Christian Perfection and Sin #

Chapter 3

One of the most important issues emerging in modern evangelical circles is the definition of sin. It is more than a theoretical argument over the proper usage of terms. It goes directly to the heart of Christian life and experience. It has bearing on every branch of the doctrine of salvation. Our conception of the whole plan of redemption is radically affected thereby. As Richard S. Taylor has conclusively shown in his book A Right Conception of Sin¹, the concept of sin is fundamental in Christian thought.

It is not our purpose here to consider the entire problem. We will suggest first a crucial test which may be applied to the definition of sin—or any other definition for that matter—and hence arrive at an accurate statement of what the term means. We shall then point out the bearing of the accepted definition on the doctrine of entire sanctification.

The Meaning of “Sin” #

What is the proper, New Testament sense of the verb “to sin”? Does it mean, as is often said, to deviate in any particular from an absolute and objective standard of perfect righteousness? Or does the essence of sin consist in a wrong intent, an impure motive? Without necessarily prejudicing the case, we may, for convenience, call the former view the legal concept of sin, and the latter view the ethical concept. The two lead in radically different directions.

There are, as is well known, two major uses of the term sin and its related terms in the Bible. These are roughly indicated by the part of speech involved. Sin is used as a noun, and in the singular form it usually describes a nature, a state of character, an aspect of being. Such is the usage found, for example, in the sixth chapter of Romans: Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace (v. 14); and, Now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life (v. 22).

Again, sin is used as a verb, to denote a kind of action, a mode of behavior. Since the noun forms are derived from the verb, and since it is with the nature of sinful actions that we are concerned here, we shall confine our attention for the present to the verb “to sin,” and endeavor to learn the sort of conduct to which it refers.

The most frequently used Greek verb for sinful action in the New Testament is hamartano, traditionally defined as “to miss the mark.” So far as the root meaning of the Greek term goes, we get little light on its scriptural usage. There is no indication as to what mark is missed, or as to why and how it is missed. An archer may fail by reason of shooting at the wrong mark, by reason of carelessness in taking aim, because he is too weak to draw the bowstring back far enough, or merely because he is a poor shot.

There is little promise of help, then, in a study of the derivation or etymology of the term. We must shape and verify our definition on other grounds than what the original term meant.

Sin is often defined as “any violation of, or want of conformity to, the perfect will of God.” Chafer states that the believer, searching his life for sin, should ask, “Have I done all and only His will with motives as pure as heaven and in the unchanging faithfulness of manner characterizing the Infinite?”² If that is the criterion, none of us have far to search. What finite creature can live in “the unchanging faithfulness of manner characterizing the Infinite”?

This point of view would judge all behavior objectively, as it relates to an abstract law of perfect righteousness. Sin is then defined as any deviation, whatever its occasion or cause, from this absolute standard. Since no finite creature can escape such failures, it is concluded that to be human is to be liable to sin “every day, in word, thought, and deed.”

Arminian theologians have generally been willing to concede this so-called “broad” definition of sin. They have immediately set up in opposition to it, however, a “narrow definition which understands sin to be “the willful transgression of a known law of God.” This John Wesley does in a famous passage in A Plain Account of Christian Perfection:

The best of men still need Christ in His priestly office, to atone for their omissions, their shortcomings (as some not improperly speak), their mistakes in judgment and practice, and their defects of various kinds. For these are all deviations from the perfect law, and consequently need an atonement. Yet that they are not properly sins, we apprehend may appear from the words of St. Paul, “He that loveth hath fulfilled the law; for love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:10). Now mistakes, and whatever infirmities necessarily flow from the corruptible state of the body, are no way contrary to love; nor, therefore, in the Scripture sense, sin…

Not only sin, properly so-called (that is, a voluntary transgression of a known law), but sin, improperly so-called (that is, an involuntary transgression of a Divine law, known or unknown), needs atoning blood. I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions, which 1 apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. Therefore, sinless perfection is a phrase 1 never use, lest 1 should seem to contradict myself. I believe, a person filled with the love of God is still liable to involuntary transgressions.³

Without ignoring the “broad” definition, Wesley’s second insight is truer to the New Testament concept of sin. Sin, in the New Testament, is an ethical and not a legal concept. As such, it must involve both knowledge or light, and choice or motive.

All this becomes of prime importance when we turn to the question of the believer’s deliverance from sin. The legal or “broad” definition of sin necessarily includes the ethical or “narrow” definition. The question is. Can a Christian live a life which is free from sin? Here, as ever, we have no better standard than the Word of God.

On Testing a Definition #

The fundamental principle involved in the discussion of the next few pages may be quite simply stated as follows: The sense in which a term is used can be determined only by putting the definition for the term in the context in which it occurs. If the total passage makes good sense when the proposed definition is substituted for the term in question, then the definition is a satisfactory one. If the passage becomes false or meaningless when the proposed definition is substituted for the term in question, then the definition must be regarded as unsatisfactory.

To illustrate: We are all familiar with the proverbial saying, “The exception proves the rule.” Now the verb “to prove” has two definitions. It may be defined as “to establish the truth of,” but it may also be defined as “to test or try the truth of.” We prove a geometrical proposition in the first sense; in the second sense, we have proving grounds such as at Aberdeen where army artillery may be tested.

What is the meaning of the verb “to prove” in the proverb, “The exception proves the rule”? Try the substitution of the first definition: “The exception establishes the truth of the rule.” This is obviously self-contradictory. In this context, definition number one becomes meaningless. Try substitution of the second definition: “The exception tests or tries the truth of the rule.” This is obviously meaningful and true, and establishes the second definition as the one which best expresses the meaning of the term in question.

This is what we propose as a method of determining precisely the New Testament meaning of the verb to sin. Let us state the two opposing definitions as concisely as possible. Then let us substitute each in turn for the verb where it is used in the New Testament (41 places in all).⁴ In this way we shall be able to determine which definition comes nearest to embodying the New Testament concept of hamartano, “to sin.”

Since limitations of space forbid a study of all 41 verses, we shall first give a summary of findings from a complete examination of all passages, and then present several representative examples.

The legal definition of sin may be stated briefly, “To deviate in any manner from an absolute standard of perfect behavior.” The ethical definition may be given in Wesley’s clipped phrase, “To wilfully transgress the known law of God.”

Making the substitution in each of the 41 references⁵ we obtain some very interesting results. The ethical definition will fit and make sense in all of them without exception. The legal definition will make sense in only four of them. It cannot be substituted in any of the remaining 37 without incoherence or self-contradiction.

That the legal definition—“to deviate in any manner from an absolute standard of perfect behavior”—does make sense in four of the passages does not of itself mean that it is therefore the proper definition even for these passages. This is because the ethical definition makes even better sense in these same passages, and has the immeasurably greater advantage of being consistent with the rest of the New Testament.

Let us look briefly at the four uses in which either definition will fit. They are found in Rom. 2:12, where the verb is used twice; in Rom. 3:23; and in I John 1:10. These references read as follows: For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; and, If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

As previously stated, we could read these verses with the legal definition in place of the word, and make a passing degree of sense. We could read, “As many as have deviated in any manner from an absolute standard of perfect behavior without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have deviated from an absolute standard in the law shall be judged by the law”; “For all have deviated from an absolute standard of perfect behavior, and come short of the glory of God”; “If we say we have not deviated from an absolute standard of perfect behavior, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”

However, notice how much more natural and more meaningful is the ethical definition in these same passages. “As many as have willfully transgressed the known requirement of God without law⁶ shall also perish without law: and as many as have transgressed the known law of God in the law shall by judged by the law”; “For all have willfully transgressed the known law of God, and come short of His glory”; “If we say we have not willfully transgressed God’s known law, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

The Legal Definition Unscriptural #

The decisive verses are those 37 in which the legal definition will not fit. No definition can possibly be accepted as satisfactory which destroys the meaning of 90 percent of the passages in which the term occurs. For purposes of illustration, the following five have been arbitrarily selected;

1. In John 5:14, we read; Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. Substituting the legal definition we would read; Behold, thou art made whole; deviate no more in any manner from an absolute standard of perfect behavior, lest a worse thing come unto thee." This would certainly place the poor fellow in a terrible spot! How could he avoid all deviations from a perfect standard, known or unknown, voluntary or involuntary? But when we insert the ethical definition of sin, our Lord’s requirement becomes reasonable and, by His grace, possible; “Behold, thou art made whole; willfully transgress no more the known law of God, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”

2. Next, we test Rom. 6:15; What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Substituting the legal definition we are confronted with this patent absurdity; “What then? shall we deviate in any manner from an absolute standard of perfect righteousness, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” However, the ethical definition places before us the New Testament standard of Christian conduct; “What then? shall we willfully transgress the known law of God because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

3. Another from the Pauline Epistles is I Cor. 15:34; Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. Inserting the legal definition, we would have, “Awake to righteousness and never deviate in any manner from an absolute standard of perfect behavior; for some have not the knowledge of God. Since those who hold this definition deny the possibility of living without sin in word, thought, or deed any day, this makes the verse an absurdity. However, the ethical definition reveals this as the universal obligation of all New Testament believers: “Awake to righteousness, and never willfully transgress the known law of God; for some have not the knowledge of God.”

4. A fourth test verse is found in Heb. 10:26, a solemn verse which warns that Christ’s atonement does not avail for those living in willful sin. It reads: “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin.” The presence of the adjective “willfully,” which highlights the deliberate character of the sin under question, makes it difficult to make our substitution. However, it would result in something like the following: For if we deviate in any manner from an absolute standard of perfect behavior, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. This would be enough to bring despair to anyone.

But suppose we read it with the ethical definition of sin: “For if we deliberately and willfully transgress God’s known law, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” This is a solemn warning, but one in perfect harmony with the whole tenor of the New Testament. It is not meant to take hope from the backslider, but to warn all-regardless of previous standing in grace-that no one can live in willful and known sin and rightly claim the efficacy of Christ’s atoning death. An examination of the original here reveals the participial form of the verb-“Sinning willfully, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin.” When the backslider turns again to God in sincere repentance, he finds a perfect adequacy in the atoning Blood as a sacrifice for sins.

5. Our last test passage is I John 3:8-9. Here we read: He that committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of Cod was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. Two of the terms here are nouns, and two are verbs. However, the coherence of the passage demands that they be understood as bearing the same meaning.

Let us first test the legal definition. The verses in question would then read: “He who deviates in any manner from an absolute standard of perfect righteousness is of the devil; for the devil so deviates from the beginning… Whosoever is born of God does not deviate from absolute righteousness; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot so deviate, because he is born of God.” This would drastically limit the number of the children of God. It would eliminate all finite human beings, for sure.

When we turn to the ethical definition, and recognize the verb forms as those used of repeated and customary action, we find in these verses consistency with the whole of God’s revealed truth. “He who is willfully violating the known law of God is of the devil; for the devil so violates God’s law from the beginning… Whosoever is born of God is not willfully violating God’s known law; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot be willfully violating God’s known law, because he is born of God.”

Some have tried to turn the force of this verse by interpreting the words “he cannot sin” to mean “he is not able to sin.” It should be pointed out, however, that “cannot” is here used in a logical and legislative sense, and not to indicate inability. For example, we may paraphrase this verse and thus see its whole meaning as follows: “Whosoever is an honest man does not steal; for his honesty remaineth in him; and he cannot steal because he is an honest man. " This makes perfect sense. It does not mean that an honest man is incapable of taking that which does not belong to him. He has hands and feet and desires just like other men. What it does say is that an honest man cannot steal. It is logically impossible to be honest and a thief at the same time. When an honest man begins to steal, he ceases to be an honest man and becomes a thief.

Again, we may read, “Whosoever is a truthful man does not lie; for his truthfulness remaineth in him; and he cannot lie, because he is a truthful man.” This too makes sense. It does not say that a truthful man lacks tongue and lips and mind wherewith to fabricate falsehoods. It does say that when a truthful man begins to lie, he is no longer truthful. He becomes a liar. Just as there is nowhere in God’s universe an honest thief or a truthful liar, just so there is nowhere in God’s universe a sinning saint, or a child of God living in willful violation of God’s known law.

This does not mean that a sincere child of God may not, in a moment of spiritual weakness and under the stress of strong temptation, yield and commit sin. However, God has provided an instant remedy for this, as is shown in I John 2:1-2: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Here the verbs are in the aorist tense, and indicate action not habitual and repeated. But even here, the lie is given to the idea that Christians cannot avoid sin. The admonition is written so that they will not sin. The normal course of conduct is “that ye sin not.” The statement immediately following, “If any man sin,” indicates that sin is the exception and not the rule. But when the tragedy occurs—and sin in the Christian life is nothing less—God has provided a remedy in an immediate confession and in the advocacy of Jesus Christ the righteous.” Not a moment must be lost in fleeing to the Blood, that its efficacy may be applied.

To fail to mend the breach immediately is to open the door to other sins, and to complete backsliding. Not the single, exceptional occurrence, immediately renounced and confessed, but the unrepentant persistence is what crushes out the spiritual life. A stranger asked an old fisherman on the dock,

“If one fell in here, would he drown?”

“Don’t reckon he would,” was the reply.

“Why, isn’t the water deep enough?” queried the other.

“Plenty deep,” the old native answered; “but ’tain’t failin’ in, it’s stayin’ in, what drowns a feller.”

To change the figure, when one has a flat tire on his automobile, that certainly does not represent the normal state of affairs. All cars are built to operate on four well-inflated tires. When the flat does come, there are two things which may be done. One can simply drive on to the next service station or garage—five, 10, or 15 miles down the road —to seek help. But by that time there would not be just a puncture to repair, but a new tube and/or tire to purchase, and maybe even a new wheel. Mechanical damage could have resulted that would necessitate a major overhaul to get the car back on the road again. On the other hand, one could stop immediately, fix the puncture or put on the spare, and proceed without damage.

Too many young Christians, trapped momentarily into sin, just keep on running on the flat, so to speak, until the next revival or camp meeting. They give up their faith and throw away their confidence, and by the time the next revival or camp meeting comes along, they have not only a puncture to fix but a new tube, tire, and wheel to buy. A major overhaul is required to get them back on the road again. How much better to stop immediately, ask and receive forgiveness, and go on uninjured with only a momentary interruption of fellowship with God!

Our testing of these two different definitions of sm leads us to the conclusion that the legal definition is generally inadmissible. The ethical definition stands up to the crucial test in each instance. Further, it becomes evident that the New Testament holds up a standard of Christian life in general and the sanctified life in particular which would find no place for sinful conduct.

The Importance of a Right Concept of Sin #

Someone may ask at this juncture, “But what difference does it make what one means by sin? Isn’t this just a debate about words? Why not call lapses of memory, errors of judgment, and imperfections of behavior caused by human infirmities, sins?”

The answer is threefold. First, in the words of Dr. H. Orton Wiley, “Calling that sin which is not sin, opens the door also to actual sinning.” To accept the broad or legal definition of sin is to be forced to the admission that flesh-bound human beings cannot escape the thra Idom ot sin And to make everything sin is, in effect, to make nothing sin. It is impossible to grade sins. If forgotten promises, faulty judgment, and human infirmities are sms, then there is no qualitative distinction open between such so-called sins and lying, theft, or immorality. The door then is wide open to sin of all sorts.

Second, the Christian consciousness and conscience assert that there is a crucial qualitative difference here. When judged by the law of objective right, there is no difference between a forgotten promise and a broken promise. When judged by the law of objective right, there is no difference between a misstatement of fact made in ignorance and a lie. It is simply that something promised has not been performed and an untruth has been told.

But what a difference there is when judged subjectively! In the case of both the forgotten promise and the ignorant misstatement, there is regret—but not guilt. There is sorrow, but not sin. Lapses of memory and ignorance are regrettable, and should be avoided as far as possible. But they do not interrupt fellowship with God, nor bring condemnation to the Christian consciousness.

Conscience always finds the essence of sin in the realm of intent or motive. This is not in any sense to minimize the material or objective side of the moral law. It does not give license for well-meaning blundering. It does, however, recognize that sin is fundamentally a matter of choice, of intention, of purpose.

Third, this distinction is vital because it is scriptural. The Bible throughout recognizes the fact of faults and infirmities, and it distinguishes them sharply from sin. For example, Christ saves us from our sins (Matt. 1:21); He cleanses us from carnal sin (I John 1:7); but He sympathizes with and is touched with the feeling of our infirmities (Heb. 4:15). This represents a vital difference in attitude toward sin on the one hand—both inner and outer—and human frailties on the other.

Again, the Holy Spirit convicts of sins (John 16:8), frees us from carnality (Rom. 8:2), but helps us with our infirmities (Rom. 8:26). Forgiveness of sins and cleansing from sin are instantaneously wrought. Infirmities cannot be cured by a crisis experience, but must be met on the battlefield of life day after day, and overcome or sublimated with the Spirit’s help.

The moral law itself is of such character that it can be kept only by those whose love and motives are pure, and not by outward conformity alone, however detailed such might be. This is clearly the import of Paul in Rom. 13:8-10: Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Again in Gal. 5:14, we find: For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Jesus intimates the same truth in Matt. 22:37-40: Jesus said unto him. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Is Sin Necessary? #

Space will permit only a very brief examination of passages quoted in defense of the doctrine of sinning sainthood. Most of these are sufficiently understood when viewed in their entire context.

The phrase in the Lord’s Prayer, Forgive us our sins, is often cited to show that there is daily sin in the believer’s life. It may be sufficient to point out, as does Charles Ewing Brown in The Meaning of Salvation,⁷ that the Lord’s Prayer is a social prayer, and includes those who may have sinned. The fact, however, that our Lord immediately coupled with this phrase the condition that we forgive those who trespass against us leads one to think that our continued forgiveness for past sins is conditioned on our spirit of forgiveness toward those who sin against us. Such certainty is the teaching of the parable of the two debtors in Matt. 18:23-35. The last part of the seventh chapter of Romans is frequently quoted as showing the certainty of sin in the Christian life. This, we saw in Chapter 1, can be maintained only by ignoring the context with its undeniable testimony to deliverance from the principle of sin and death.

Rom. 14:13, For whatsoever is not of faith is sin, is sometimes given to prove that any passing doubt or question in the mind is sinful. Even the most casual reading of the context will show that Paul is, in fact, arguing the ethical character of sin, and pointing out that going contrary to one’s own convictions is what makes an act or practice sinful.

Jas. 4:17: Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin, is supposed to indicate that falling short in any regard from the highest good known, regardless of the reason, is of the nature of sin. There is a wholesome warning against sins of omission here. Refusing to do what God commands is as much sin as doing what God forbids. However, the “therefore” prefacing the statement indicates its relationship to a context. That context warns us that we must acknowledge the will of God in all our plans. To refuse to do so is sin.

I John 1:10 is often quoted in this connection as if it read, “If we say we are not continually sinning, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” What it actually says, of course, is, If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar. No Christian denies that he at one time has sinned. It is from this sinning which he affirms himself to have been saved. All have sins to be forgiven, and unrighteousness from which to be cleansed. But there is no evidence here that he who is forgiven and cleansed must continue in sin.

John himself is the sharpest opponent of this notion in the New Testament. It is almost unbelievable that he should be quoted so often in defense of a believer’s license to sin. He says, in addition to the strong passages already quoted from his first letter: If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth (I John 1:6). He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him (I John 2:4). He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now (I John 2:9). Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him (I John 3:15). We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not (I John 5:18).

Lewis Sperry Chafer asserts that eradicationists, as he calls them, claim that, since their sinful nature is destroyed, they are not able to sin.⁸ This would be the “sinless perfection” which Wesley staunchly disavowed, as have all holiness people since. What we affirm is not, “We are not able to sin ; but rather, “Through the regenerating and sanctifying grace of God, we are able not to sin.” This is scriptural, and this is the faith and experience of every victorious, sanctified child of God. Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:57).

The Nature of Christian Perfection #

The bearing of this on the doctrine of Christian perfection should by now be clear. There is no such perfection as precludes the possibility of errors of judgment, mistakes in understanding, and even faults, failures, and defeats incident to any human effort. No reputable holiness teacher has ever claimed that there was such a perfection. It does not refute the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification to point out such obvious imperfections. None are more conscious of them than those whose hearts are truly conformed to the mind which was in Christ Jesus.

There is no pride in evangelical perfection. That some holiness people have given the impression of being smug and complacent is undoubtedly true. But to the degree that such an attitude has really possessed them, to that degree have they fallen short of the real implications of their profession.

On the other hand, it is quite false to state that sin is necessary in Christian life to keep the believer humble. As John Fletcher indicated in this very connection, if sin makes people humble, then Satan should possess the greatest humility. Instead, he is the prototype of all pride.

The perfection of which we speak, and which we attempt to exemplify to this lost world, is, as has been so often said, the perfection of love. 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 (I John 4:17). Such perfection cannot save from unintentional mistakes and unavoidable errors. It does lead to an immediate and humble rectifying, so far as is possible, of those faults, errors, and mistakes when they are recognized for what they are. And it does forever exclude sin in the New Testament sense: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous (I John 5:3).

Footnotes #