Process and Crisis in Sanctification #

Chapter 2

The second current issue in holiness teaching we shall consider has to do with the temporal aspect of sanctification. Does this experience result from growth and self-discipline, or is it an act of God’s grace completed in a moment of time?

The concept of positional sanctification considered in Chapter 1 is usually reinforced with two closely related assertions: (1) that experimental (experiential) sanctification is progressive and gradual; and (2) that it is completed only at or after death in the gathering of the saints in glory.

These two points were evident in the quotation from Scofield given in Chapter 1, and are treated at greater length in the following quotation from Lewis Sperry Chafer in his Systematic Theology. After describing what he calls “positional sanctification,” Chafer continues:

Second, experimental sanctification. This second aspect of the sanctifying work of God for the believer is progressive in some of its aspects, so is quite in contrast to the positional sanctification which is “once for all.” It is accomplished by the power of God through the Spirit and through the Word: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17; see also II Cor. 3:18; Eph. 5:25-26; I Thess. 5:23; II Pet. 3:18). Experimental sanctification is advanced according to various relationships. (1) In relation to the believer’s yieldedness to God. In virtue of presenting his body a living sacrifice, the child of God thereby is set apart unto God and so is experimentally sanctified. The presentation may be absolute and thus admit of no progression, or it may be partial and so require a further development. In either case, it is a work of experimental sanctification. (2) In relation to sin. The child of God may so comply with every condition for true spirituality as to be experiencing all the provided deliverance and victory from the power of sin, or, on the other hand, he may be experiencing but a partial deliverance from the power of sin. In either case, he is set apart and thus is experimentally sanctified. (3) In relation to Christian growth. This aspect of experimental sanctification is progressive in every case. It therefore should in no way be confused with incomplete yieldedness to God or incomplete victory over sin. Its meaning is that the knowledge of truth, devotion, and Christian experience are naturally subject to development. In accord with their present state of development as Christians, believers experimentally are set apart unto God. And thus, again, the Christian is subject to an experimental sanctification which is progressive. . . . The Bible, therefore, does not teach that any child of God is altogether sanctified experimentally in daily life before that final consummation of all things.¹

There is much in this quotation concerning growth in grace with which we have no quarrel. Our question concerns calling this “sanctification,” and the assertion that experimental sanctification cannot therefore be completed. Other writers in similar vein add the idea that the sin nature may be progressively brought under control, mortified daily by careful attention to the means of grace, and that thereby the believer is being progressively sanctified by gaining greater and greater victory over sin in his life, and more and more control over the impulses of sin in his heart.

This puts the issue squarely before us. Entire sanctification, as understood by holiness people, does not admit of degrees. It is as perfect and complete in its kind as the work of regeneration and justification is perfect and complete in its kind. This does not mean that there is no growth in grace both before and after sanctification. What it does mean is that sanctification, as an act of God, is instantaneous and not produced by growth or self-discipline or the progressive control of the carnal nature.

Sanctification by Growth #

Before asking, “What saith the Lord?” let us give momentary consideration to the growth theory.

First, it is difficult to see in this anything more than sanctification by works and human striving. The help of the Holy Spirit is claimed while the possibility of His dispensational work is denied. It is possible to give lip service to the Spirit’s ministry and at the same time to contradict His sanctifying lordship.

Second, death is expected to complete what grace and the cross of Christ could not. Lurking back of all these speculations is the ghost of the ancient Gnostic heresy, that the physical body is in some sense the seat and source of sin. There is otherwise no logical reason for such persistent doubt that the redeemed soul may be free from sin here and now.

More crucial still is the fact that the Bible never intimates anywhere that either growth or death have the least thing to do with the soul’s sanctification. Instead, the Word of God, the blood of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and faith are factors concerned with sanctification. Growth is in grace, never into grace. Growth relates to increase in quantity, never to change in quality. Further, to suppose that physical death makes any change in the moral quality of the human soul is to go in direct opposition to the clear statements of the Word (Heb. 9:27; Rev. 22:11).

Sanctification as a Crisis Experience #

As we turn to the testimony of the Word, we find three classes of evidence that entire sanctification is, in fact, instantaneous and not gradual, a crisis experience and not an endless process. There is, first, the analogy to justification and the new birth. Second, there is the testimony of the terms used to describe the work—terms which customarily refer to actions completed at a given point in time. And, third, there is the logic of example found in the Bible. Let us look briefly at each.

1. The Analogy with the New Birth #

There are several points of similarity between the two works of divine grace: justification or the new birth, and sanctification or holiness.

a. Both are products of divine love. John 3:16 reads: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life; and Eph. 5:25-27 says: 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 it should be holy and without blemish.

b. Both are manifestations of God’s good, acceptable, and perfect will. I Tim. 2:3-4 says: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth; and Heb. 10:10: By the which will (that is, the will of God as accomplished by Christ in His atoning death) we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

c. Both are accomplished through the wonderful light of God’s Word. I Pet. 1:23 reads: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever; and in John 17:17 Christ’s prayer is: Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

d. Both are wrought in the heart by the effective agency of the Holy Spirit of God. Titus 3:5 says: Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; and II Thess. 2:13 reads: But we are bound to give thanks to Cod always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because Cod hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

e. Both are purchased at the cost of Christ’s shed blood on Calvary’s cross. In Rom. 5:9, Paul says: Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him; and Heb. 13:12 reads: Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

f. Both are brought to the individual believer’s heart in response to faith. Rom. 5:1 reads: Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; and Acts 26:18, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the potoer of Satan unto God, that they may receive the forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Now virtually all evangelical Christians recognize that the new birth, justification, is not gradual but instantaneous. It is an act of God which takes place at a given point in a believer’s life. But if both justification and sanctification are products of the same divine love, the same will of God, the same Holy Word, the same blessed Spirit, the same redeeming Blood, and the same human condition—namely, faith—is there any valid reason for supposing that one is instantaneous while the other is gradual? If justification is instantaneous, there is certainly no reason why sanctification, wrought by the same agency, should not be equally the act of a moment.

As a matter of fact, every argument which proves the instantaneousness of regeneration is just as forceful when applied to sanctification. Conversely, if the evidence for the immediacy of sanctification be rejected, there is no logical ground on which to base proof for the immediacy of justification.

2. The Testimony of the Terms #

Without exception, the root action in the terms used to describe sanctification implies that which occurs at a particular point in time.

a. The verb “to sanctify" is defined in its twofold meaning as “to set apart” and “to make holy.” There may, it is true, be a gradual setting apart, a gradual making holy. But the action described is much more naturally thought of as momentary and immediate. Since “to sanctify in its strictly New Testament sense is always spoken of as a divine act, the burden of proof ought naturally to rest upon those who allege sanctification to be gradual.

b. Then, this experience is spoken of as a baptism: John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence (Acts 1:5).² Baptism is a term which always implies action at a given point— never that which is drawn out over a period of time, and perhaps never completed until death. Gradual baptism is an absurdity—whether it be a baptism with water or the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

c. Sanctification is also spoken of as a crucifixion or death. Rom. 6:6 reads: 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; Gal. 2:20: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me; and Col 3:5, Mortify (treat as dead) therefore your members which are upon the earth.

Granted that one may be long a-dying, but death always occurs in a moment. Life may wane over a period of time, but it departs the body at a given instant. Gradual death is a figure of speech for a mortal illness. Death itself is always instantaneous.

d. Sanctification, furthermore, involves cleansing or purifying. The verses quoted in Chapter 1 are replete with uses of the verb forms of these words. Cleansing and purification may be continuous processes, but the natural meaning of these words indicates that there is always an initial moment when the cleansing and purification is first accomplished. To make it gradual is to read into it something which the words themselves do not imply.

e. This experience is also described as a “gift” to be “received.” “The gift of the Holy Ghost” is frequently mentioned throughout the New Testament, often as “the promise of the Father.” Jesus, in Luke 11:13, said, If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Gal. 3:14 reads: That we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Is it not obvious that a gift is something which passes into the possession of its receiver at some given moment? The gradual giving of a gift is a confusion of terms.

We could go on at length. Sanctification is variously described as putting off the old man and putting on the new (Eph. 4:20-24); it is destroying the body of sin (Rom. 6:6); it is being filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18); it is to be sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise (Eph. 1:13).

To summarize: “to set apart,” “to make holy,” “to baptize,” “to crucify,” “to put to death,” “to give,” “to receive,” “to put off,” “to put on,” “to destroy,” “to be filled, to be sealed”—these are all verbs describing actions which take place most naturally at a definite time and place, and which do not admit of degrees. They all testify to the fact that sanctification is a crisis experience, not a long-drawn-out and never-completed process of growth.

3. The Logic of Example #

The experience of Isaiah recorded in Isaiah 6 may be regarded as a type of the believer’s experience of entire sanctification. Isaiah had been a prophet of God during part of the reign of King Uzziah, as he tells us in chapter 1. But it was in the year the king died that God’s prophet experienced his remarkable cleansing.

In the Temple worshiping, Isaiah saw the Lord “high and lifted up,” and heard the seraphs’ song, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts. That praise of God’s holiness found no echo in the prophet’s heart, and he who had previously called woes on the people now cried out again for himself, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.

But the divine response was not long in coming. An angel flew with golden tongs and a live coal from the altar, touched his lips, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. This all took place in less time than it takes to describe. It was not by growth or spiritual development that Isaiah’s iniquity was taken away and his sin purged. It was by divine act at a given time.

In the New Testament, all examples of the baptism with the Spirit and entire sanctification are found in the Book of Acts.³ They are four in number.

a. The first involves the disciples of Jesus, whose names were written in heaven (Luke 10:20); who were not of the world (John 14:16-17; 17:14); who belonged to Christ (John 17:6,11); not one of whom was lost (John 17:12); and who had kept God’s words (John 17:6). While these clearly justified persons were all with one accord in one place … suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind … And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:1-4). There was no gradual growing into this. It came with the unexpected suddenness of lightning from the skies.

b. The second example found in the Book of Acts was the young church in Samaria. Philip had ventured into Samaria after the martyrdom of Stephen. His preaching met with a ready response. The people believed and were baptized in large numbers. Acts 8:8 records that “there was great joy in that city.”

Hearing of this revival and the success of the ministry of the Word, the apostles at Jerusalem sent Peter and John to Samaria. When they came, they prayed for these young converts that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:15-17).

It is sometimes fashionable to reject the example of the disciples of Christ as not truly typical because they lived under two dispensations. Thus, it is claimed, Pentecost was in effect the completion of their regeneration, and every believer now receives the baptism with the Holy Spirit at the moment he first receives Christ as his Saviour. This argument is refuted by the example of the Samaritan church. The Samaritans believed and were baptized in the new dispensation of the Spirit, and they were afterwards filled with the Holy Ghost at a given instant of time.

c. The third example concerns the devout Roman centurion Cornelius, and members of his household. Cornelius is described in clear terms by God’s inspired penman. He was a devout man (Acts 10:2); he feared God with all his house (Acts 10:2); he prayed constantly, and his prayers were accepted by God (Acts 10:2, 4). Peter, arriving at Cornelius’ house, with quick spiritual insight said: Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) that word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea (Acts 10:34-37).

As Peter continued to speak, suddenly the Holy Spirit fell on those who listened. This was not gradual, but instantaneous. That Peter himself regarded the events at Cornelius’ home as identical to the events at Pentecost is clearly seen in his report to the council at Jerusalem: God, knowing their hearts, bore witness and gave the Holy Spirit, even as He had at Pentecost, purifying their hearts by faith (Acts 15:8-9).⁴

d. The fourth instance given in the Book of Acts is described in 18:24 to 19:7. It concerns the disciples at Ephesus. Because there has been so much misunderstanding connected with this episode, it is necessary to go into the background a bit more extensively.

At the end of the Apostle Paul’s long ministry in Corinth, he, in company with Aquila and Priscilla, his co-laborers, crossed the Aegean Sea to the mainland of Asia and the city of Ephesus. Paul himself spent only a brief time preaching in the synagogue at Ephesus. Leaving Aquila and Priscilla there, he went on toward Antioch.

While Paul was gone, a man named Apollos came to Ephesus. Apollos is described as eloquent, mighty in the Scriptures, instructed in the way of the Lord, and speaking and teaching diligently the things of the Lord, although, as far as baptism was concerned, he knew only the baptism of John. Recognizing the potential greatness of Apollos’ ministry, Aquila and Priscilla took him and taught him the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:24-28).

Shortly after Apollos left his newfound friends to go to Corinth, Paul came back to Ephesus. Whatever their origin, whether as converts of Aquila and Priscilla, or of Apollos, Paul found in Ephesus a nucleus of 12 disciples. Examining them, he learned that they had not received the Holy Ghost, at least in the measure of Pentecost. But after Paul had baptized them in the name of Christ, he prayed, laid hands upon them, and they were filled with the Holy Spirit.

The misunderstanding which surrounds this incident has to do with the spiritual status of the Ephesian disciples. Because they disclaimed knowledge of the Holy Spirit, and because they had received only the baptism of John, some have contended that they were unregenerate persons. But there is strong evidence that these 12 people were genuine children of God, and that this was for them a second instantaneous experience. Let us examine the important considerations here.

(1) The men are described as disciples (Acts 19:1). Relate this to Acts 11:26: The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. The designations “Christian” and “disciple" were used interchangeably in the Book of Acts. There is no instance of the use of the term “disciple” in the Acts for any other than true believers in Christ.

(2) Paul did not challenge the fact of their faith. Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? he asked them (Acts 19:2). Whether the original be translated as it is thus in the Authorized Version, or translated as it is in the American Standard Version and Revised Standard Version, Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? makes not the slightest bit of difference so far as this point is concerned. In either case, it is admitted that they had believed, and it is evident that they had not received the Holy Ghost in the sense in which Paul speaks.

(3) That they were ignorant of the receiving of the Holy Spirit does not mean that they had not been converted. Dwight L. Moody asserted that for many years after his conversion he did not know that the Holy Spirit was a Person, and that many believers today are as ignorant of the person and ministry of the Holy Spirit as were these Ephesian believers.⁵

(4) That these men had only the baptism of John does not prove that they were unconverted in the full Christian sense of the word. The baptism of John is spoken of as a “baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). Apollos, instructed in the way of the Lord, fervent in the Spirit, speaking and teaching diligently the things of the Lord, knew only the baptism of John.

(5) That Paul was satisfied with the faith of these disciples is seen in the fact that he rebaptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ before they were filled with the Holy Spirit. If they were only at that time being regenerated in the Christian sense, then Paul was guilty of baptizing a group of unconverted men. That such has often been done since, we will not debate; but that Paul began the practice in Ephesus, we cannot admit.

(6) That “receiving” the Holy Spirit refers to something more than being born again by the Spirit and led by the Spirit is testified to by no less authority than the Lord Jesus himself. In John 14:15-17, we read: If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Here Jesus indicates clearly that the world, and those who are of the world, cannot receive the Holy Spirit. One must know Him before receiving Him. One must have the Spirit with him before he can have the Spirit in him. While the phrase “receive the Holy Spirit” is used only four times in the New Testament (John 14:17; Acts 8:15-17; Acts 19:2; and Gal. 3:14), in each case it is made clear that it is the believer alone who is in a position to receive Him. We should not put too much weight on the analogy, but it is surely no accident that the inspired writers of the New Testament chose the figures birth of the Spirit to represent regeneration, and baptism with the Spirit to describe the “second blessing.” Obviously, in the order of nature, birth must precede baptism—a child has to be born before he can be baptized.

Here then is the logic of example. Each instance was characterized by immediacy. Each took place at a given point in the experience of the persons involved. Nowhere is there a trace of sanctification by growth, a long process of self-discipline, never completed until the rapture. If sanctification is of faith, then it is “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Rom. 11:6, Eph. 2:9).

The Testimony of the Tenses #

There is another impressive line of evidence for the instantaneousness of sanctification that is of particular interest to one who has some acquaintance with Greek grammar. A most persuasive summary of this argument is to be found in the article by Dr. Daniel Steele, included in his Milestone Papers, entitled “The Tense Readings of the Greek New Testament.”⁶

The main point in this argument lies in the fact that the tenses of the Greek verb have a somewhat different meaning from those of the English. Our verb tenses have to do mainly with the time of action—past, present, or future. Greek tenses do denote time, but more particularly they indicate the kind of action. Action may be viewed as a continuing process, known as linear action; or it may be viewed as a whole in what is known as momentary or punctiliar action. Continued action or a state of incompleteness is denoted by the present and imperfect tenses in the Greek. On the other hand, point-action, that which is momentary or punctiliar, is expressed by the consistent use of the aorist tense. William Hersey Davis says, “The aorist tense itself always means point-action."⁷

The aorist refers to actions “thought of merely as events or single facts without reference to the time they occupied.”⁸ With the exception of the indicative aorist, which denotes past action, aorist forms are undefined as to time. They all represent punctiliar as opposed to linear action. They describe completed, epochal events, treated as a totality. The aorist, says Alford, implies a definite act.⁹

The relevance of all this to our present subject is seen in the following quotation from Dr. Steele in the paper referred to earlier. Speaking of the findings of his study of the use of verb tenses in key New Testament passages, he says:

1. All exhortations to prayer and to spiritual endeavor in resistance of temptation are usually expressed in the present tense, which strongly indicates persistence. …

2. The next fact which impresses us in our investigation is the absence of the aorist and the presence of the present tense whenever the conditions of final salvation are stated. Our inference is that the conditions of ultimate salvation are continuous, extending through probation, and not completed in any one act. The great requirement is faith in Jesus Christ. A careful study of the Greek will convince the student that it is a great mistake to teach that a single act of faith furnishes a person with a paid-up, non-forfeitable policy assuring the holder that he will inherit eternal life, or that a single energy of faith secures a through ticket for heaven, as is taught by the Plymouth Brethren and by some popular lay evangelists. The Greek tenses show that faith is a state, a habit of mind, into which the believer enters at justification…

3. But when we come to consider the work of purification in the believer’s soul, by the power of the Holy Spirit, both in the new birth and in entire sanctification, we find that the aorist is almost uniformly used. This tense, according to the best New Testament grammarians, never indicates a continuous, habitual, or repeated act, but one which is momentary, and done once for all.¹⁰

We have looked in vain to find one of these verbs (denoting sanctification and perfection) in the imperfect tense when individuals are spoken of. The verb hagiazo, to sanctify, is always aorist or perfect. . . . The same may be said of the verbs katharizo and hagnizo, to purify. Our inference is that the energy of the Holy Spirit in the work of entire sanctification, however long the preparation, is put forth at a stroke by a momentary act. This is corroborated by the universal testimony of those who have experienced this grace.¹¹

It was Dr. E. F. Walker who pointed out years ago that, in the final analysis, all theories of sanctification must recognize its instantaneousness. If sanctification is at physical death, or at the resurrection, it must occur in an instant. Even if it be by growth, there must be a precise time when full growth is attained. The debate centers about the issue as to when that completing instant occurs.

Here, we affirm, the testimony of God’s Word is final. The hour of full salvation is not some remote future hour. The day of deliverance from all indwelling sin is not some far-off day. Every divine imperative, every command of God is for the present moment, never for the future. Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation (II Cor. 6:2).

Footnotes #