Introduction
The twenty papers in this volume are a humble contribution to a cause attracting much interest today: the cause of scriptural holiness. Everyone who loves Christ and wants to advance His kingdom in the world should help this cause forward. Everyone can do something, and I want to add my small contribution.
Readers will find little direct controversy in these papers. I have carefully avoided naming contemporary teachers and books. I have been content to give the results of my own study of the Bible, my private reflections, my prayers for light, and my reading of earlier theologians. If I am still mistaken about anything, I hope someone will show me before I leave this world. We all see only in part, and we have a treasure in earthen vessels. I trust I am willing to learn.
For many years I have been deeply convinced that Christians in this country do not give enough attention to practical holiness and complete dedication to God. Politics, controversy, party spirit, and worldliness have eaten the heart out of living devotion in too many of us. Personal godliness has sadly slipped into the background. The standard of Christian living has become painfully low in many places. We have overlooked far too much the immense importance of “adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour” (Titus 2:10), making it lovely and beautiful through our daily habits and dispositions.
Worldly people sometimes complain with good reason that so-called “religious” people are less kind, unselfish, and good-natured than others who profess no religion. Yet sanctification, in its proper place and proportion, is just as important as justification. Sound Protestant and Evangelical doctrine is useless without a holy life. It is worse than useless: it does real harm. Shrewd, perceptive people of the world despise it as something unreal and hollow, and it brings religion into contempt. I firmly believe that we need a thorough revival of scriptural holiness, and I am deeply thankful that attention is turning to it.
It is, however, very important to place the whole subject on sound foundations. The movement must not be damaged by ill-considered, unbalanced, and one-sided statements. We should not be surprised if such statements abound. Satan knows the power of true holiness and the immense damage that increased attention to it will do to his kingdom. It is therefore in his interest to promote conflict and controversy over this part of God’s truth. In the past he succeeded in confusing people’s minds about justification. Now he is working to make people “darken counsel by words without knowledge” about sanctification. May the Lord rebuke him!
Still, I cannot give up the hope that good will come out of evil, that discussion will bring truth to light, and that differences of opinion will lead us all to search the Scriptures more, pray more, and work more diligently to discover “the mind of the Spirit.”
As I send out this volume, I now feel a duty to offer a few introductory suggestions to those paying particular attention to sanctification today. I know I risk seeming presumptuous and perhaps giving offense. But we must venture something in the interests of God’s truth. I will therefore put my suggestions into the form of questions. I ask readers to receive them as “Cautions for Our Times on the Subject of Holiness.”
1. First, I ask whether it is wise to speak of faith as the one necessary thing, the only thing required, as many seem to do today when teaching sanctification. Is it wise to proclaim, as plainly and without qualification as many do, that converted people become holy by faith alone, without any personal effort? Does this reflect the balance of God’s Word? I doubt it.
Faith in Christ is the root of all holiness. The first step toward a holy life is to believe in Christ. Until we believe, we have not the slightest holiness. Union with Christ by faith is the secret both of beginning to be holy and of continuing in holiness. The life we live in the flesh must be lived by faith in the Son of God. Faith purifies the heart. Faith is the victory that overcomes the world. By faith the elders obtained a good report. No well-taught Christian would think of denying any of these truths.
But surely Scripture teaches that, in pursuing holiness, a true Christian needs personal effort and work as well as faith. The same Apostle who says in one place, “The life that I live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God,” says elsewhere, “I fight,” “I run,” and “I keep under my body.” In other places he says, “Let us cleanse ourselves,” “let us labour,” and “let us lay aside every weight” (Gal 2:20; 1 Cor 9:26; 2 Cor 7:1; Heb 4:11; Heb 12:1).
Moreover, Scripture nowhere teaches that faith sanctifies us in the same sense and manner that it justifies us! Justifying faith is a grace that “worketh not,” but simply trusts, rests, and leans on Christ (Rom 4:5). Sanctifying faith is a grace whose very life is action: it “worketh by love” and, like a mainspring, moves the whole inner person (Gal 5:6). After all, the exact phrase “sanctified by faith” occurs only once in the New Testament. The Lord Jesus said to Saul, “I send thee, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me.” Yet even there I agree with Alford that “by faith” belongs to the whole sentence and must not be attached only to “sanctified.” The meaning is, “that by faith in Me they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among those who are sanctified.” Compare Acts 26:18 with Acts 20:32.
As for the phrase “holiness by faith,” I find it nowhere in the New Testament. There is no question that, in our justification before God, faith in Christ is the one necessary thing. All who simply believe are justified. Righteousness is credited “to him that worketh not but believeth” (Rom 4:5). It is entirely scriptural and right to say, “Faith alone justifies.” But it is not equally scriptural and right to say, “Faith alone sanctifies.” That statement needs substantial qualification.
One fact is enough. Paul frequently tells us that a person is “justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” But we are never told that we are “sanctified by faith without the deeds of the law.” On the contrary, James expressly tells us that the faith by which we are visibly and demonstrably justified before other people is a faith which, “if it hath not works is dead, being alone” (Jas 2:17). Someone may reply that, of course, no one means to disparage “works” as an essential part of a holy life. It would be well, however, to make this clearer than many seem to make it today.
Goodwin writes in Gospel Holiness, “There is a double justification by God: the one authoritative, the other declarative or demonstrative.” The first is Paul’s concern when he speaks of justification by faith without the deeds of the law. The second is James’s concern when he speaks of justification by works.
2. Second, I ask whether it is wise to give comparatively little attention, as some seem to do, to the many practical exhortations to holiness in daily life found in the Sermon on the Mount and the latter part of most of Paul’s epistles. Does this reflect the balance of God’s Word? I doubt it.
Everyone who professes to be a believer should aim at daily dedication to God and daily communion with Him. We should strive to develop the habit of bringing to the Lord Jesus Christ every burden, great or small, and casting it on Him. Again, no well-taught child of God would dream of disputing this. But surely the New Testament teaches that we need more than general statements about holy living, which often prick no conscience and give no offense. Everyone who undertakes to teach this subject should fully explain the details, the particular elements that make up holiness in daily life, and urge them on believers.
True holiness consists not merely in believing and feeling, but in doing and enduring, in practically displaying grace through both action and patient endurance. The inspired writers fully address our speech, our dispositions, our natural passions and inclinations; our conduct as parents and children, masters and servants, husbands and wives, rulers and subjects; our dress, our use of time, our behavior in business, and our conduct in sickness and health, wealth and poverty. All, all these matters receive their attention.
They are not content with a general statement about what we should believe and feel, or how the roots of holiness are to be planted in our hearts. They dig deeper. They go into particulars. They explain in detail what a holy person who abides in Christ should do and be within the family and by the fireside. I doubt whether the present movement gives enough attention to this kind of teaching.
People speak of receiving “such a blessing” and finding “the higher life” after hearing an earnest advocate of “holiness by faith and self-dedication.” Yet if their families and friends see no improvement, no greater holiness in their everyday dispositions and behavior, immense harm is done to Christ’s cause. Surely we should remember that true holiness does not consist merely in inward sensations and impressions. It is much more than tears, sighs, bodily excitement, a quickened pulse, passionate attachment to our favorite preachers and religious party, and readiness to quarrel with everyone who disagrees with us. It is something of “the image of Christ” that others can see and observe in our private lives, habits, character, and actions (Rom 8:29).
3. Third, I ask whether it is wise to use vague language about perfection and urge Christians to reach a standard of holiness in this world for which neither Scripture nor experience provides support. I doubt it.
No careful reader of the Bible would deny that believers are exhorted to “perfect holiness in the fear of God,” to “go on to perfection,” and to “be perfect” (2 Cor 7:1; Heb 6:1; 2 Cor 13:11). But I have yet to learn of a single passage in Scripture teaching that literal perfection, complete freedom from sin in thought, word, or deed, is attainable or has ever been attained by any child of Adam in this world.
Comparative perfection, perfection in knowledge, consistency in every relationship of life, and thorough soundness in every point of doctrine may occasionally be seen in some of God’s believing people. But the most outstanding saints of every age have always been the very last to claim absolute, literal perfection! On the contrary, they have always had the deepest awareness of their own utter unworthiness and imperfection. The more spiritual light they have enjoyed, the more they have seen their countless defects and shortcomings. The more grace they have had, the more they have been “clothed with humility” (1 Pet 5:5).
Can anyone name a saint in God’s Word whose life is recorded in detail and who was literally and absolutely perfect? Which of them, when writing about himself, ever speaks of feeling free from imperfection? On the contrary, men such as David, Paul, and John declare in the strongest language that they feel weakness and sin in their own hearts. The holiest men of modern times have always been remarkable for deep humility.
Have we ever seen holier men than the martyred John Bradford, or Hooker, Ussher, Baxter, Rutherford, or McCheyne? Yet no one can read their writings and letters without seeing that they felt themselves “debtors to mercy and grace” every day. Perfection was the very last thing they ever claimed!
In the face of these facts, I must protest against the language used in many places recently about perfection. I can only think that those who use it know very little about the nature of sin, the attributes of God, their own hearts, the Bible, or the meaning of words. When a professing Christian calmly tells me that he has moved beyond hymns such as “Just as I Am,” and that they fall below his present experience, though they suited him when he first became religious, I can only think that his soul is in a very unhealthy state!
When someone calmly speaks of the possibility of “living without sin” while in the body, and can actually say that he has “not had an evil thought for three months,” I can only say that, in my opinion, he is a very ignorant Christian! I protest against teaching like this. It does no good and does immense harm. It disgusts perceptive people of the world and alienates them from religion, because they know it is mistaken and untrue. It depresses some of God’s best children, who feel they can never attain this kind of “perfection.” It inflates the pride of many weak believers, who imagine they are something when they are nothing. In short, it is a dangerous delusion.
4. Fourth, is it wise to assert as confidently and forcefully as many do that the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans describes the experience of an unregenerate person, or a weak and unsettled believer, rather than that of a mature saint? I doubt it.
I fully acknowledge that this point has been disputed for eighteen centuries, indeed ever since Paul’s time. I fully acknowledge that outstanding Christians such as John and Charles Wesley, and Fletcher, a hundred years ago, firmly maintained that Paul was not describing his own current experience when he wrote this seventh chapter. Some capable writers of our own time maintain the same view.
I also fully acknowledge that many cannot see what I and many others see. Paul says nothing in this chapter that does not correspond exactly with the recorded experience of the most outstanding saints in every age. He also says several things that no unregenerate person or weak believer would ever think of saying, or could say. That, at any rate, is how it appears to me. But I will not enter into a detailed discussion of the chapter.
What I do emphasize is the broad fact that the best commentators in every era of the Church have almost invariably applied the seventh chapter of Romans to mature believers. With a few outstanding exceptions, the commentators who reject this view have been Roman Catholics, Socinians, and Arminians. Against them stands the judgment of almost all the Reformers, almost all the Puritans, and the best modern Evangelical theologians.
Of course, someone will tell me that no one is infallible. The Reformers, Puritans, and modern theologians I refer to may have been entirely mistaken, and the Roman Catholics, Socinians, and Arminians may have been quite right! Our Lord has certainly taught us to “call no man master.” But although I ask no one to call the Reformers and Puritans “masters,” I do ask people to read what they say on this subject and answer their arguments if they can. This has not yet been done!
It is no answer to say, as some do, that they do not want human “dogmas” and “doctrines.” The whole question at issue is, “What does a passage of Scripture mean? How should the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans be interpreted? What is the true meaning of its words?” At any rate, let us remember a great fact that cannot be evaded. On one side stand the opinions and interpretations of Reformers and Puritans; on the other stand those of Roman Catholics, Socinians, and Arminians. Let that be clearly understood.
In the face of this fact, I must protest against the sneering, taunting, contemptuous language that some advocates of what I must call the Arminian view of Romans 7 have often used recently about their opponents’ views. To say the least, such language is inappropriate and defeats its own purpose. A cause defended with such language rightly arouses suspicion. Truth needs no such weapons. If we cannot agree with people, we need not speak of their views with discourtesy and contempt. An opinion supported by the best Reformers and Puritans may not convince every mind in the nineteenth century. But at least we should speak of it with respect.
5. Fifth, is it wise to use the language often heard today about the doctrine of “Christ in us”? I doubt it. Is this doctrine not often elevated to a position it does not occupy in Scripture? I fear it is.
No careful reader of the New Testament would deny for a moment that the true believer is one with Christ and that Christ is in the believer. There is certainly a mystical union between Christ and the believer. With Him we died, with Him we were buried, with Him we rose again, and with Him we sit in heavenly places. We have five clear texts distinctly teaching that Christ is “in us” (Rom 8:10; Gal 2:20; Gal 4:19; Eph 3:17; Col 3:11). But we must make sure we understand what we mean by the expression.
It is clear and plain that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith and carries on His inward work by His Spirit. But if we mean that, in addition to this, there is some mysterious indwelling of Christ in a believer, we must be careful about what we are saying. Unless we take care, we will find ourselves ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit. We will forget that, in God’s ordering of human salvation, election is the special work of God the Father; atonement, mediation, and intercession are the special work of God the Son; and sanctification is the special work of God the Holy Spirit.
We will forget that, when our Lord went away, He said He would send us another Comforter who would, as He put it, “abide with us” forever and, as it were, take His place (John 14:16). In short, while imagining that we are honoring Christ, we will find ourselves dishonoring His own special gift, the Holy Spirit.
As God, Christ is certainly everywhere: in our hearts, in heaven, and wherever two or three meet in His name. But we must remember that Christ, as our risen Head and High Priest, is especially at God’s right hand, interceding for us until His second coming. Christ carries on His work in His people’s hearts through the special work of His Spirit, whom He promised to send when He left the world (John 15:26). Comparing Romans 8:9-10 seems to me to show this plainly. It convinces me that “Christ in us” means Christ in us “by His Spirit.” Above all, John’s words are most distinct and explicit: “Hereby we know that He abideth in us by the Spirit which He hath given us” (1 John 3:24).
I hope no one will misunderstand me. I do not say that the expression “Christ in us” is unscriptural. But I do say that I see a great danger of giving excessive, unscriptural importance to the idea it expresses. I fear that many use it today without knowing exactly what they mean, and perhaps unknowingly dishonor the mighty work of the Holy Spirit.
If readers think I am being unnecessarily particular, I recommend an unusual book called The Spiritual Antichrist by Samuel Rutherford, the author of the well-known letters. There they will see that, two centuries ago, the wildest heresies arose from exaggerated teaching about this very doctrine of Christ’s indwelling in believers. They will find that Saltmarsh, Dell, Towne, and other false teachers whom good Samuel Rutherford opposed began with strange notions of “Christ in us.” They then built on this doctrine antinomianism and fanaticism of the worst kind, with the vilest consequences.
They maintained that the believer’s separate, personal life had disappeared so completely that it was Christ living in him who repented, believed, and acted! The root of this enormous error was a forced, unscriptural interpretation of texts such as “I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me” (Gal 2:20). Its natural result was that many unfortunate followers of this school reached the comforting conclusion that believers were not responsible for anything they might do! According to them, believers were dead and buried; only Christ lived in them and took responsibility for everything on their behalf! Ultimately, some thought they could sit still in fleshly complacency, with all personal accountability gone, and commit any kind of sin without fear!
Let us never forget that truth, distorted and exaggerated, can become the mother of the most dangerous heresies. When we speak of “Christ being in us,” let us carefully explain what we mean. I fear some neglect this today.
6. Sixth, is it wise to draw as deep, wide, and distinct a dividing line between conversion and consecration, or the so-called higher life, as many draw today? Does this reflect the balance of God’s Word? I doubt it.
There is unquestionably nothing new in this teaching. It is well known that Roman Catholic writers often maintain that the Church is divided into three classes: sinners, penitents, and saints. Modern teachers who tell us that professing Christians fall into three categories, the unconverted, the converted, and those who share in the “higher life” of complete consecration, seem to me to take much the same position! But whether the idea is old or new, Roman Catholic or English, I am entirely unable to see any scriptural support for it.
God’s Word always speaks of two great divisions of humanity, and only two. It speaks of the living and those dead in sin; believers and unbelievers; the converted and the unconverted; travelers on the narrow way and travelers on the broad way; the wise and the foolish; God’s children and the devil’s children. Within each of these two great classes there are undoubtedly various degrees of sin and grace. But these differ only as the higher and lower ends of a slope differ.
Between the two great classes there is an enormous gulf. They are as distinct as life and death, light and darkness, heaven and hell. But God’s Word says nothing at all about a division into three classes! I question the wisdom of inventing divisions the Bible has not made, and I thoroughly dislike the idea of a second conversion.
I fully grant that there is a vast difference between one degree of grace and another, that spiritual life can grow, and that believers should continually be urged, for every reason, to grow in grace. But I cannot accept the theory that a believer suddenly and mysteriously passes into a state of blessedness and complete consecration in one mighty leap. It seems to me a human invention. I see no single clear text in Scripture proving it.
Gradual growth in grace, growth in knowledge, growth in faith, growth in love, growth in holiness, growth in humility, and growth in spiritual-mindedness is clearly taught and urged in Scripture, and clearly illustrated in the lives of many of God’s saints. But I cannot find sudden, instantaneous leaps from conversion to consecration in the Bible. Indeed, I doubt whether we have any warrant for saying that someone can possibly be converted without being consecrated to God! A believer can certainly become more consecrated, and will do so as grace increases. But if he was not consecrated to God on the very day he was converted and born again, I do not know what conversion means.
Are people not in danger of undervaluing and underestimating the immense blessedness of conversion? When they urge believers to seek the “higher life” as a second conversion, are they not underestimating the length, breadth, depth, and height of that great first change which Scripture calls the new birth, the new creation, and the spiritual resurrection?
I may be mistaken. But while reading the strong language many have used about “consecration” in recent years, I have sometimes thought that they must previously have had an unusually low and inadequate view of “conversion,” if indeed they knew anything about conversion at all. In short, I have almost suspected that when they were consecrated, they were actually converted for the first time!
I freely confess that I prefer the old paths. I think it wiser and safer to urge all converted people to recognize the possibility of continual growth in grace and the absolute necessity of moving forward. They should increase more and more, each year dedicating and consecrating themselves more fully to Christ in spirit, soul, and body. By all means, let us teach that more holiness can be attained, and more of heaven enjoyed on earth, than most believers now experience.
But I refuse to tell any converted person that he needs a second conversion and may someday pass, in one enormous step, into a state of complete consecration. I refuse to teach it because I can find no support for such teaching in Scripture. I refuse to teach it because I think the doctrine’s influence is thoroughly harmful. It depresses the humble and meek, while inflating the pride of the shallow, the ignorant, and the self-conceited to a most dangerous degree.
7. Seventh and last, is it wise to teach believers that they should think less about fighting and struggling against sin, and instead “yield themselves to God,” remaining passive in Christ’s hands? Does this reflect the balance of God’s Word? I doubt it.
It is a simple fact that the expression “yield yourselves” is found in only one place in the New Testament as a duty urged on believers. That place is the sixth chapter of Romans, where the expression occurs five times within six verses (Rom 6:13-19). But even there the word cannot mean “placing ourselves passively in someone else’s hands.” Any student of Greek can tell us that it instead means actively “presenting” ourselves for use, employment, and service (Rom 12:1). The expression therefore stands alone.
On the other hand, it would not be difficult to identify at least twenty-five or thirty distinct passages in the Epistles where believers are plainly taught to make active personal efforts. They are addressed as responsible for energetically doing what Christ wants them to do. They are not told to “yield themselves” as passive agents and sit still, but to get up and work. Holy violence, conflict, warfare, fighting, a soldier’s life, and wrestling are described as characteristics of the true Christian. One might think the account of “the armour of God” in the sixth chapter of Ephesians settles the question.
Again, it would be easy to show that sanctification without personal effort, simply by “yielding ourselves to God,” is precisely the doctrine of the seventeenth-century antinomian fanatics I have already mentioned, described in Rutherford’s The Spiritual Antichrist. Its influence is evil in the extreme.
Again, it would be easy to show that this doctrine utterly undermines the whole teaching of tried and trusted books such as The Pilgrim’s Progress. If we accept it, we can do no better than throw Bunyan’s old book into the fire! If Christian in The Pilgrim’s Progress simply yielded himself to God and never fought, struggled, or wrestled, then I have read that famous allegory in vain.
The plain truth is that people persist in confusing two different things: justification and sanctification. In justification, the message to a person is, “Believe, only believe.” In sanctification, it must be, “Watch, pray, and fight.” Let us not mix and confuse what God has distinguished.
I leave the subject of my introduction here and move toward a conclusion. I confess that I lay down my pen with sorrow and anxiety. Much in the attitude of professing Christians today fills me with concern and makes me fear for the future.
Many display an astonishing ignorance of Scripture, and consequently lack a settled, solid religious faith. I can find no other explanation for how easily people, like children, are “tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14). An Athenian love of novelty is widespread, along with an unhealthy distaste for anything old and orderly that follows the well-worn path of our forefathers. Thousands crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine without stopping for a moment to consider whether what they hear is true.
There is an incessant craving for teaching that is sensational, exciting, and emotionally stirring. There is an unhealthy appetite for a kind of spasmodic, hysterical Christianity. The religious life of many is little better than repeatedly taking shots of spiritual liquor, while the “meek and quiet spirit” Peter commends is completely forgotten (1 Pet 3:4). Crowds, crying, hot rooms, extravagant singing, and constant emotional stimulation are all that many care about.
An inability to distinguish differences in doctrine is spreading far and wide. As long as a preacher is “clever” and “earnest,” hundreds seem to think everything must be right. If you suggest that his teaching is unsound, they call you dreadfully “narrow and uncharitable”! Moody and Haweis, Dean Stanley and Canon Liddon, Mackonochie and Pearsall Smith all seem alike to such people. All this is sad, very sad. But if, in addition, sincere advocates of greater holiness are going to quarrel along the way and misunderstand one another, it will be sadder still. We will indeed be in a terrible position.
For my part, I know that I am no longer a young minister. Perhaps my mind is becoming less flexible, and I cannot readily accept a new doctrine. “The old is better.” I suppose I belong to the old school of Evangelical theology. I am therefore content with the teaching about sanctification I find in the Life of Faith of Sibbes and of Manton, and in William Romaine’s The Life, Walk, and Triumph of Faith. But I must express the hope that my younger brothers who have adopted new views of holiness will take care not to multiply needless divisions.
Do they think a higher standard of Christian living is needed today? So do I. Do they think clearer, stronger, fuller teaching about holiness is needed? So do I. Do they think Christ should be more exalted as the root and author of sanctification as well as justification? So do I. Do they think believers should be urged more and more to live by faith? So do I. Do they think a very close walk with God should be urged more strongly on believers as the secret of happiness and usefulness? So do I. In all these things we agree. But if they want to go further, I ask them to watch where they step and explain very clearly and distinctly what they mean.
Finally, I must object, in love, to the use of awkward, newly invented terms and phrases in teaching sanctification. I plead that a movement for holiness cannot be advanced by newly coined language, unbalanced and one-sided statements, or strained interpretations of isolated texts. Nor can it be advanced by exalting one truth at another’s expense, turning texts into allegories or adapting them to other purposes and squeezing out meanings the Holy Spirit never put into them. Nor can it be advanced by speaking contemptuously and bitterly about those who do not see everything as we do or work exactly as we work.
These things do not promote peace. Instead, they repel many and keep them at a distance. Weapons like these hinder the cause of true sanctification rather than helping it. A movement for holiness that produces conflict and dispute among God’s children gives some reason for suspicion. For Christ’s sake, and in the name of truth and love, let us strive to pursue peace as well as holiness. “What God has joined together, let no one separate.”
My heart’s desire, and my daily prayer to God, is that personal holiness may increase greatly among professing Christians in England. But I trust that all who work to promote it will remain closely faithful to the balance of Scripture, carefully distinguish things that differ, and separate “the precious from the vile” (Jer 15:19).
