Scriptural Sanctification - Media Sabda Org

all depravity in this life, and that depravity is an indispensable condition of "growth in holiness
toward perfection," the title of his book. It is believed that his failure to discriminate between
physical and spiritual depravity, and to recognize the fact that one may be saved from the latter in
this life, while the former may cling to him till the resurrection morn, accounts in large measure for
his non-Methodistic views on the question of sanctification.
By physical depravity is meant the impairment of the substance of the mind or body, resulting
from the fall. This may be called the weakness or disease of our nature from which proceed many
errors of judgment and consequent blunders in the outer life, neither of which, however, involves
any tendency to sin -- a violation of the law of love; while spiritual depravity may be called the
disease of our nature which involves a bias toward evil -- a bent toward selfishness and sinfulness
-- the inclination to what is inconsistent with love to God and man. The former is the condition from
which what have been called "sins of infirmity" proceed, and will cling to us as long as we are in the
body. It is believed that the latter, called by St. Paul "the law of sin," may be fully removed from the
soul in the hour of entire sanctification. The former may consist with entire freedom from wrong
feelings and the possession of perfect or unmixed love, while the latter is inconsistent with both. Mr.
Wesley and his early followers always recognized the distinction between these two kinds of
depravity, calling the one mental or physical infirmity, weakness, or disease, possessing no moral
quality, and the other "original sin," "sin that dwelleth in us," or "sin in believers." We call it spiritual
depravity, because it involves a lack of conformity to, and inclines one to violate, the law of love.
It does not involve guilt "until approved by the free agent, and its remedy is rejected."
The writer in the next chapter suggests a phase of this subject that may possibly tend to harmonize
some apparently conflicting theories of sanctification. It is sufficient for the present to say that such
scriptures as Genesis vi. 5, viii. 21; Proverbs vi. 14; Matthew xv. 19, 20; Jeremiah xvii. 9; Mark vii.
21; and Galatians v. 19-21 clearly show the source from which sin proceeds, and which needs
cleansing from something, call it "original sin," "inbred" "depravity," or what not.
There has of late been some dissent from the second definition of the verb "to sanctify," given
above by Dr. Steele, and generally held by the fathers of Methodism and their followers, as well as
by almost all other orthodox Christians, namely, "To make pure, to cleanse from moral defilement."
Such dissentients emphasize the first definition as the chief, if not the only, scriptural one. This is
specially noticeable in a recently published sermon on "Sanctification," and "A Friendly Talk on the
Second Blessing," by two well-known ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and in
other recent publications. The first of these writers, in his sermon, quotes passages of Scripture to
show that sanctification means chiefly, if not solely, separation from the world and consecration to
God, and then says: "Sanctification is a state -- the state of being separated from things common and
set apart peculiarly and exclusively to a specified." He says again: "Whenever it does include that
idea [that of cleansing or purification], it is the secondary meaning of the term, and incidental! to the
main fact." Once more: "Sanctification antedates regeneration," and, as "an experience, is not
possible to any man." The other writer would have us believe that it means solely to "separate and
set apart" -- separate from sin and set apart to the service of God, especially when applied to persons.
It is conceded on all hands that this is the first and an indispensable part or condition of
sanctification; but, with equal emphasis, it is denied that this is all or the most important thing