
I have wrestled with the holiness doctrine of “Entire Sanctification” for a number of years, and I am still not resolved on the issue. The difficulties I have with this doctrine are not so much based on theological issues but on the way the doctrine is often preached and lived out. I do believe that God calls his people to be holy. I believe that the salvation Christ offers is fundamentally transformational in its nature. I believe that Christians are to be filled with the Spirit and empowered to live holy lives.
The problems I have with the doctrine of entire sanctification arise from those who emphasize the instantaneous act of “entire sanctification” to the exclusion of progressive and continual sanctification. To such people, entire sanctification seems to be a state of sinless perfection that anyone can attain simply by asking the Holy Spirit to sanctify them. Don’t misunderstand me. I do believe that God desires to and does sanctify his people. However, I believe that those who overemphasize the crisis event of sanctification have turned sanctification into a kind of “name-it, claim-it” experience and have actually watered-down the true holiness message. Here are two difficulties I have with this kind of “name-it, claim-it” sanctification:
First, I believe an overemphasis on the initial act of sanctification tends to divorce sanctification from the need of continual sanctification through discipleship and ongoing communion with God. We implore people to receive the grace of sanctification, but once they finish praying at the altar, we send them back into the world without taking the time to disciple them and walk with them in their experience. We preach at them to receive the grace of the Holy Spirit, but we fail to teach them how to live and grow in the grace they have received.
Second, I believe that the emphasis on initial sanctification often leaves people believing that they are entering a state of “sinless-perfection,” and such a belief can actually be counterproductive. If sanctification is a state of sinless-perfection, then those who are sanctified either cannot or do not sin. Once such a state is reached there seems to be no more need to confess one’s sins or to search one’s heart to discover attitudes that are contrary to God’s will. I’ve heard a number of “sanctified” people give testimonies like, “I was sanctified fifteen years ago, and I haven’t knowingly sinned since then.” This doesn’t impress me! In fact I think it sounds spiritually arrogant and contrary to true holiness. I’m not saying that all Christians must sin everyday; however, people who are truly holy do not have to toot their own horns regarding their personal sinlessness. I believe that most people can conform to a superficial form of legalism and claim to not sin as long as they narrowly define sin as the things that are easy for them to avoid (like drinking, smoking, cussing, etc…), but is this true holiness? Does this mean that they love God with their whole heart? Does this mean that all of their hidden slothfulness, bitterness, pride, selfishness, hatefulness, lust, and jealousy have been cleansed and that they are now perfected? I doubt it.
I read something in Dennis Kinlaw’s book “Preaching in the Spirit” that is truly helpful. He writes: “Some people think the sanctified life is one in which a person never errs; but when we seek God’s grace to live a holy life, we know that’s not so. As much as anything else, the sanctified life is one sensitized to error” (46). (By the way, Kinlaw is a man of such love and grace, that if he claimed to be utterly sinless, I would believe him). I think Kinlaw’s words are very helpful. Those who are truly holy are those who constantly allow the Holy Spirit to probe their inner life and who confess and repent of errs and sins that are revealed. They do not settle for a false sense of sinlessness, but continue to grow in sanctification until they are completely perfected in Christian love.