I want to consider a theological error which has sometimes led to a com­plete misunderstanding of how holi­ness is obtained, and then see how that same error is prevalent today in some theological circles.

In Romans 6, Paul deals with the sub­ject of freedom from sin. In chapter 7, he returns to a discussion of the place of the law which he had previously touched upon in 2:12-16 and in 3:19-22. There is a paral­lel between what he says about sin in chap­ter 6 and what he says about the law in chapter 7. In chapter 6 he has argued that we are set free from sin and therefore it has no power over us. He then produces the same argument with respect to the law.

In Romans 7, Paul addresses what he has to say to two people. First, he addresses the man who is so concerned with the law that he has become a legalist, not understanding the proper relationship between the Christian and the law. Second, Paul speaks to the man who believes that the law has no significance for him whatsoever because he is a Christian, and who deliberately ignores or diminishes its teaching.

In verses 1-6 Paul speaks to the legalist. He insists that the law no longer exercises lordship over the Christian because we have been delivered from it by the death of Christ. Our bondage is to Christ, not to the written code. We have been discharged from our obligation to the law, indeed we have died to it. We are now living the new life in the Spirit.

This means that Christian obedience becomes, not an externally imposed obedience to some written law, but an inner obedience to God. There is all the difference in the world between those who obey God because of a sense of duty or obligation or fear of hell, and those who serve him willingly because the Spirit has made them willing.

In verses 7-13 Paul turns his attention to the other man, the one who would be rid of the law altogether. He tells this man that the law is good and that the problem lies in sinful actions. What Paul had just said to the legalist might have mistakenly led some to believe that the law is a bad thing, but Paul wants to make it clear that he is not saying this. The law is holy (v. 12) but sin uses the law for its own ends, and so produces sin.

In verses 14-25 we come to the main section for our present purposes. Having spoken to the legalist and the lawbreaker, Paul now turns to address the person who has struck the proper balance, the law-abiding believer. This is the one who trusts in Christ alone for salvation but who recognises the value of the law in demonstrating how he ought to live.

In this passage Paul deals with the inner conflict of the believer. The autobiographical picture which Paul paints in these verses is one with which all Christians should identify. We try to live as Christians but so often we fail. Paul is very open and honest about this. The good things we want to do we fail to do, and the evil things we don’t want to do are often the very things we find ourselves doing.

Yet in spite of what Paul says here, there are some scholars who argue that in these verses he is describing his experience before he was converted. Some of these scholars believe that a Christian can know sinless perfection while still in the body. They argue that a Christian can be so completely and entirely sanctified, so utterly holy, that he might never sin again. Most Christians do not believe this today but we must take the time to show that such teaching is false because in certain Christian circles a theology which speaks of the need for believers to have a “second blessing” experience is either directly or indirectly founded upon such a mistaken view.

It is important to notice that, from verse 14 onwards, Paul uses the present tense. Therefore, those who interpret these words as being a description of Paul’s pre-conversion experience face real exegetical difficulties in an effort to sub­stantiate their argument. That argument would run as follows: Paul could not pos­sibly have experienced this tension after he became a Christian because Christians are completely sanctified and therefore do not experience such tension. If that is true then I have never met a real Christian! Every believer I have ever met admits to this tension. Indeed, the whole tenor of Scripture supports the view that Christians do experience such tensions and battles. Our whole lives are portrayed in Scripture as a fight against the world, the flesh and the devil. Our lives are the territory upon which the great and ulti­mate battle between God and Satan is being fought. This is specifically stated, for example, in Ephesians 6:10-17.

In Romans 6:17 Paul says that it is not he who is sinning but “sin” itself. He is making an important point here, not sim­ply passing the blame for his sin to a third party. He is recognising the way things are in reality. Elsewhere in Scripture (for example, in Galatians 5:17) we find that we have a “sinful nature” which continues to fight against the Holy Spirit who has taken up residence within us.

The fruit of the Holy Spirit will increasingly, we trust, be manifested in our lives, but sanctification goes on until the day we die. Indeed, Jesus tells us to die daily to our sins (Luke 9:23). If we could be completely holy and sanctified here and now, would such a command not be entirely meaningless? The writer to the Hebrews tells us that this struggle is not only a real part of the experience of every believer but that it is part of God’s pur­pose for us as He seeks to discipline us and bring us to maturity in Christ (look at Hebrews 12:1-14).

James Philip sums the whole thing up very well:

The Christian is called to live his new life in the old death-doomed envi­ronment. He is thus in a paradoxical situ­ation, being both ‘free from sin’ and at the same time ‘subject to the condition of sin’. Because he is both ‘in Christ’ and ‘in the flesh’ he is not able to be a sinner, and since this is so, there will always be ten­sion and conflict in his experience.

As we consider how a Christian is made holy we must remember that the Bible teaches that holiness is both an immediate act of God and a gradual process. There is an initial (or definitive) sanctification in which some of God’s work of making us holy is accomplished the moment we are born again. There is also progressive sanc­tification by which God goes on making us holy until the day we die. But there are those who have taken a different view, and this view has had such serious effects that we need to look at some examples of how it developed.

In the first half of the 19^th century, a movement began in the United States which was destined to become, in the words of American Presbyterian theolo­gian Henry Van Dusen, “the third force in Christendom”. One strand of this move­ment can be traced to C.G. Finney, a Presbyterian revival preacher who became a Congregational Professor of Theology at Oberlin College, Ohio. This college developed what has been called “Oberlin theology”, the main thrust of which was Christian perfectionism. Finney taught that baptism with the Holy Spirit was a second experience after conversion which brought power and holiness.

The other strand of this movement arose within the Methodist Church, due to a strong emphasis on John Wesley’s teaching about “entire sanctifica­tion”. This spread rapidly and Holiness Associations were formed to propagate the tenets of this theology. Holiness Associations in time became Holiness Churches and even Holiness denomina­tions (such as the Church of the Nazarene).

At the beginning of the 20^th century events occurred which meant that the holiness movement broke into two dis­tinct and separate camps. On the one hand the Wesleyans continued the original teaching of the holiness movement, emphasising the need for a “second bless­ing” which would bring entire sanctifica­tion. On the other hand the Pentecostal movement came into being.

The beginnings of the Pentecostal movement can be traced to a Bible school, Bethel College, which began in Topeka, Kansas, in 1901. For most Pentecostals, however, the key event was a phenome­non called “the Azusa Street experience” of 1906 when the Apostolic Faith Gospel Mission was born. From then until now Pentecostal churches have spread rapidly.

Like the Wesleyans, the Pentecostals affirmed that baptism with the Holy Spirit was a second experience, subsequent to conversion, but they added that the evi­dence of this baptism was the gift of speaking in tongues. Some Pentecostals continue to believe in entire sanctifica­tion, but most do not. The main theolog­ical view which unites Wesleyans and Pentecostals is that a second experience after regeneration is required. For the Holiness movement the second experi­ence is said to bring complete sanctifica­tion, for the Pentecostal movement it is said to bring power and the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The modern Charismatic movement consists of those who have accepted the main principles of this second-blessing theology but who have either chosen to remain within the established denomina­tions, or who have formed house-churches and independent fellowships. The important point for our study is to understand that the very existence of Holiness, Pentecostal and Charismatic movements has come about because of a faulty view of holiness and sanctifica­tion.

Mainstream Christianity in Britain has been affected by second-blessing theolo­gies through the influence of the well-known Keswick Convention, held every summer in the Lakes District, and organi­sations such as the Faith Mission. Most Keswick speakers today do not believe in a second blessing for sanctification, nor do all Faith Mission personnel, but we must be aware of the dangers inherent in this position. Holiness is only to be obtained in the face of difficulty, struggle, opposition and discipline.

Yet do not the scriptures tell us to be perfect? What are we to make of 2 Corinthians 7:1; 13:2; Hebrews 6:1 and Matthew 5:48? The answer lies in the fact that, although we are urged to aim for perfection, there is not the slightest suggestion in these verses or elsewhere in Scripture that any believer will attain to that while in the body. Indeed, all the evidence seems to be against this. Consider, for example, 1 John 1:8, 10 and the testimonies of others: Isaiah 6:5ff.; Daniel 9:4-9; Ephesians 3:8 and 1 Timothy 1:15.

The 19^th century evangelical Anglican bishop J.C. Ryle put it like this:

In face of such facts as these I must protest against the language used in many quarters, in these last days, about perfection. I must think that those who use it either know very little of the nature of sin, or of the attributes of God, or of their own hearts, or of the Bible, or of the meaning of words.

Are you struggling in your Christian life? Are you fighting and battling against sin and do you sometimes feel that you are making no progress? Do you have good intentions and then see yourself doing precisely the opposite of what you intended to do? And does that sometimes make you feel as if you can hardly be a Christian at all? Then take heart from the story of Paul’s own struggles and remem­ber that even the very act of fighting against the world, the flesh and the devil constitutes strong evidence that you are on God’s side.

As Christians, we can never forget that we have an enemy, one so powerful that he is called in Scripture “the god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4). This enemy hates God and detests all talk of Christ. His great objective is to destroy the church of God. In this work he cannot be ultimately successful because the victory belongs to Christ. Our great enemy will one day be thrown into the lake of fire prepared for himself and his angels.

This in no way minimises the fierce­ness of the struggle and the heat of the battle. But it is a battle already won, and we must therefore persevere to the end. There is no perfection in holiness in this world, only a target at which to aim. The enemy is determined to keep us as far from that target as he is able. Are we equally determined to resist him in every way we can? We have the assurance in Scripture that if we do so he will flee from us (James 4:7).