ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION

___________________

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. David K. Lowery

Dallas Theological Seminary

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

NT105C Exegesis of Romans

___________________

by

Joshua Milton-Steven Francis

December 2014

File 262
 ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION

During Bible College, I sat under a professor and Pastor who had been largely

influenced by the views of Walvoord and Chafer, who were in turn influenced a fair amount by

perspectives coming out of the Keswick convention. My Pastor had at some point or another also

stumbled upon the life story of Hudson Taylor, and fell in love with it more than any other. As a

result, he taught very heavily on the let go and let God mindset of ceasing the struggle to do

right, and simply rest in the vivifying power of the Holy Spirit, Who wants to manifest the

righteousness of Christ through the believer, if only the believer would let Him do so. For around

a year I raged against his teaching as vain, (both in the sense of proud, and in the sense of

useless, passive, inactivity). After a year of sitting under his teaching, being exposed to Hudson

Taylor, George Muller, and Oswald Chambers, and reflecting on my own deliverance from

particular temptations in my life, I came around to his point of view. I read Scripture in its light. I

taught from its perspective. I preached it when I filled the pulpit or taught the Adult Bible Class.

I didnt have all the wrinkles smoothed out, and I definitely spent a lot of time questioning the

conclusions of the perspective, but overall, I was in.

Eventually, I heard of the Keswick Convention, and a few friends and I became

excited at this movement wed managed never to hear of, while knowing of and loving so many

of the exemplary Christians that were influenced by it. Eventually, I read Amy Carmichael who

came out of the Keswick movement, and Miles J. Stanford, another strong supporter. I also

began attending DTS though, and the days are passed when the staff at DTS held common views

with Walvoord, Ryrie, and Chafer whose own views were only slightly divergent from Keswicks

on sanctification. I found a relatively strong disinclination toward the Keswick Convention, and

Ive found myself struggling again to find the biblical balance. In my more recent studies

concerning sanctification, Ive found that one of the most common criticisms of the Keswick

Convention among Evangelicals is the perception that they teach an entire sanctification, or a

perfectionism. This is related also to the crisis language used by some speakers and leaders

2
 3

associated with Keswick. I would like to use this brief paper as an opportunity to explore Entire

Sanctification and check its validity in Romans.

Biblical Evidence For

The various proponents of Entire Sanctification feel that the view is clearly taught in

Scripture. They read Matt 5:48, you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect, and 1

Pet 1:15-16, .You shall be holy, for I am holy, and see no reason to lessen the injunctions, or

to make them an abstract concept of holiness. Wesleyan Melvin Dieter, who some would

consider a perfectionist, says, God wants to have (needs to have) a holy people to have

fellowship with, and cites 1 Thess 5:23, Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you

entirelywithout blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.1 Other passages in support of

Perfectionism, or Entire Sanctification, include Eph 4:13; 5:27 and Col 3:10.

Proponents, such as Pascal P. Belew of the Church of the Nazarene will use Romans

6:6, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might

be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin. They emphasize the word

, rendered here as done away with, but preferred by proponents as annihilated. 2

Belew also references Dr. Daniel Steele as making a strong argument from the tense reading of

the GNT the scriptures dealing with sanctification use the aorist tense, which denotes a

momentary and completed act.3 Steele, Belew, and others apply such an interpretation to

Romans 12:1, present (aorist) your bodies a living and holy sacrifice.4 True proponents of

Entire hold a hard line of distinction between justification (regeneration), sanctification (for

whom Entire is the only type), and glorification. Belew describes them as three crises5 and

1
Melvin E. Dieter et al., Five Views: on Sanctification, ed. Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1987), 31.
2
Pascal P. Belew, The Case For Entire Sanctification (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1974), 21.
3
Ibid., 25-26.
4
Ibid., 30.
5
Ibid., 11.
 4

points to the baptism of the Holy Spirit as that crisis event.6 Thus, for the true proponent, there is

literally no act of sanctification in regeneration, there is no significant progressive sanctification

(though they may make allowance for a growing in holiness after being baptized by the Spirit

into holiness), and there is absolutely no degree to which a person is sanctified at death, with is

only, after all, the consequences for sin.

John Wesley found, in London alone, 652 persons, whose sanctification he could not
doubt, and each declared that his sanctification was a second crisis and instantaneous.
The second blessing properly so-called, is factual, scriptural, historical, contemporary,
personal, and experiential. Why waste more time? Get the blessing today!7

In order to achieve this vaunted Entire sanctification, proponents point to Romans

6:19 and 12:1-2 as making the case for a one time act of consecration to God for service,

alluding back to the OT act of consecration for Temple use. Upon this consecration, the believer

is entirely sanctified, having now attained Christian Perfection, supported by Phil 3:15, Let us

therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude, (cf. Matt. 5:48, 2 Cor 7:1, Heb 6:1; 12:22-

23, Eph 4:12-13, Col 1:28; 4:12, 1 Pet 5:10).

Biblical Evidence Against

Thus, there are two primary aspects of Entire Sanctification that the rest of

Evangelicals take some issue with. There is the crisis or second blessing which is taught as a

single moment in history when a believer is finally baptized by the Holy Spirit, and there is the

teaching that the newly Spirit-baptized Christian is made perfect, as in sanctified perfectly, which

is what is meant by Entire sanctification.

The main avenue taken in order to disprove both aspects is usually to show the

progressive nature of sanctification portrayed in Scripture and to highlight the verses that portray

the Christian (and sometimes the Holy Spirit) as in a struggle against the sin nature of the

believer. Along the way, most of the verses used by Perfectionists are shown to be far less

6
Ibid., 24-25.
7
Ibid., 27.
 5

supportive of the concept than presumed. Briefly, Ill point out that many of the perfection

verses brought to bear by Perfectionists are in contexts which, upon further study, seem to link

becoming perfect with the Second Coming of Jesus. For instance, Col 1:28 is modified by 1:22

which places the event at the Second Coming, and so too with 1 Thess 5:23.8 In other cases, it is

pointed out that at the very least, nowhere is it taught that such perfection (as in Eph 4:13 and

5:27) has to occur before the Second Coming. Colossians 3:10 is also pointed out as speaking of

the new nature as being renewed. The picture there is almost of a positional new man/nature,

which is practically being renewed unto perfection.9

In Romans itself, the primary verses used by either side of the issue are chapters 6

and 12, with 8 referenced here and there as well. In the first place, Perfectionists hold to chapter

6 as a sort of Magna Carta of the Soul.10 In it, they find that the believer has died to sin (2),

that our old self was crucifiedthat our body of sin might be [abolished] (6), that the believer

should present (consecrate) yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members

as instruments of righteousness to God (13), and present your members as slaves to

righteousness, resulting in sanctification (19). In essence, these verses help lead the

Perfectionist to the conclusion that the old nature has been completely abolished, or eradicated,

which then lends easily toward this concept of Perfectionism. Lewis Sperry Chafer confronts this

view on a number of levels, one of which is the unceasing conflict by which the Spirit delivers.11

In light of passages like Gal 5:16-17, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of

the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh; for these

8
Dieter et al., 49.
9
For many more verses and arguments for progressive sanctification, against a crisis, and against
perfection this side of glory, see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 749-753.
10
Dieter et al. 154.

Lewis S. Chafer, He That Is Spiritual: A Classic Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Spirituality (Grand
11

Rapids, Zondervan, 1967), 130.

are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please, it may

indeed be justified to interpret Romans 7 as speaking of the condition of a believer. If such is the

case, than the argument is clear that the nature of sin which gravitates man toward acts of

rebellion is still very much alive and active, and requires man to daily and continually look to the

Spirit and walk in Him. It may even be helpful to speak of the sin nature, or old man as

being positionally dead, just as the believer is said to already be positionally righteous. At that

point, it can be said that while the old nature is dead, it is also dying. This is in direct correlation

to the new nature being new, and yet progressively renewing in Col 3:10.

It is further argued against Perfectionism, and in agreement with the above

conjecture, that while Perfectionists use Romans 6:2, they do not properly deal with 6:11, in

which Paul encourages the believer to reckon himself dead to sin. If the sin nature were truly

abolished (i.e. eradicated), than there would be little need for the believer to reckon his sin nature

dead in order to not sin. This is seen also in 8:10 and 11, in which Christ is in the believer, which

has yielded a righteous spirit, and a body still dead because of sin. Verse 11 could be argued to

suggest that a later baptism of the Holy Spirit would then vivify the body also, but nobody does

argue that, not even Perfectionists. This is instead recognized for what it is, as a promise of

glorification at Christs Second Coming. Verses 12-14 wrap it up, expressing that since glorified

life is the end to which the believer looks, then the believer is obligated to live by the Spirit, not

the flesh, progressively putting to death the deeds of the body. This argues for a progressive

sanctification, as opposed to a one-time crisis event at which point the believer becomes a perfect

lover of God. Chapter 6 then, in light of so many other passages which speak to the struggles of a

believer, including those mentioned above, is better understood as encouraging believers to

reckon on the reality of their position as legally/spiritually freed from the dominion of sin as

master. This reckoning is not pictured as a one time event, but a current progressive activity,

(6.11), and the command not to allow sin to rule over the believer is the same (12). Of course, as
 7

widely recognized by modern grammarians, even if the terms were aorist, (as in the consecration

of verse 13) it would hardly demand they be understood as once-for-all action.12

This brings up Romans 12 as well. It has often been argued by crisis seeking

Perfectionists that Romans 12:1, present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, is to be

understood as a once for all action due to the verbs aorist tense. As referenced above, it has been

thoroughly shown that the aorist tense of Greek does not mean once-for-all action, though it is

used in situations in which a writer is speaking of once-for-all action. See Wallaces grammar for

a helpful discussion on the actual use and proper understanding of the aorist tense, which he

describes as offering a snapshot of an event or process as viewed from the outside. This is in

opposition to imperfects or presents which view event and processes from the inside, watching

the action unfold. It is entirely likely that the aorist in 12:1 is an ingressive aorist, and thus

signifies the beginning of a process, or even of a cycle. In such a case, it wouldnt at all be a

once-for-all baptism of the Spirit, but a dedication of a believer to Gods service that will be

repeated again and again as that believers maturity vacillates through the daily struggles of

temptation, and the greater struggle of spiritual drift into complacency. Furthermore, in Romans

12:1, the idea of consecration resulting in sanctification is foreign. Instead, the language

considers that when the believer presents himself to God, it is as a living and holy sacrifice. The

presentation is the sanctification. In the Perfectionist writings, it appears more that when the

believer consecrates himself, or presents himself, or yields himself, then the Holy Spirit baptizes

that believer and from that point on, he experiences Entire Sanctification. Again though, this

passage portrays sanctification more as the act of a believer continually presenting himself in

worship as a sacrifice to the Lord. The next verse continues to portray this ongoing process of

continually not being conformed to the world, and continually, gradually experiencing the

transformation of renewal of the mind.

12
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 557.
 8

Keswick and Wesleyans: Are they Perfectionists?

One of the most interesting aspects of this debate lies in the redefining of pivotal

terms. It creates one of those interesting events within Evangelical Christianity in which

everyone speaks past each other and fails to recognize what their brothers and sisters in Christ

are saying. Such seems to be the case with Perfectionism, as brought out by the writing of Five

Views on Sanctification.

The issue at heart is that those opposed to Perfectionism spend time, at length,

proving that a) sanctification is a process, b) sanctification begins for all believers at

regeneration/salvation, c) sanctification does not end until the believers body is made new in

glorification and d) that there is little to no evidence of a crisis experience in which the believer

is baptized by the Holy Spirit, elevating that believer into a victorious Christian life. While such

efforts are valiant and are to be commended, it must be stated that most Perfectionists argue for

the first three points as well. This becomes clear when reading the Perfectionists carefully,

particularly in works such as Five Views, in which the authors take great care to be properly

understood in a way that is conducive to unity.

The Wesleyan perspective, Pentecostal perspective, and Keswick perspective, have all

been variously charged with teaching both Perfectionism, and crisis experiences. As the books

arguments unfold though, each proponent seems surprised to find that every other contributor

believed that sanctification is past (positional in redemption), present (progressing through the

Christian life), and future (upon glorification). Along with this surprise, came the distinction that

not one of those three views holds that the Christian can be perfect like God is perfect, or like

Christ was perfect, in motives and attitudes as well as in actions. The Keswick position in

particular spent a fair amount of time addressing that they recognize that any falling short of

Gods standards is sin, but that that is not what most Keswick leaders are claiming freedom from

when they say the believer can live victoriously over all sin. They in fact differentiate and say,

over all known sin. As J. Robertson McQuilkin puts it,

For the Wesleyans14, Wesley encouraged them to recognize that a perfected believer

would still experience many accidents, but he refused to call them sins, apparently concerned

that believers would understand such language to afford them a license to greater sins. The

Pentecostal chapter makes very similar distinctions (pointing to Holiness Pentecostals as the

extreme which has taken perfectionism far afield), and all five contributors breathe sighs of

relief. They do of course (and rightly so) take up issue with these three views for lessening the

definition of sin, as well as of perfection. In reality, very few people have ever believed that the

Christian can be sanctified to a point in which he does not sin at all and is as perfect today as he

will be when he is made like Christ in the glorification. That is not to suggest that it is advisable

to redefine terms like perfect and sin in order to support these perspectives, or even that such

wholesale victories over known sins is even the norm. It is to suggest though that interpreters

need to hear each other well when discussing perspectives. Too often, ears are more closed than

they ought to be, and mouths are too full of words.

Aside from perfectionism and sin, the question of crisis came up a number of times

in Five Views. Similarly, the positions were clarified a little, though not to as satisfactory a

degree as Perfectionism. It was clear that Pentecostals still hold to a crisis experience that is

theologically necessary, and which is necessarily marked by speaking in tongues as the mark

that that Baptism of the Spirit has occurred. For the Keswick perspective, it was made clear that

a crisis experience is believed to be relatively normal, but that it is not theologically necessitated,

so much as experientially necessitated by uncommitted believers. More or less, their view boils

down to a rededication, at which point the Spirit fills a believer (though the believer was

already indwelt upon redemption) with that special strength to deny temptation toward rebellion.

13
Dieter et all., 155.
14
Belew, 48.
 10

When pressed, they do agree that the believer can slip back out of that victorious life, and would

then need to be renewed again to a higher degree of sanctity. For the Wesleyans, it seems there is

a very definite insistence on the necessity of a second blessing experience, or a crisis

experience.15

Conclusion

Perfectionism needs to be better understood. As seen above, most Perfectionists are

not suggesting what most of their opponents seem to think they are suggesting. When the

opponents of Perfectionism start hearing the Perfectionists real aim and argument, then the

dialogue can move on to more important aspects, like whether the normal state of the Believer in

this world is really even a consistent victory over willful acts of sin, and if so, how to attain it. In

such a dialogue (which definitely is taking place in some arenas), what place does yielding and

consecration have, and how should the disciplines, and Pauls language of fighting, racing, and

pressing on be incorporated into those acts? Crisis language too needs to be continually, carefully

defined. Surely not many Christians would deny that a crisis moment does arrive for a believer

when God finally breaks him of that big sin that he was holding onto for all those years, refusing

to let go. More than anything, the dialogue needs to point believers to have a true and active hope

toward sanctity and holiness, as well as to highly value a hunger and thirst after righteousness

that can only be fulfilled by the enabling of the Holy Spirit.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Belew, Pascal P. The Case For Entire Sanctification. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1974.

Chafer, Lewis S. He That Is Spiritual: A Classic Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Spirituality.
Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1967.

Dieter, Melvin E. Anthony A. Hoekema, Stanley M. Horton, J. Robertson McQuilkin, John F.

15
Belew, 24, 27.
 11
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1994.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.

Stanford, Miles J. The Complete Green Letters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.