Two Works of Grace

Thousands of the most devout and spiritual Christians of the past and present have testified to and taught an experience of entire sanctification of the heart and Holy Ghost baptism subsequent to conversion. And these advocates of this second work of grace are not only the illiterate and uncritical as some might suppose, but include some of the most learned and discriminating minds—John Wesley, John Fletcher, Adam Clarke, George Fox, Hester Ann Rogers, D. S. Warner, Richard Watson, John Miley, Minor Raymond, Field, Bishop Foster, A. B. Simpson, Daniel Steele, J. A. Beet, and a great many others.

These witnesses testify that this experience has afforded them many rich blessings—a deep inner peace, greater victory over temptations, a greater measure of Holy Ghost power for Christian service, more joy and comfort, and a fuller measure of divine love in their hearts. Every true Christian is always reaching out for more of God’s grace, love, and power in his life, and desires to please God by attaining to the highest degree of Christian experience possible. If he sees by God’s Word and the experiences of his brethren that greater things from God await him, he is constrained to seek for them. The Christian experience of others may not be absolute proof of this doctrine, nor that we may possess a like blessed experience; but if it can be shown that such an experience and the possibility of all attaining to it is taught in the Bible, then we may confidently seek for the experience if we have not already attained it.

Hindrances to Belief in a Second Work of Grace

Before undertaking to set forth the teaching of the Scriptures on this important Bible doctrine, let us first consider some general facts relative to the doctrine and endeavor to remove any obstacles to a fair consideration of the subject.

Those who have doubts about a second cleansing often wrongly suppose that nearly all Christians believe that in regeneration they are saved from native depravity. But the truth is just the opposite. The belief of probably over nine tenths of professed Christians is that depravity remains in the regenerate believer. Nearly all Protestants believe this. This is held by the Episcopal Church; by the Westminster creed, representing the various Presbyterian bodies; it is held also by Methodists and Baptists. In fact, according to Dr. Miley, the theory of a complete deliverance from depravity in regeneration was new with Count Zinzendorf, the Moravian, in the eighteenth century. At present that theory is held only by some Pentecostal people and a few other small sects. Among those denominations who hold depravity in the regenerate have been numbered many devout Christians who are respected as great ministers, martyrs, and missionaries. Were these mistaken both as to the teaching of the Scriptures and the facts of their own experience of salvation? Reason leads us to believe they were not mistaken in this. The point where many have erred is in supposing that this depravity in the regenerate believer cannot be removed until death, whereas numbers of the more spiritual from their own religious brotherhoods have come to experience this second cleansing. We do not say this general acceptance of the doctrine of depravity in believers is proof of it, but it does show the unreasonableness of questioning the doctrine on the ground that few hold it.

Another hindrance to the acceptance of the doctrine are the unwise attempts to support it by unsound argument and texts that do not apply to the subject. But it is unreasonable to reject a doctrine on this ground when other sound proofs of it can be given. In rejecting the unsound supports of it one should not make the mistake of rejecting the doctrine itself. Such would be as unreasonable as it would be to reject the idea of God’s existence simply because certain teachers of theism have attempted to prove it by what is known as the ontological argument, which many able thinkers consider no proof whatever of the existence of God. Is it not better to believe in the divine existence, sanctification, and every other Bible truth for which clear proofs exist than to get our eyes on the unsound supports of them to such an extent that we are hindered from embracing truths that so nearly concern our present and eternal happiness?

Another thing that seems to have prejudiced some very good people against sanctification is the fact that some professors of the experience have been known to live ungodly and disgraceful lives. It is regrettable that such persons do put a stumbling-block in the way of good people’s accepting this glorious truth. Yet it is not reasonable to give place to prejudice because of such persons. As well might one reject the teaching and reality of regeneration because many profess it and live sinful lives, though the Bible plainly teaches that “whosoever is born of God [regeneration] doth not commit sin.”* (1 John 3:9) We believe in regeneration because it is clearly set forth in the Bible, and many actually have the experience. May we not as reasonably accept sanctification on similar grounds in spite of false professors!

Extreme claims as to what sanctification will do for one have also been a fruitful source of confusion concerning the doctrine.

Extravagant teaching that if one is sanctified he will not have certain temptations or feelings has led some who sought sanctification, and did not get the results described, to doubt either their being sanctified personally or the possibility of anyone’s receiving a cleansing of the heart subsequent to conversion. It is unsound reasoning to decide that because sanctification is not exactly what someone has taught it to be it is therefore nothing. Wrong views of the nature of native depravity have led to some of these errors.

Another hindrance to some is that they suppose the doctrine of a second cleansing subsequent to conversion was new with John Wesley, and was not known to Christian theology prior to that time. But if a second work of grace is set forth in the New Testament, if it was taught by Jesus and by Paul, and the experience was enjoyed by the apostolic church, we have abundance of ground for accepting it regardless of its place or lack of place in the history of Christian doctrine. Likewise the doctrines of divine healing and the Holy Spirit organization of the church, though clearly taught in the Bible, were not formulated in theology until recent years. Even the doctrine of justification by faith was never very clearly stated until Luther. The doctrines of the Trinity and of the twofold nature of Christ were not clearly set forth until the fourth century, when heretical teachings made a clear statement of these doctrines imperative. Like other doctrines that were lost in the apostasy and recovered at or after the Reformation, so sanctification was recovered in Wesley’s day, when the occasion demanded a clear statement of the Bible teaching. The clear formulation of any phase of Christian doctrine usually takes place only when erroneous teaching and practice make such necessary. As Dr. Sheldon has said in his History of Christian Doctrine, “A system wrought out in conscious antagonism to a contrasted system naturally has sharper outlines than one developed apart from such antagonism.”

Nature of Sanctification Difficult for Thought

That there are difficulties for thought and some unexplainable things in this doctrine we agree; some people would give up the doctrine because of these. But where is a doctrine that does not possess such difficulties? Though there are difficulties in holding the doctrine, are there not greater difficulties in rejecting it? This question is worthy of consideration by those who question sanctification because of its difficulties. We do not reject other doctrines and facts because of unexplainable things connected with them. Many problems arise in connection with the proofs of theism or Christian evidence, but we accept the arguments we can understand in spite of those points that we cannot understand. The doctrine of the Trinity, which lies at the center of all Christian doctrine, is generally accepted by Christians, yet it is not only difficult for thought, but it transcends reason. Still we accept it because of the unanswerable proofs of the doctrine that we can comprehend. Should we not be as reasonable in our consideration of the doctrine of sanctification? Simply because our minds cannot comprehend the vastness of limitless space, shall we refuse to use a measuring rule or to recognize the reality of space? Or if we cannot grasp the vastness of eternity, shall we deny the actuality of time and destroy our clocks and watches? It would be no more unreasonable to do so than it is to refuse to believe facts that can be known about sanctification because some things about it are unknowable to us.

Others question sanctification because it is not discernible by the senses. This is a great fallacy. They overlook the fact that sanctification is a spiritual operation in the soul and does not have to do with the material, therefore cannot be known by the senses. A thought is somewhat parallel to this in that it is a spiritual operation. But what is thought? How is it effected? We do not know; psychologists cannot tell. All they can know about it is the phenomena of it. So likewise it is not possible to explain exactly what sanctification is. We know in experience the phenomena of a depraved nature. After sanctification we know by experience the phenomena resulting from a pure heart. So also it is in the new birth. Jesus answered this objection hundreds of years ago in these words: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”* (John 3:8)