

2. Since the believer is in Christ and Christ is holy, the believer is holy in Christ, but not necessarily holy in character or conduct. That is, not only is the righteousness of Christ—His perfect obedience to God’s law—imputed in justification to cover the believer’s confessed sins, but the holiness of Christ—His conformity of nature to the character of God—is likewise supposed to be imputed to the believer. God is alleged to look at the believer through Christ, and to see him as holy even as Christ is holy, although in point of fact he may at that very moment be full of carnality and sin.

3. The believer’s sin nature can never be destroyed in this life, thus leaving him under the partial, and sometimes the full, dominion of the mind of the flesh. However, the sins which result from this sinful nature are not, in the case of the believer, supposed to be subject to condemnation at the judgment bar of God. These are, allegedly, dealt with at the judgment seat of Christ in the dispensation of rewards.

4. The justification or forgiveness granted the believer when he first accepts Christ is a permanent justification and encompasses all the future sins he may commit, as well as all his past sins. Faith only is the ground for justification. Repentance, if mentioned at all, is the transient sorrow of the sinning Christian when he realizes he has lost fellowship or broken communion with God.

5. It follows from the foregoing that the believer’s standing in Christ is eternal and unchangeable, no matter how fluctuating his moral state may be. This, now known as the doctrine of eternal security, is basically the claim that any individual who is once saved can never be finally lost, regardless of his faith or lack of faith, his sinfulness or righteousness of life.

Points one and two concern us in this chapter. Points three and four will be considered in Chapter 3. The final point will be the subject of Chapter 5.

The Doctrine of the “Two Natures" #

Let us turn then to these twin doctrines of the two natures and imputed holiness—the theory that while yet possessing the carnal nature we are “holy in Christ.”

We shall deal only briefly with the doctrine of the two natures, inasmuch as the theory of positional holiness is more directly related to our overall theme. As usually presented, it is the belief that the seed of God implanted in the believer’s heart at conversion is essentially another nature, incapable of sin, and tending to righteousness. Coexisting with this new nature is the old man, the carnal self, which is said to be indestructible, an essential part of our human mortality. Proof texts ordinarily given are John 3:6, That which is born of the flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit; and Gal. 5:17, For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

If this were but an awkward way of describing the struggles of an unsanctified Christian with the tendencies of a carnal heart, one could have little objection to it. But it is much more than that. It is represented as the norm, the standard for Christian life—than which one can expect no more. It is contended that these two natures are so far independent of each other as each to be relatively unaffected by the actions of the other. Thus, the believer may act under the influence of the mind of the Spirit without thereby improving the mind of the flesh. Conversely—and here is the payoff—the believer may sin under the influence of the fleshly nature without the spiritual nature being essentially affected thereby.

Two observations should be made. First, it is psychological foolishness to represent human nature as so compartmentalized that one part of it may act without altering or affecting all the rest. Apart from abnormally split personalities, the human psyche is a dynamic unity, responding to diverse motivations as a total self, and modified continuously by every response. The two-nature view is in fact a sort of spiritual schizophrenia, a kind of religious Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Second, this theory is a virtual denial of the scriptural doctrine of the new birth. Nowhere does the Bible represent the new birth as the injection of a divine nature into an otherwise unmodified human nature. It is the human being who is born from above, not an abstract spiritual entity added to the soul. II Cor. 5:17 provides a healthy antidote for this error: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

The Nature of Scriptural Holiness #

What, now, about the view that the holiness of the believer is “in Christ," not inherent in himself? Lewis Sperry Chafer, for instance, in Vol. VI of his Systematic Theology says, “Positionally, the ‘old man’ has been put off forever. Experimentally the ‘old man’ remains as an active force in the life which can be controlled only by the power of God.”¹ If this is true, the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification is not only false, but dangerous. It is therefore of utmost importance that we understand and clarify this issue. One is, first of all, impressed by the almost complete lack of direct scriptural citation in support of this view. It appears motivated by a desire to eat the cake and have it too—to fulfill the requirement for holiness stated in the Word, “without which no man shall see the Lord,” and to have license for the continued indwelling of sin. Holiness we must have, but if Christ is our Holiness as He is our Justification, then the believer may be holy positionally and carnal experientially.

Does the fact that the believer is “in Christ” warrant the conclusion that the believer is therefore positionally holy, however sinful he may be actually, both by nature and by deed? This we cannot see. The phrase “in Christ” is Paul’s great designation of the true Christian. To be in Christ is to be so related to Him as to participate in the salvation He has made possible. It cannot be taken to mean that God fools himself into accounting a carnal heart holy because He sees that heart through the holiness of His Son.

The basic consideration here is that holiness is a quality of character and cannot be transferred. Christ is holy in himself, and if the Christian is holy at all he is holy by reason of having become actually a partaker of the divine nature.² This is, of course, Christ’s work in the heart. But it is actual, and not merely logical. That Abraham believed God, and that it was accounted to him for righteousness, does not mean that faith is a substitute for righteousness. It means that faith is the condition whereby the heart is made righteous by a divine act.

The Bible does not lack for specific declarations of the actual holiness of an entirely sanctified heart. It presents such a state as the ideal and obligation of every believer. For example, I Pet. 1:15-16: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. The holiness here commanded is not of a different sort, a positional holiness. It is qualitatively identical with the holiness of God. “As he … is holy, so be ye holy.” Note the words “as” and “so.”

I John 3:3,7 adds its testimony at this point: And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. The purity here commanded is not different from that of Christ; and the believer’s righteousness, rather than being imputed, is here said to be in exact correspondence to the righteousness of Christ.

Consider I John 4:17: Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. Note again the words “as” and “so.”

Look at Luke 1:73-75: The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. Here holiness and righteousness are portrayed as a quality of character in which we may serve God throughout this life.

Holiness as Actual Cleansing #

We go now directly to the New Testament for a synthesis of its teaching regarding actual cleansing—the complete purging of the heart from all inherited depravity. We shall consider briefly 10 references, taking them simply in the order of their appearance.

Matt. 3:11-12: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes ! am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Here we observe that the baptism with the Spirit as fire follows the baptism with water unto repentance. These cannot be concurrent without a hopeless mixture of figures. But the important point is that the purpose of Christ’s baptism is the thorough purging of His “floor,” gathering the wheat of sanctified human nature into the garner, and destroying the chaff of the carnal nature with the unquenchable fire of the Holy Ghost. This interpretation of the wheat and the chaff is not the only possible one, but it is the most natural one in the total context. The baptism with the Spirit and the purging of the floor are simultaneous—they go together.

Matt. 5:8: Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Is it conceivable that our Lord should have pronounced such a blessing upon a class of persons which did not exist, and which could never exist on this earth in this dispensation? The rest of the Beatitudes admittedly concern qualities of character or conditions of life which are found in the Church throughout all ages—the poor in spirit, the meek, the peacemakers, the hungry and thirsty after righteousness, the persecuted. Why then should the pure in heart be placed in a different group, as referring to a class without members? It is much more true to the Scriptures to recognize that there are those whose hearts are pure, who enjoy the blessedness of seeing God.

Acts 15:8-9: And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us, and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

In these words, the Apostle Peter makes a direct identification of the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the purifying of the believer’s heart by faith. After 15 years, the aspect of Pentecost which remained most significant to Peter was not the noise of a mighty rushing wind; not the cloven tongues of fire; not even the gift of other languages. It was the purifying of the heart in response to appropriating faith, upon receiving the fullness of the Spirit, whom the world cannot receive (John 14:17).

Rom. 6:6-7: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Many outside the holiness movement resent the term “eradicate” in reference to sin in the heart. We are not disposed to contend for a term which is extra-biblical, however useful it might be. We are willing to use scriptural terms. If our friends cannot admit eradication, why not just substitute “crucifixion” and “destruction” as God’s method of dealing with “the old man”? Crucifixion was widely used in Bible times as a method of capital punishment. It always resulted in death. Never could this be construed to mean the suppression or counteraction of that which still lives on as an active force in the heart.

Likewise, to destroy certainly means—if not annihilation—at the very least the doing away with the body of sin. The whole tenor of this sixth chapter of Romans is that what Christ wrought for us on the Cross can and must be wrought in us by the Spirit of God.

Rom. 8:2: For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. This is in striking contrast to the seventh chapter of Romans, the classic passage for those who deny actual deliverance from carnality in this life. Paul had said there, “I am carnal, sold under sin. . . . when I would do good, evil is present with me. … it is no more I . . . but sin that dwelleth in me. . . . O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:14, 21, 20, 24)

This, it is claimed, is the norm of Paul’s religious experience. This represents the best possible attainment ingrace. This shows that sin is inherent to the finite human, and cannot be avoided.

Does Romans 7 represent Paul’s high-water mark in grace? Is this his description of a normal Christian experience, even that of a babe in Christ? The answer is an emphatic “No!” We have heard some rather sorry confessions of failure made by God’s children, but never have we heard a genuinely born-again believer get up and testify, “O wretched man that I am!”

Paul is here vividly contrasting his old life as an awakened sinner striving in his own might to keep the law of God, with the deliverance he found in the regenerating and sanctifying grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the old life, he found in his heart a law that countered the ideal of his awakened conscience. He was, as he said, captive to the law of sin indwelling in his members, the body of death which made him wretched.

Then, using the same terminology, he describes the deliverance wrought in him by the Spirit of Christ. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. Here, as clearly as language can express it, is the claim of the Apostle Paul to freedom from the nature of sin and the body of death with which he had struggled so long in vain. Little wonder he shouts, Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord (see Rom. 7:25).

II Cor. 7:1: Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Here is a total cleansing for those who have, by reason of sonship to God, exceeding great and precious promises. Lest Paul be charged with advocating sanctification by human effort, let it be said that we cleanse ourselves in the same way Peter said we should save ourselves from this perverse generation (Acts 2:40). In each case, it is by bringing ourselves into right relation to the saving and cleansing virtue of the blood of Christ. The point is, total cleansing “from all filthiness of flesh and spirit” is both necessary and possible as the basis for perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Eph. 4:20-24: But ye have not so learned Christ; if so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: that ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

True holiness is here represented as having both a negative and a positive aspect. Speaking to those who had been disciples or learners in the school of Christ, Paul commands them to put off the old man and, being renewed inwardly, to put on the new man in righteousness and true holiness. The old man must go before the new man can come. The negative cleansing must precede the positive infilling. There is nothing here concerning toleration, counteraction, or suppression. The Word is clear: Put off the old man.”³

Eph. 5:25-27: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

This is the redemptive purpose of Christ for His Church. In relation to the world, divine love gave the Son to save from perishing those who believe. In relation to the Church, divine love gave the Son to sanctify and cleanse it, that it might be presented holy and without blame. There is an equation here of sanctification and cleansing. The Church cannot be presented without spot or wrinkle unless she first be sanctified and cleansed.

Titus 2:14: Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. The atonement here is spoken of as having for its purpose “purifying unto himself” a people. This is a purity which is real and experiential, and which results in a zeal for good works. As is true in so many references, the inner experience is said to produce outer results, and the outer results certify the reality of the inward experience.

I John 1:7-8: If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Next to Romans 7, I John 1:8 is probably the verse quoted most frequently in the effort to contradict the Wesleyan claim to freedom from the inbeing of sin. Lewis Sperry Chafer, for example, proposes to disprove what he calls “the eradication error” by such an appeal as follows:

The New Testament warns specifically against the eradication error. In I John 1:8 it is said, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Reference here is to a sin nature, whereas in verse 10 reference is to sin which is the fruit of the evil nature. To say as an assumption that one does not have a sin nature may be due to self-deception; nevertheless, to such it is declared: “The truth is not in him.”⁴

Only by taking verse 8 completely out of context could it support such a conclusion. In verse 7, John indicates the need of walking in the light as God is Light, so that the Blood can cleanse from all sin. For if anyone alleges he has no sin from which he can and needs to be cleansed, the truth is not in him—he is self-deceived. Many indeed are the errors that could be avoided by applying to each verse of scripture the warning often printed on the tickets we buy: “Not good if detached.” Here, as always, “A text without a context is only a pretext!”

This, then, is the testimony of Scripture. It stands squarely on the side of the actual cleansing of the heart of the believer, as against an imputed holiness which leaves the nature untouched. If God does not cleanse the hearts of His children, it would, of logical necessity, be for one of two reasons: either He could not do so; or, if He could, He would not do so. What a strange dilemma this would raise! If God wants to make His people actually holy and cannot, He is not omnipotent—the devil has succeeded in injecting into human nature that which God cannot remove. On the other hand, if God can cleanse the heart and will not, then He is not holy as we have thought Him to be, utterly opposed to all sin.

Why grapple with such perplexities? Why not take one’s stand with the Bible and a multitude of witnesses, and proclaim the truth that God both can and will sanctify wholly every entirely converted child of His who will “receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:14)?

Footnotes #