Table of Contents
The Pentecostal Holiness Movement prides itself on its firm maintenance of tradition. Despite the constant admonition to keep to the “old paths,” the Holiness Movement has almost completely abandoned its core, foundational doctrine. This doctrine was once a fairly clear teaching, but has since become so vague that few, if any can explain what it means at all, much less justify their explanation with any biblical evidence.
This doctrine, originally called the “Holiness Blessing,” is where the Holiness movement derived its name and identity. Today, it is better recognized as the doctrine of Entire Sanctification. “Entire” or “Perfect” Sanctification teaches that at some point in your life, whether after a single experience or after a process of time, you will be sanctified completely. It’s unclear how easy it is to lose your sanctification (is it after one error or only after some pattern of sin?), but one assumes you can.
This doctrine has been generally rejected by the broader church, in favor of “Progressive Sanctification.” This is the understanding that sanctification is not something that finishes at any point on earth but is ongoing until death.
What is Entire Sanctification?
When Holiness people say, “I’ve been saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost,” what do they mean? Let’s look at the proposed evidence and definitions the Holiness movement uses for all three conditions (setting aside the biblical justification for the moment).
| Status | Definition | Evidence |
| Saved | Your sins are forgiven | A specific experience of sincere repentance |
| Filled with the Holy Ghost | You have the power of the Spirit | An experience of speaking in unknown tongues |
| Sanctified | You never sin again?
You are no longer tempted? You have the capacity to never sin again, but do anyways? You sin 37% less than you would have otherwise? You are tempted 82% less than normal? |
You feel like you are sanctified? You had an altar experience where you felt like you were sanctified? You observe that you sin less than normal? You observe that you have stopped sinning? |
These conditions are quite different in their clarity. It is easy to know whether you are saved and filled with the Holy Ghost in Holiness doctrine, and it is relatively easy to understand the definition (although I point out elsewhere that the implications of post-salvation receiving of the Holy Ghost are actually not that clear). However, with sanctification, there is no clear evidence of its completion and no verbalized, much less agreed upon, definition of what it means.
Sanctification can get confusing fast. So, allow me to try to define some camps with this series of questions.
1) Is sanctification a state that we can attain (perfect/ entire) or a process that ends when we die (progressive)?
2) If it is a state, is it attained through an single experience or a process?
3) If it is a state, what are the implications of existing in that state (what does it mean in regular life)?
This doctrine has also evolved and softened over time. Let’s trace the modern origin of this doctrine and see how it has become a less tightly held and less meaningfully defined belief over time.
The Evolution of the “Holiness Blessing”
Like all doctrines, believers in Entire Sanctification attempt to justify their belief biblically and assume that church has always held it. However, the fact is that there is no unbroken linage of this doctrine prior to the 1700’s when the doctrine was either revived or originated in the teachings of John Wesley. In Wesley’s mind, entire sanctification was primarily about the fruits of the Spirit, particularly love, becoming completely prevalent in a person’s life. In Wesley’s view, this was a state that could be achieved through a process, but one also had to actively maintain it. Many misunderstandings surround Wesley’s views, so here’s his own explanation in a question and answer format:
“Q. When does inward sanctification begin? A. In the moment a man is justified. (Yet sin remains in him, yea, the seed of all sin, till he is sanctified throughout.) From that time a believer gradually dies to sin, and grows in grace.
Q. Is this ordinarily given till a little before death? A. It is not, to those who expect it no sooner.
Q. But may we expect it sooner? A. Why not? For, although we grant, (1.) That the generality of believers, whom we have hitherto known, were not so sanctified till near death; (2.) That few of those to Whom St. Paul wrote his Epistles were so at that time; (3.) nor, he himself at the time of writing his former Epistles; yet all this does not prove, that we may not be so to-day…
Q. What is Christian perfection? A. The loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. This implies, that no wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul; and that all the thoughts, words, and actions, are governed by pure love.
Q. Do you affirm, that this perfection excludes all infirmities, ignorance, and mistake? A. I continually affirm quite the contrary, and always have done so…we cannot avoid sometimes thinking wrong, till this corruptible shall have put on incorruption.” – John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection [1]
John Wesley’s teachings were foundational for Methodists, and it was out of Methodism that the Holiness Movement was born.
In 1843, a woman named Phoebe Palmer, later known as the “Mother of the Holiness Movement,” wrote a book called The Way of Holiness. This book riffed on Wesley’s teachings and created the basis of the Holiness movement. Wesley thought that entire sanctification could be attained and maintained only through constant spiritual striving. Palmer countered that there is “a shorter way.” Essentially, she understood sanctification or “the blessing” to be achieved by an experience similar to conversion. By seeking an singular experience of sanctification, you could attain righteousness on earth through what she called “the shorter, the one and the only way.”
Palmer knew this was a new doctrine. She claims to have discovered it herself and says that God told her “if you would retain the blessing… you will be called to profess this blessing before thousands. Can you do it?” This sanctification experience led to “the Way of Holiness,” whereby the Holiness movement received its name. According to Palmer, the attribute of holiness was a result of a specific and dramatic experience of sanctification – not a result of “growing in grace,” salvation, or of any Pentecostal experience. It was this special, one-time experience that enabled them to “live above sin,” when others could not.
Here’s how Palmer explained her holiness-blessing/sanctification experience, which she believes was a supernatural encounter – complete with full conversations with both the Holy Spirit and the Devil (written in third person):
Phoebe Palmer (also pictured in header)
“Immediately the Spirit suggested, ‘If God has enabled you to bring it [your surrendered life], will he not, now that you bring it and lay it on His altar, accept it at your hands?’ She now, indeed, began to feel that all things were ready and, in thrilling anticipation, began to say, ‘Thou wilt receive me! Yes, Thou wilt receive me!” And still she felt that something was wanting. ‘But when and how shall I know that Thou dost receive me?’ said the importunate language of her heart. The Spirit presented the declaration of the written word in reply, “Now is the accepted time.” Still her insatiable desires were unsatisfied; and she continued to wait with unutterable desire and long expectation looking upward for the coming of the Lord; while the Spirit continued to urge the scriptural declaration, ‘Now is the accepted time, I will receive you. only believe!’… She saw that she must relinquish the expression before indulged in, as promising something in the future, ‘Thou wilt receive me,’ for the yet more confident expression, implying present assurance ‘Thou dost receive!” It is, perhaps, almost needless to say that the enemy who had hitherto endeavored to withstand her at every step of the Spirit’s leadings, now confronted her with much greater energy. The suggestion that it was strangely presumptuous to believe in such a way, was presented to her mind with a plausibility which only Satanic subtly could invent. But the resolution to believe was fixed; and then the Spirit most inspiringly said to her heart, ‘The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force.’ (Matt. 11:12) And now, realizing she was engaged in a transaction eternal it its consequences, she here, in the strength and as in the presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and those spirits that minister to the heirs of salvation, said, “O Lord, I call heaven and earth to witness that I now lay body, soul, and spirit, with all these redeemed powers, upon Thine altar, to be forever THINE! TIS DONE! Thou hast promised to receive me! Thou canst not be unfaithful! Thou doest receive me now! From this time henceforth I am Thine, wholly Thine!” The enemy suggested, “Tis but a work of your own understanding, the effort of your own will.” But the Spirit of the Lord raised up on a standard which Satan, with his combined forces, could not overthrow…” – Pheobe Palmer, The Way of Holiness [2]
In the minds of the early Holiness teachers, the sanctification that Palmer described became the critical doctrine which separated them from other church movements. After having their experiences, they saw themselves as separate, special, and holy, because they had received the Spirit which enabled them to live in perfection, whereas other Christians had not. “In 1896, Crumpler [Holiness authority in N.C.] boasted that he had not sinned since his 1890, ‘second blessing,’ giving him six years of sinless perfection. The Quaker Evangelist Amos Kenworthy had even Crumpler bested. By 1891 he counted twenty-one years without sin.” [5]
Entire Sanctification and the Conservative Holiness Movement
People still hold to this teaching in the way that Palmer originated it. The best explanation I could find of this view in modern times was from the Conservative Holiness Movement. This movement traces its roots back to these early days and rejected the Pentecostal Holiness Movement which broke off from their ranks in the early 1900’s.
Here are some relevant statements from their flagship website HolinessMovement.org (emphasis added).
“The two works of grace [the first being Salvation] are clearly distinguished in James 4:8 – 1st work: “Cleanse your hands, ye sinners;” 2nd work: “and purify your hearts, ye double minded.” This remedy for the double-minded condition enables the believer to live out the injunction, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:5). This cleansing from inherited sin is known as entire sanctification…
To be entirely sanctified, one must first know that they are saved … Second, one must confess their need … Third, the believer must surrender the carnal self to be crucified, … This involves one abandoning themself in full consecration to God as a life which from now forward is at God’s disposal …Finally, one must exercise faith in God to sanctify the consecrated life, for, as with the first work of grace, entire sanctification is a work of God’s grace: “Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it” (I Thessalonians 5:24). Indeed, sanctification is effected by the Holy Spirit, who as the promise of the Father empowers the Christian for victorious life and effective service (see Acts 1:4, 8).”
In general, while this site offers much scriptural support for their position about the life God calls us to, I would counter that all their scripture is in reference to salvation and the ongoing process of surrendering to God (i.e. progressive sanctification) that it opens. I do not see how James 4:8 “clearly distinguishes” two works of grace any more than James 4:9 clearly distinguishes two separate judgements for sin. “Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to heaviness.” The Bible uses repetition as a common way to emphasize a single point.
However, the purpose of my piece isn’t to rebut this view thoroughly, merely to show how it has evolved and largely been abandoned by the Pentecostal brand of Holiness. It’s worth noting that the Conservative Holiness Movement, in keeping with the teachings of Palmer and others, associated this sanctification blessing with the filling of the Holy Spirit/Ghost.
Entire Sanctification and Receiving the Holy Ghost
Prior to the Azusa Street revival, the Holiness movement dubbed the entire sanctification Palmer taught as receiving “the baptism of the Holy Ghost.” [3] Meaning, sanctification and receiving the Spirit were one in the same, a single, second work that occurred after salvation. This new wave of thinking was possibly the first time that receiving the Spirit was separated from receiving salvation in church history. At the turn of the 20th century, Charles Parham began teaching that the Holy Ghost (which was still thought of as synonymous with sanctification) was received with the evidence of tongues at the Topeka, Kansas Bible School. The students became confused. Many were from the Holiness movement and believed they’d already received the Spirit when they had experienced what Palmer described – yet Palmer’s experience didn’t include speaking in tongues. Parham came up with a solution and here’s how it is summed up in the Apostolic Faith, a newspaper published by William Seymour,
St. Louis Post, Jan 27,1901, Page 32
“Most of the students had been religious workers and said they had received the baptism with the Holy Ghost a number of years ago. Bro. Parham became convinced that there was no religious school that tallied up with the second chapter of Acts… On New Year’s night, Miss Agnes N. Ozman, one who had had for years “the anointing that abideth,” which she mistook for the baptism, was convinced of the need of a personal Pentecost. A few minutes before midnight, she desired hands laid on her that she might receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. During prayer and invocation of hands, she was filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke with other tongues as the Spirit gave utterance.” [3]
In other words, in order to convince his students that, yes, receiving the Spirit was separate from salvation, but no, their baptism wasn’t legitimate, Parham had to create yet another label for the experience Palmer taught. He called it, “the anointing that abideth.” (What exactly that means and entails we’re not sure; this label was quickly dropped.) No one at that time denied that Parham’s doctrines were new, even the Apostolic Faith article above which opened like this, “All along the ages men have been preaching a partial Gospel. A part of the Gospel remained when the world went into the dark ages… Now He is bringing back the Pentecostal Baptism to the church. ” [3]
It’s worth noting that Agnes Ozman later recanted Parham’s doctrine of evidence, writing,
“Some time ago I tried but failed to have an article printed which I wrote calling attention to what am sure God showed me was error. The article [I intended to publish] maintained that tongues was not the only evidence of the Spirit’s Baptism. When that article was refused I was much tempted by Satan, but God again graciously showed me He had revealed it to me, and satisfied my heart in praying that He might reveal this truth to others who would spread it abroad. For awhile after the baptism I got into spiritual darkness, because I did as I see so many others are doing in these days, rested and reveled in tongues and other demonstrations instead of resting aIone in God.” [4]
Despite testimonies like these, Charles Parham’s doctrine quickly spread. He had successfully added a third work of grace to Holiness doctrine, “Baptism of the Holy Ghost (with tongues).” Around this time, Benjamin Irwin claimed his own incredible experience and added a fourth work “Baptism with Fire,” and then came baptisms of “dynamite,” “selenite,” and “oxynite.” [5] Various permutations of two, three, four, and even more works of grace split the Holiness movement into subcamps that gave us the modern movements, (along with many denominations which disbanded). But it all started with the original “additional work of grace” – entire sanctification.
The Abandonment of the Experience of Sanctification
In the Pentecostal Holiness Movement, sanctification as it is understood now is a mere shell of its former self. As I pointed out in the beginning, it’s not clear what people mean when they refer to sanctification. I’ve even heard some Holiness people say that they felt like sanctification was an ongoing, life-long process. That is a biblically defensible position, but that is not the doctrine of entire sanctification. This is no different than when a Catholic classmate of mine once said “I believe in transubstantiation, but I understand it figuratively.”
A Holiness scholar (original Holiness, not the Pentecostal subcamp) from 20 years ago proclaimed that Holiness Movement was on a sure path to ruin because, “Many—perhaps most—in holiness churches no longer really believe that there is an instantaneous, supernatural, second work of divine grace.”
I couldn’t find any articles on Pentecostal Holiness sites addressing sanctification in depth, but I did manage to find a defense of the doctrine published a decade ago in the Holiness Messenger. Here are some highlights from a gentleman named W.H. Wyatt who recollected the older version of this belief and realized it was on the verge of being entirely forgotten (emphasis added).
“SANTIFICATION This is a word not heard often in today’s church. I came into this world in 1925 so I date from an early day in the last day Pentecostal outpouring. In the 1930’s when a saint stood to testify they almost always said, I’m saved and Sanctified and baptized with the Holy Ghost. This would be repeated by a host of other testimonies. Sanctification was firmly preached, sought for and experienced…
You will soon find after that wonderful experience at the altar [salvation], that some things don’t give up so easy and the main culprit is the Adamic Nature you were born with. Ephesians 4:22 speaks of this old man (Adam’s nature). I hear some say, wait Brother Wyatt, I done that when I got saved. Did you? I remind you that Ephesians was talking to Christians. Eph. 1:1 says to saints which are in Ephesus. Paul addressed this book to Christians and in 1:3 says, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” So then why this charge to the Ephesians in 4:22, to put off the old man… What must we do with the Old Man, the Adamic Nature? We must put it to death.
I know in my case that I was saved in May of 1946, and then sought diligently for sanctification. I would fast sometimes from Sunday night to Wednesday prayer meeting without food or water in my desire from sanctification. Finally after about six months in November of 1946 I reached my goal and was ready to seek for the Holy Ghost which came in the following May…
In conclusion may I say, I fear we have a vast number of unsanctified souls in our Holiness Churches today and they may even be Sunday School teachers or even in higher offices. Our churches need a revival of Sanctification before we become as unsanctified as our neighboring Charismatic churches.”
Clearly, Wyatt views sanctification as an experience of putting off the adamic nature, which he believes that many people have yet to receive. In his world, there are some Christians who have a sin nature and some who don’t (those who were sanctified). But most in the Pentecostal Holiness movement disagree with him – the experiential second work of grace upon which the old-time Holiness movement built its power to live a holy life has been scrubbed out of Pentecostal Holiness doctrine.
Does Entire Sanctification Mean Anything?
Let’s put aside the issue of how entire sanctification comes about (at an altar or over a course of time). Many Holiness people have some sense that one can end up entirely sanctified – even if it takes a process to get there. People say they have been “saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost.” People joke that a misbehaving child almost made them “lose their sanctification.”
So, when someone is sanctified, what does it mean? Especially now that experiential sanctification has been abandoned it is very tricky to tell who is sanctified. If a church had to make a roster of all the saved people in the church, it could do that fairly accurately. If a Holiness church had to make a roster of all the Holy Ghost filled people in the church, it could do that fairly accurately. If a Holiness church had to make a list of all of the sanctified people in the church … where would they even start?
Usually, we just tack it on as a bonus with Holy Ghost filling – that’s the only way we “know” you’re sanctified. Have you ever heard someone say, “I’m saved and sanctified but not filled with the Holy Ghost?” It may happen, but it’s rare. Of course, there is no biblical explanation I have ever heard as to why sanctification would have to precede the filling of the Spirit. The Bible makes it clear that we have no power to overcome sin without “living in the Spirit” (Galatians 5). So how is it that we are supposed to attain complete righteousness (i.e. entire sanctification) without the indwelling of the Spirit?
But let’s not worry about this little theological soft spot. Let’s roll with the theory that everyone who speaks in tongues is sanctified and they attained that sanctification at some point prior to their Pentecostal experience. This leads us to the gooiest part of this doctrine. You’re sanctified entirely. What does that mean?
Does it mean you are empowered to sin less?
It cannot mean that you are merely empowered through vigilance and the power of God to sin less. Well – it could mean that, but this would essentially be the doctrine of progressive sanctification with a delayed starting point – not entire sanctification. Or if it meant that you achieve perfect righteousness, but then you occasionally sin and mess it up. Then you would be in a perpetual process of re-sanctification. This would also be indistinct from the idea of progressive but not perfect sanctification – only the terms would be changed. If entire sanctification means you only sin less, it is only semantically different from the orthodox view and would hardly be worth forming a splinter group over.
Does is mean you lose your inclination to sin?
It could mean, as Brother Wyatt understood it, that when you are sanctified you lose your “adamic” or sin nature. This would be very convenient; it would stand to reason that if you had no sin nature, you would have no more temptation, except perhaps from demonic forces.
Don’t get me wrong, the Bible does talk about dying to yourself and your “flesh” or sin nature. However, Jesus says that this is a daily thing “take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). Paul agrees when he says, “I die daily” (1 Corinthians 15:31) and “Always [constantly] bearing about in the body the dying [ongoing] of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you…For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” (2 Corinthians 4:10-16).
Wyatt’s own citation emphasizes this when he points out that Paul tells Christians in Ephesus to “put off concerning the former conversation the old man [put off your old self], which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Ephesians 4:22-24). Why would Paul tell Christians this if it wasn’t something he expected them to have to do on an ongoing basis? If he was only speaking to the “unsanctified” Christians in Ephesus, why didn’t he give the slightest implication that his message wasn’t addressed to everyone there?
But let’s say Brother Wyatt is right. He lost his fleshly desires in 1946. Does that mean he had a half-century of essentially no temptation to ever do the wrong thing? He always felt like prayer and scripture reading? He never had an inclination to say an unkind word to his wife or withhold a kind word? This seems unlikely to me. If you’re “sanctified,” is this your experience? No temptation? Because if you simply shift the source of the temptation from your flesh to the devil, the doctrine is once again meaningless in practice and is mere semantics. From my experience with allegedly entirely sanctified people versus Christians in other movements, I have not detected any difference in the level of temptation they experience or succumb to.
Does it mean you stop sinning altogether?
What’s the other option? If sanctification doesn’t mean we’re not tempted significantly anymore, it could mean that we cease to sin altogether. We know Paul didn’t when he says in Romans 7:19 “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do,” but maybe Paul wasn’t sanctified at the point he wrote this (which is what John Wesley assumed). It seems that Paul still wasn’t perfect when he wrote in in 1 Timothy 1:15, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” Perhaps Paul is being humble here, but he definitely refers to himself as a someone who sins in the present tense.
Paul notwithstanding, who will raise their hand and say the following? “I don’t sin anymore. I committed my last sin on January 3rd, 14 years ago and it is not likely that I will sin again until the day I die. I never omit to do that which I should do, and I never do that which I should not. Every thought I entertain is pure and kind. Every word that I exchange is thoughtful and true.”
Clearly, if these non-sinners are walking among us, they must be in every way superior to those in other churches and in their own congregations who do not claim this blessing. Their love and kindness must be without bounds, their hospitality above reproach, their witness without hesitation. Their financial generosity and hospitality must be jaw-dropping. Their work ethic must be superb. Since they are without sins of omission, and they always pray, study, and meditate when they should, they must be far closer to God than any of the rest of us. Given the pipeline that sinless perfection and perfect prioritization would naturally open with God, their Facebook postings must be veritable fountains of divine wisdom.
I actually did find at least one fellow who was willing to make this claim “I don’t sin anymore because [Jesus] forgave me of all my sins and now he lives in me to keep me from ever sinning again.” The gent went on to claim that he now regularly heals and performs miracles, has written over 150 divinely inspired works and recommend that “The best thing for a sinner is to throw their Bibles away so they can follow God instead of listening to their own interpretations of the scriptures that deceive them.”
Most of us are suspicious of such claims of sinless perfection. It speaks more to a disconnect with reality than a connection to the Godhead. There is more of denial than of divinity about it. Of course, the apostle John would dismiss it along with us. “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:7-9). It seems to me that the author is saying our righteousness comes from Christ rather than works.
When Jesus said “you who are without sin, throw the first stone” – that’s actually not an invitation to throw a stone. Even the Pharisees understood this.
If we can’t defend the idea that entire sanctification means a life without temptation and we’re unwilling to say that entire sanctification means a life in which no sins are ever committed, then what does it mean?
As it is commonly understood in the Holiness movement I grew up in, entire sanctification means nothing. It is no longer an experience, we cannot tell who has achieved it, and it does not result in either a life free from temptation or sin. In all but semantics, it has become completely indistinguishable from the doctrine of progressive sanctification, or the biblical idea that we ought to “grow in grace.”
Were we right to abandon this doctrine?
Were we right to shift away from a second experiential work of grace, which was “discovered” by divine revelation to an isolated lady preacher in the 1840’s?
Not to oversimplify the issue – but yes. We were right to abandon this. The biblical concept of maturity constantly uses progressive language. We speak of the “path of righteousness” not the “place of righteousness.” We speak of spiritual “infants” and adults (aging is not an instantaneous process, and even adulthood does not signify no additional changes). We speak of “walking with the Spirit,” not “arriving with the Spirit.”
Paul is constantly exhorting the righteous to abound more in righteousness. “We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater; (2 Thessalonians 1:3).” Paul also exhorts Christians to continually root out and kill sin in their lives. “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry (Colossians 3:5).” James insists believers ought to “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another (5:16).”
None of these passages divide between the “sanctified and unsanctified” in the churches. They expect all believers to continually fight sin and pursue God.
Why talk about a forgotten doctrine?
More than 90% of the Pentecostal Holiness church has adopted the orthodox Christian view of progressive sanctification – in practice if not in name. However, because they have never officially rejected the old view, its effects linger. Unfortunately, this out-of-focus belief in perfection leads its holders directly into clear sin in two ways.
First, the fuzzy belief that we are somehow holier than any other Christians who do not routinely refer to themselves as “sanctified” results in a significant amount of pride and disunity. This is ironic, of course, because pride and disunity are both sins. However, they prevail in any environment where we unilaterally declare ourselves more righteous than others. This pride prevents working with other Christians to further God’s kingdom, and results in an abandonment of our commission to preach the gospel to all nations – yet another sin driven by a doctrine of perfection.
Second, this ambiguous belief that we are somehow beyond sinning leads to a distinct reduction in transparency and accountability. We feel no need to have accountability groups or partners, because we shouldn’t be sinning, and therefore have nothing about which to hold each other accountable. We defy God’s command to confess our faults to one another, because we assume that we will be judged as inferior Christians for obeying God in this matter. When someone does come forward to confess sin voluntarily, they are often judged as immature and made to regret their honesty. We don’t ask God to “see if there is any wicked way in me,” because we assume that since we’re sanctified, there shouldn’t be. We pray instead, “nothing to see here, God. Move along.”
The doctrine of entire sanctification is unclear, unbiblical, and largely rejected by the Pentecostal Holiness movement. We would do well to purge our churches of the unorthodox approach to Christian maturity left behind by this modern gospel of self-righteousness. And given that we have already seen fit to abandon the foundational doctrine of the Holiness Movement, maybe we can find a way to reconnect with the branches of the church that never fell into that trap.
– Nathan Mayo
Sources:
- A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, John Wesley, London, England; 1767.
- The Way of Holiness, Phoebe Palmer, pages 17-18, 21-22.
- Apostolic Faith, Vol. 1, Number 2, October 1902, p. 1.
- “The First One to Speak in Tongues,” by Agnes Ozman, 1909, published in The Latter Rain Evangel, page 2.
- A. J. Tomlinson: Plain Folk Modernist, by R.G. Robins, Oxford University Press, 2004, 42-44.
Find this interesting? Check out all of our articles here.
We love reading your feedback! Thank you so much for leaving your thoughts and kind words below.
Excellent article. I actually knew a young man growing up in the Pentecostal holiness movement that claimed he had had this “one time” experience and would preach it to others whenever he got a chance.
Most people I knew though, were definitely “progressive”. I honestly believe that teaching a definite sanctification experience would be self-deceptive and dangerous. (Thinking John 1 – He who says he is without sin…) And what is the point of heaven (“saved to sin no more”) if we can reach a sinless state on earth?
John Wesley clearly taught instantons second blessing sanctification:
” 20. Indeed this is so evident a truth, that well nigh all the children of God, scattered abroad, however they differ in other points, yet generally agree in this; — that although we may “by the Spirit, mortify the deeds of the body,” resist and conquer both outward and inward sin: although we may weaken our enemies day by day; — yet we cannot drive them out. By all the grace which is given at justification we cannot extirpate them. Though we watch and pray ever so much, we cannot wholly cleanse either our hearts or hands. Most sure we cannot, till it shall please our Lord to speak to our hearts again, to speak the second time, “Be clean:” and then only the leprosy is cleansed. Then only, the evil root, the carnal mind, is destroyed; and inbred sin subsists no more. But if there be no such second change, if there be no instantaneous deliverance after justification, if there be none but a gradual work of God (that there is a gradual work none denies,) then we must be content, as well as we can, to remain full of sin till death; and, if so, we must remain guilty till death, continually deserving punishment. For it is impossible the guilt, or desert of punishment, should be removed from us, as long as all this sin remains in our heart, and cleaves to our words and actions. Nay, in rigorous justice, all we think, and speak, and act, continually increases it.”
The Sermons of John Wesley – Sermon 14
The Repentance of Believers
Hi Luke, You raise a valid point here. Wesley clearly taught that some element of sanctification was instantaneous as your quotation shows. However, his view was far more nuanced than Palmer’s.
Quoting from another work of his regarding this perfection:
“(4) It is not absolute. Absolute perfection belongs not to man, nor to angels, but to God alone.
(5) It does not make a man infallible; none is infallible while he remains in the body.
(6) Is it sinless? It is not worth while to contend for a term. It is “salvation from sin.”
(7) It is “perfect love” (1 John iv. 18). This is the essence of it: its properties, or inseparable fruits, are, rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing, and in everything giving thanks (1 Thess. v. 16, etc.).
(8) It is improvable. It is so far from lying in an indivisible point, from being incapable of increase, that one perfected in love may grow in grace far swifter than he did before.
(9) It is amissible, capable of being lost; of which we have numerous instances. But we were not thoroughly convinced of this till five or six years ago.
(10) It is constantly both preceded and followed by a gradual work.”
So, Wesley’s “entire sanctification” wasn’t absolute, wasn’t infallible, had gradual processes before and after, and he was unwilling to say that it made you sinless. Once you were “perfected,” you were then able to “grow in grace far swifter” than before. Wesley definitely blurs the lines between the instantaneous and the progressive and taught elements of both. From what I understand, Wesley’s views also evolved over the course of his life, so you can find different and somewhat contradictory teachings at different times.
In any event, Palmer definitely believe that she was teaching something different that Wesley had taught before. Her view was far less complicated and more absolute. It was from her view that the Holiness Movement originated. And at least the Pentecostal brand of Holiness has since abandoned this foundational teaching. Many in the Conservative Holiness Movement have as well.
Wesley also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, ghosts, and that men and women should be separated with a rail on different sides of a church. He certainly contributed many great things to God’s Kingdom, but he was fallible teacher. If he indeed originated the doctrine of entire sanctification in the same form as Palmer taught it (unbeknownst to her), that does little to prove its veracity and still leaves a 1700 year gap in the teaching from church history. Novelty and creativity are not high praise when it comes to doctrine.
Hi,
I find your material very enlightening and helpful. I belong to the conservative holiness movement who has not moved away from teaching entire sanctification as a second definite work of grace. I find it interesting the the Pentecostal movement did so so quickly. Maybe it is because they found tongues and that took the spotlight.
Consequently you have no deep understanding of the doctrine and as a consequence fine it easy to move into the greater church world’s way of thinking. If you are going to argue against any certain belief, I would recommend studying that position a little more deeply. For one thing, temptation does not only come from the sin nature or from the fallen human nature. Otherwise, Adam and Eve could not have been tempted. Not that this is anything deep, but let me share with you something that I recently wrote to someone else on Facebook https://app.box.com/s/cn7do087g9wou7ii6bsr9rnnl4y7xmjs
Hi Phillip,
Thanks for weighing in. Your perspective is interesting and well stated.
I grant that I have no deep knowledge of the doctrine. I did research it, but the doctrine evolved over time, so it is difficult to pin down. Also, I am primarily arguing against the Pentecostal Holiness version of this argument which I have heard expressed conversationally, but have seen almost nothing in written form. The PHM form is a very unclear argument, and so if my analysis is not concise, it is because I am attempting to nail Jello to a wall. That said, I don’t agree with the CHM version of the argument either as I have ever found it written.
You make a valid point that sin nature cannot be the only source of temptation because Adam and Eve were tempted in a neutral state. I address this in the article though, because I added the caveat that would have no more temptation “except perhaps from demonic forces.” Maybe there could be some other sort of temptation we could imagine, but that caveat would have covered the experience of Adam and Eve.
I did read your related letter and you are clearly a deep thinker. However, I find that your analysis created more questions than answers for me. I appreciated your metaphor of an engine, but I submit that you are trying to fit an additional piston in it, which creates no end of problems.
A few observations. You say that believers retain a sin nature. I agree. Interestingly, Pentecostal Holiness denies this. You then say there must be some process to rid us of it on this side of heaven. Since you state that “sanctified” believers have no sin nature. I ask you what this means in practice. You do not think it means an end to temptation. Does it mean an utter end to sin? If not, it would have to mean that you only sin less, which would make this not different in practice from the belief in progressive sanctification (though I concede that the theoretical disappearance of the sin nature makes it different in theory, just not in practice). Progressive sanctification allows for the deeper, fuller work that Paul alludes to in Thessalonians 5:23 and which many Christians have experienced. The idea of being “preserved blameless” in the same verse could easily refer to retaining your relationship with Christ and not becoming a castaway.
Additionally, you appear reject the idea of positional righteousness. You don’t find this in Scripture because you’re searching the wrong terms. This is the doctrine of justification, which appears in many places in Scripture. One of the most vivid illustrations is in the parable of the wedding, where the riff raff are covered by wedding garments provided by the host. Romans 4:4-5 is very clear on this “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Righteousness is attributed to us when we exercise our faith in Christ. Such faith is accompanied by good works and the keeping of Christ’s commandments as evidence – even though our keeping of these is not perfect. When God calls us to be holy, I believe he is calling us to behave as he would behave – which is the same belief you hold. Sometimes we will succeed. Sometimes we will fail and have to confess our sins (also commanded in Scripture). But I don’t think that our frequent failure leads to our inevitable damnation. This leaves you with another difficult question. If you reject positional righteousness, and the only way to attain righteousness is through a second work of grace that almost no one knows about… then wouldn’t that imply that nearly everyone outside the Conservative Holiness Movement is on their way to Hell? Furthermore, even people who believe in the second blessing doctrine but have not yet received it are liable to the same fate. I’m hoping you don’t believe this, but it seems to follow logically.
As a final note, if the Conservative Holiness Movement has a near monopoly on this access to a sinless life, I would expect them to significantly more influential in Christendom than they are. I do generally agree with the basic idea that we ought to seek a deeper, fuller walk, but I’m not expecting this to hit me on one solitary occasion.
Nathan thank you for your time and attention to this important doctrine, and related issues. One thing that intrigued me about your understanding and explanation was your view of sin. If I understood you correctly it seemed like you believe that all Christians will continue to sin until death? (Please correct me if I am wrong) I was wondering how you understood passages like 1 John 3:6,8,9? Thanks in advance for the response.
1 John 3:6 (KJV 1900)
6Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
1 John 3:8 (KJV 1900)
8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1 John 3:9 (KJV 1900)
9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Caleb,
Thanks for raising this issue; I’m sure it has caused confusion to many. I would summarize my position by saying there is no level of Christianity which makes you immune to sin, with sin being defined as any actions short of perfect righteousness. A self-righteous thought, a selfish action, or an unkind word would all meet the definition. I find when people hold to a doctrine of Christian perfection, they tend to redefine sin and call lesser transgressions “mistakes,” “shortcomings,” or something else that is less convicting to them and their doctrine. In practice, this creates a culture of pride, self-righteousness, and shoving sin under the rug. Ironically, all of these are sins.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that “all Christians must sin until their death,” because I don’t think we must sin, I think we are susceptible to sin. A factory may have a sign up that says, “this facility has been accident free for 142 days.” This is quite possible, but still doesn’t mean there will never be an accident at that facility. I don’t see that there is any set increment of time in which we “must” sin. Ergo, it is possible that someone could go a week, a month, or a year without sinning and then die. However, if anyone tells me that they cannot sin or haven’t sinned in decades, I question it.
Since I assume you believe that some variation of Christian perfection, I would be curious if you think you have ever committed any sin since your salvation. Then I would ask you what you do with 1 John 3:9 – as it seems to say that it is not possible for any Christian (sanctified or not) to ever have a self-righteous thought, commit a selfish act, or say an unkind word, at least not without immediately losing salvation. Interestingly, this would mean that in Galatians 2:11, when Paul rebukes Peter and Barnabas, that Peter and Barnabas either weren’t ever Christians or lost their salvation at that moment.
But the apparent contradiction gets even worse than that, when you read what the same author has to say in other parts of his epistle. 1 John 2:1 says (to believers) “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.” In this passage, John tells Christians that they ought not sin (which you wouldn’t need to tell someone if sin was impossible for them), then goes on to instruct them that Christ can intercede if they do sin. He also points out that Christ’s sacrifice covers “our sins” – the sins of believers, and makes clear to differentiate “our sins” from the sins of the unregenerate world.
Again in 1 John 5:16, John instructs what to do “if any man sees his brother sin a sin which is not unto death.” By this we know that not only can a believer sin, but that sin may not result in his loss of spiritual life. This aligns with John’s other words to believers “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin. if we say we have no sin [present tense], we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 17-8)” The context is unambiguous. John tells believers that if they say that they have no sin, they are deceived.
John’s teachings echo Christ in Matthew 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.” Jesus is teaching that a believer can sin, and be reconciled without losing his status as a brother at any point. In Matt 18:21, Peter asks how many times “shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him…”
So how do we rectify this contradiction? Three passages in John clearly teach that believers do sin, and that such sin does not necessarily result in the loss of their salvation. There are only three options. 1) The book of 1st John is contradictory and should be discarded. 2) A lack of translation clarity makes the 5+ passages I cite misunderstood. 3) A lack of translation clarity makes the passage you cite misunderstood. I will dismiss the 1st option as a last resort and I see no evidence for the 2nd.
So, what of the translation of the phrasing in 1 John 3? The Greek word is present tense, which implies ongoing or continual sin. Most translations say “continue to sin,” “make a practice of sinning,” or “keep on being sinful.” These translations clear up the whole issue by explaining that Christians do sin by exception, but not by rule. They do not grow in sin like an alcoholic sinks deeper into an addiction. They do not “practice sin.” This rendering makes the passage align with every other part of Scripture, including John’s own epistle.
I realize that translation can be contentious. But ultimately, if you don’t like this explanation, I really don’t see any other options other discarding 1st John on the basis of the contradiction the King James translation creates with the other passages in the same epistle, as well as the rest of the Bible. I default to the translation explanation, because I’d rather not discard the book.
Hey, thanks for the response Nathan.
I really enjoy discussing the Bible and there were several things that I would like to follow up on.
1. You defined sin as “any actions short of perfect righteousness.” I was curious which Biblical texts you used to support this definition? I’m not sure what all is meant by the definition, and in my experience, the best place to look for a definition of sin is 1 John 3:4 which states that sin is lawlessness (disregard of, or disobedience to, law or rule.) The Greek word there anomia is defined as
a. In case you were wondering if this was just my conclusion, here are a few statement by other linguists and scholars:
i. So anomia was understood as a final outbreak of evil, as rebellion against God.
ii. in the New Testament this negative meaning is largely lost sight of and sin is viewed as positive and active, a deliberate deviation from the standard of right. It is a willful rebellion, arising from the deliberate choice of the sinner.
iii. Sin by its very nature involves an element of lawlessness, and every form of lawlessness is sin. “Lawlessness” (ἀνομία) denotes not the absence of law but the willful rejection of the law, or the will of God, and the substitution of the will of self.
iv. The statement, “sin is lawlessness,” is the more important of the two because it views sin from the divine standpoint and because it is a comprehensive statement. Lawlessness must be understood as contrariness to law rather than merely as the breaking of a law
b. “Lawlessness” (anomian) defined sin as rebellion against God and was connected with Satan’s rebellion against God.
2. You stated it is possible that someone could go a week, a month, or a year without sinning and then die. However, if anyone tells me that they cannot sin or haven’t sinned in decades, I question it.
a. I agree with you here. Sin is always possible, but never necessary.
3. You commented about Galatians 2:11. Here are my thoughts on this
a. First, however, one answers the questions discussed in the rest of my response will probably answer how they will look at this one
b. Secondly, some would argue that they did not sin, as sin is not ascribed to them in the passage.
c. Others would say that Peter did backslide. Peter had already denied Christ 3 times in the past, so it does not seem entirely out of the question that he would reject him again.
d. All in all, there is not enough clarity to firmly state that it must have happened exactly in this way, as I see it.
4. Next you moved to 1 John 2:1.
a. You stated that “you wouldn’t need to tell someone if sin was impossible for them” if they could not sin.
i. Maybe there was a misunderstanding. I never argued for a position on sin, just asked for clarification on some questions I had.
ii. Secondly, I definitely do not believe that Christians get to the point that it is impossible for them to choose to sin, and I wasn’t even attempting to bring that up as a question.
iii. Sorry if I was unclear in my original question:)
b. You next stated that Christ’s sacrifice “covers our sins.”
i. I guess I am a little confused on what you mean by this. Do you think that any and every possible sin is covered by his sacrifice? Thanks for the clarification.
ii. Secondly, this text does not refer to “covering our sin.” But instead, being a propitiation (the means by which sins are forgiven). I’m sorry, I must be missing something here.
iii. Thirdly, He is the propitiation (means of forgiveness) for not only our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world. So if that means that our sins are “covered” wouldn’t that also mean that the sins of the whole world were covered as well and necessarily lead to universalism? I know you said that “he makes clear to differentiate” but I was confused about what and how you thought that John was differentiating?
iv. Fourthly if you keep reading in the same passage, we are told that “He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
c. Your next point was on 1 John 5:16
i. There are a number of possible interpretations of this passage. It seems that you are holding the interpretation that there are some types of sins that a Christian can commit and other types that they cannot? Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
ii. I have actually written a little bit on this question, however, I think it would be too long for just part of my response but in essence here are my thoughts.
iii. So in conclusion, we know that this passage cannot be making allowances for sin because: 1. Brother does not necessarily mean Christian. 2. Those who commit the “sin unto death” do not have life. 3. Willful sin should still be prayed for. 4. There is no indication of this in the passage. 5. Verse 18 tells us that those “born of God” do not sin. 6. The sin of death probably refers to a spiritual point of no return, rather than a willful sin. Hence, I conclude that this verse does not indicate that any type of sin is found in a Christian’s life, and actually indicates that those who have committed the “sin not unto death” must regain their spiritual “life.” The great majority of commentators, however, favor the opinion that the sin which is mortal is a kind of apostasy from Christ, which includes the denial of the incarnation in relation to the opponents’ claims, and the abandonment of the Christian community and fellowship.
iv. I know I moved through those really briefly, and the reasoning behind each point is not readily obvious, so If you are interested I can give further explanation to them.
d. You next mentioned Matthew 18:15, the passage about a brother trespassing against you.
i. First this seems to be a passage about how to properly restore a brother, not a statement about how that they still remain a brother.
ii. Secondly notice that the sin is not against God, instead it is against man. This would cause the reader to question if this not referencing a moral failure toward God, but rather something non-moral between believers
iii. Thirdly, if the brother listens then he is restored. Leon Morris explains “The brotherly relationship was disrupted by the sin; now it is restored. Instead of a lost brother there is a restored brotherhood.”
e. Next you moved to the translation question of the present indicative in 1 John 3:6,9,5:18.
i. There is a great deal that could be discussed in this question, but I’ll try to condense it.
ii. The version that you are probably referencing to support the “tense solution” is the ESV? Actually the author of the ESV when discussion his translation choice explains that “I think if I had to do it over again, I would change my vote on 1 John 3:6.”
iii. Daniel Wallace, translator for ESV, TNIV, NKJV, and NET, explains that the present indicative here should be understood as gnomic, “general timeless fact.”
iv. Sakae Kubo explains “If the tense is pressed and one concludes that 3:9 is habitual, then 1:8 must be likewise be habitual where a present tense stands.” This would mean that if 1 John 3:9 states “he that is born of God doth not habitually sin,” then 1 John 1:8 would have to state “if we say that we do not habitually have sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”
v. Thomas Constable explains “”. . . the “tense solution” in 1 John 3:9 is in the process of imploding in the current literature. It was shrewdly questioned by C. H. Dodd in his commentary in1946 and dealt a major blow by S. Kubo in an article entitled, ” 1 John 3:9 : Absolute or Habitual?” published in1969. [Note: Footnote16: Sakae Kubo, ” 1 John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?” Andrews University Seminary Studies7 (1969):47-56.] It has since been given up by the three major critical commentaries published since Kubo”s article; namely, I. Howard Marshall (1978), Raymond E. Brown (1982); and Stephen S. Smalley (1984). It seems quite clear that the “tense solution” as applied to 1 John 3:9 is an idea whose time has come-and gone.”
vi. Noted Greek scholar Zane Hodges argues that “No other text can be cited where the Greek present tense, unaided by qualifying words, can carry this kind of significance.” He continues and explains that “The idea that the Greek present tense automatically suggests on-going or continuous action is a linguistic myth. No doubt it is believed by many (even some scholars) but it is mythical nonetheless.” He further explains “It is apparent that the “tense solution” is an example of what in logic is called “special pleading.” That is, it is selectively applied to 1 John 3:6 and 9 because they are problems, but not applied elsewhere even to the same kind of idea. Nor would those who propose this kind of approach welcome its use in other doctrinally significant places.” His conclusion is “When everything is considered, the “tense solution” is a logical and theological quagmire. No wonder that the most recent major commentaries on 1 John abandon it.”
vii. Each of these men know far more about the textual grammatical issues than I do, however there arguments do seem pretty convincing.
viii. You also stated that “Most translations say “continue to sin,” “make a practice of sinning,” or “keep on being sinful.” At the end of this response I will give an incomplete list that should demonstrably prove that actually the majority of translations do translate 1 John 3:6 in an absolute manner.
f. To me the 1 John 3 really is the crucial passage. When it states “whosoever abideth in him sinneth not,” it really does not leave much wiggle room. Is this statement true or not? How is that passage to be understood? Is there some hidden meaning that is not initially obvious? If the statement stands as it seems then it really must be dealt with.
i. Thanks so much for the time! I understand if this is a bit much and you do not want to post it in the comment section. I sincerely hope that I was not offensive in any way, but was only trying objectively determine the truth of scripture. As Proverbs 27:17 states “iron sharpens iron.” Since this is a subject that I have been studying I had most of this information on hand, and thought that I would share it, And I hope you will give me grace for the places that I was rushed in, and misspoke, and other places that I may continue to grow and nuance or change my understanding. Thanks again for you time.
Here is the list of translations that I referenced:
Tyndale Bible 1526 A.D. As many as byde in him synne not: whosoever synneth hath not sene him nether hath knowen him.
Coverdale Bible 1535 A.D. Who so euer abydeth in him, synneth not: who soeuer synneth, hath not sene him nether knowne him.
Matthews Bible 1537 A.D. Whosoeuer is borne of God, sinneth not, for hys seed remaineth in him, and he can not sinne, because he is borne of God.
Great Bible 1539 A.D. As many as byde in hym, synne not: whsoeuer sinneth, hath not sene hym, nether knowne hym.
Bishops Bible 1572 A.D. As many as byde in hym,sinne not: whosoeuer sinneth, hath not seene him, neither known hym.
Douay Rheims 1582 A.D. Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not; and whosoever sinneth, hath not seen him, nor known him.
Geneva Bible 1599 A.D. Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not: whosoever sinneth , hath not seen him, neither hath known him.
Authorized Version 1611 A.D. Whosoeuer abideth in him, sinneth not: whosoeuer sinneth, hath not seene him, neither knowen him.
Quaker Bible 1764 A. D. Everyone who is born of God, does not commit sin, becaufe his Seed remains in him; nay he cannot fin, becaufe is born of God.
Douay Rheims Challoner Revision 1752 A.D. Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not: and whosoever sinneth, hath not seen him, nor known him.
The New Testament John Wesley’s Translation 1790 A. D. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not; whosoever sinneth, seeth him not, neither knoweth him.
Webster’s Bible 1833 A.D. Whoever abideth in him sinneth not: whoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
James Murdock’s Peshitta (from Aramaic) 1852 A. D. And every one that abideth in him, sinneth not: and every one that sinneth, hath not seen him, nor hath known him.
Julia E. Smith Parker Translation 1876 A. D. Every one born of God does not sin; for his seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, for he has been born of God.
Revised English Bible 1877 A. D. Whosoever hath been born of God doth not commit sin; because His seed abideth in him and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Revised Version 1885 A.D. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him.
Young’s Literal Translation 1898 A. D. Every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten.
American Standard Version 1901 A.D. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him.
Godbey New Testament 1902 A. D. No one abiding in him is sinning: every one sinning does not see him, nor know him.
Emphasized Bible: 1902 A. D. is not committing |sin|, Because ||a sed of him|| |within him| abideth; And he cannot be committing sin.
Moffatt New Translation: 1926 A. D. Anyone who is born of God does not commit sin, for the offspring of God remain in Him, and they cannot sin, because they are born of God.
Lamsa’s Peshitta 1933 A. D. (from Aramaic) Whosoever abides in him does not sin: and whosoever sins has not seen him, neither known him.
Revised Standard Version 1952 A. D. No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.
Concordant Literal Version: 1966 Everyone who is begotten of God is not doing sin, for His seed is remaining in him, and he can not be sinning, for he is begotten of God.”
Jerusalem Bible: 1966 3:9 No one who has been begotten by God sins; because God’s seed remains inside him, he cannot sin when he has been begotten by God.
New American Bible: 1970 No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God.
Revised Standard Version 1971 A.D. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.
New King James Version 1975 A.D. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.
New Revised Standard Version 1989 A.D. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.”
Jay Green’s Literal Translation: 1993 Everyone who has been begotten of God does not sin, because His seed abides in him, and he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God.
Third Millennium Bible 1998 A.D. 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.
World English Bible 2000 A.D. Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can’t sin, because he is born of God.
Holman Christian Standard Bible 2004 A.D. Everyone who remains in Him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen Him or known Him.
The Sacred Bible 2009 A. D. (From Latin Vulgate) Everyone who abides in him does not sin. For whoever sins has not seen him, and has not known him.
Lexham English Bible 2010 A. D. Everyone who resides in him does not sin. Everyone who sins has neither seen him no known him.
New American Bible Revised Edition 2011 A. D. No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God.
Christian Standard Bible 2017 A.D. Everyone who remains in him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen him or known him.
New English Translation (NET) 2017 A.D. Everyone who resides in him does not sin; everyone who sins has neither seen him nor known him.
Literal Standard Version 2020 A. D. everyone who has been begotten of God, he does not sin, because His seed remains in him, and he is not able to sin, because he has been begotten of God.
I’ve been wrestling with this for 40 years. Oswald Chambers is the only one I know that articulates Entire Sanctification in an understandable way. He basically preaches an exchanged life based on a concept of humanness that distinguishes between individuality and personality. The goal of a person is not perfection but maintaining oneness with Christ. A personal relationship with God which is Christ in you and Identification of your “self” with Him though the Holy Spirit. Basically Mysticism revisited.
This article was outstanding. So well thought out. I recently just learned there are believers who actually believe this doctrine or parts of it. All the scriptures Nathan used to prove the doctrinal error were those I had bubble up as I’ve been researching this faulty premise. He’s a great writer too – so well organized and it was easy to follow. Thank you.