Scriptural Sanctification - Media Sabda Org

"What is meant and what is true is this: When the soul is forgiven, and its affections are turned
toward righteousness, and its will is determined to the practice of righteousness, so that it passes
from under the dominion of evil, impulses and inclinations to evil are not completely eradicated.
They still arise and assert themselves. They assail and disturb the peace of the soul. They have a
constant tendency to prevail with it. They find support in its old habits and in its native lusts -- that
is, desires and cravings."
It is this morbid bias or tendency to evil remaining in the regenerated soul that is removed or
corrected in sanctification. This work no more involves the extirpation of any of man's original
powers than does the healing of any natural disease with which the mind or body is afflicted. It is
simply the restoration of man's spiritual nature to perfect health by completely removing or
overcoming the morbid, or "sinful" tendencies or impulses of the "mind" -- not by removing any part
of that mind itself.
And we agree also that there are sources of temptation and danger in the nature of the thoroughly
saved man. There are innocent appetites, affections, and propensities that have to be controlled and
regulated. It was doubtless so with the first pair before the fall, and with our Lord. These tendencies
are blind and unreasoning, and need to be guided and restrained. It was doubtless such innocent
appetites of Paul's nature that be "kept under" lest he should sin and "become a castaway."
We concede that there may be a "vagueness and indefiniteness" "as to what the so-called 'remains
of the carnal mind' are," but insist that this is true also about a great many other doctrines of
Scripture. It is so with the doctrines of the Trinity, the incarnation, the resurrection, depravity,
regeneration, etc. Our Lord did not try to explain the mystery of the new birth, nor Paul that of the
resurrection. How different are men's interpretations of Scripture touching regeneration, the witness
of the Spirit, sanctification, etc.! And how "vague and indefinite" are their definitions of depravity!
Dr. Mudge complains that leading divines fight shy of defining it at all, and his definition differs
widely from Dr. Steele's and President Finney's, and theirs from that of others. Bishop Peck and Dr.
Barbee do not attempt to define it at all. The former says:
"It is not necessary, nor is it possible, to define this depravity in words ... This is an inquiry
prohibited by the laws of our being."
The latter says:
"But what is depravity? In vain may this question be pressed for definite and explicit answer, for
the meaning of the term lies in the domain of psychology, where all definitions cease."
How, then, can we fully understand the psychology of sanctification? If it is not "necessary" nor
"possible to define depravity in words," and if it is "in vain" we seek "for definite and explicit
answer" to the question of "what is depravity," is it any wonder that there is "vagueness and
indefiniteness" as to what are the "remains" of depravity in the regenerate heart? May we not say that
a satisfactory answer to this "inquiry" is "prohibited by the laws of our being," and that "the meaning
of this term lies in the domain of psychology"?