Scriptural Sanctification - Media Sabda Org

dedication of the temple, and is, "If they sin against thee (for there is no man that sinneth not)" -may
not sin is the proper rendering. As one has suggested, Solomon spoke just as the governor of
one of our states would in dedicating an insane asylum, declaring, "If any citizen of this
commonwealth should become insane (and there is no citizen who may not do so), etc. We would
widely miss the mark if we interpreted him as saying, "There is no citizen who is not already insane."
And Solomon puts it hypothetically in the first part of the verse, "If any man sin," just as John does
when saying, "If any man sin, we have an Advocate," etc. The same is true of the passage in
Ecclesiastes.
It is amazing with what tenacity intelligent and learned men cling to the passage in John, cited
above, to support their creed of necessary sin. If we had space, we would be glad to go into a
thorough examination of this passage. But we must content ourself with only a few words. (1) St.
John is believed to have intended this passage for the Gnostics or others who deny that they were
[6]
depraved or sinners. (2) He answers them by saying that this theory contradicts God's word, which
says "all have sinned," and makes him a liar. (3) That if they would "confess" their sins and
depravity, God would forgive and cleanse them. Just as a physician might say to his patient, who
denies that he is sick: "By such denial you contradict my diagnosis of your case; but if you will
practically confess your mistake by putting your case into my hands, I will cure the disease and
restore you to health -- removing the poison out of your system."
St. John refers to the condition of the patient, before the great Physician has done his cleansing
and healing work. But when he "discharges" that patient, he has been "cleansed from all sin" and "all
unrighteousness." And he would not now contradict God in saying, "I have no sin," or as Paul
expresses it, I have been "freed from sin." It is only the man who makes such denial before he has
been forgiven and cleansed that is guilty of this impious act of contradicting Jehovah.
It is believed that people generally fail to note the difference between sins and infirmities so often
pointed out by thoughtful divines. Mr. Wesley says:
"Not only sin, properly so called, that is a voluntary transgression of a known law; but sin,
improperly so called, that is an involuntary transgression of a divine law, known or unknown, needs
the atoning blood. I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary
transgressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes
inseparable from mortality. Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem
to contradict myself. I believe a person filled with the love of God is still liable to involuntary
transgressions -- sins of infirmity."
But Dr. Mudge says:
"What are commonly called involuntary transgressions as a matter of fact generally involve
minute volitions, escaping from us because of moral weakness. If so, they are not simply infirmities,
but sins, although they may be termed small and comparatively unimportant sins."
We might well ask, (1) How does Dr. Mudge get around St. John's repeated denial that the saved
man commits sin, which he defines as the "transgression of the law," and assert that he does? And