By Robert Wurtz II
The Total Sanctification defense of doctrine teachings, I found, were long ramblings of philosophical rhetoric that answered few questions from scripture and have done very little to make me any holier. Repentance teachings based upon the premise that men ought to live holy and get right with God have served to change my heart over the years and especially of late. Charles Finney's Lectures on Revival (especially #3) will prove to change anyones life who follows his suggestions. This is my estimation, is Total Sanctification in Shoe Leather.
Total Sanctification ultimately is a straw man argument that is easy to knock down because we all know no one attains such perfection. To say it is 'possible' without any real and lasting and verifiable example of genuine sinlessness (and not some conformity to a simple code such as I quit smoking, drinking, and cussing) is to present a false proposition to people. We can teach on pressig towards the mark without taking the doctrine to its final conclusion. There also needs to be more efforts placed on teaching from the WORD on how to walk in Victory!
True Perfection is to walk perfectly in the will of God which is first of all God's word. Who would claim to attain such perfection to the word of God? Would that no be madness? We all know we need to strive for perfection, BUT that is NOT what the end of these arguments propose. When you make statements as boastful as Adam Clark supposedly made it is a wonder the Church didn't flat revolt. Sometimes trying to correct a problem you can go too far trying to balance the scales and cause error. When I read in his writing about perfect love and I see a total lack of conformity to James 3; what should I think? Hear the word of the Lord...
But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
Where is the love in the teachings of Entire Sanctification after Wesley? John Wesley according to Leonard Ravinhill died worth $30. He built orphanages, etc. What a disservice to this man is done when Entire Sanctification is taught, as it has filtered through the holiness movement, without that great love that he had. It is a travesty! Those people have been some of the meanest people I have ever met in my experience. I know the retort 'well that's not the real holiness people.' Well, maybe not, but you see what monsters teaching this doctrine unbalanced can produce? It can produce devils like the Pharisees! Paul was blameless concerning the law, but he killed or had killed innocent people in cold blood- thinking he did God a service. So then I ask... where is the peace when you hear such arrogant remarks as 'If people would spend as much time seeking God as they do trying to combat the doctrine of entire Sanctification we might get somewhere in the Church.' The man had not the wisdom to see that he had indicted himself with the words of his own mouth. He was such a distraction with this teaching that the people were hindered from repentance, seeking God, and getting to where they needed to be. They were provoked to anger- not to love. Why not just say 'we agree to disagree on this matter... but let's be brethren and lets seek God or lets love one another so that all men may know we are Christ's disciples?' Lets live holy and love one another brethren?