On this question of temptation Rev. J. A. Wood asks and answers the following questions: "Does Christian perfection exclude a liability to temptation? "It does not. Adam and Eve were tempted in Eden. Our Savior was tempted. Temptation does not imply any necessity to sin, nor necessarily any tendency in the mind to sin. The fact that a man is tempted is no proof that he is sinful, or inclined to sin. An unfelt trial is no trial, and pain of mind, in itself, is no more sin than pain of body. Even Jesus 'suffered being tempted' (Heb. 2:18). If temptation is incompatible with holiness, then He was unholy. He had a long and bitter siege of temptation during forty days in the wilderness. He was tempted even to kneel down and worship the devil. He was 'in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.' If temptation is inconsistent with holiness, then Adam and Eve were unholy before their fall. A liability to temptation is an unchangeable condition of probation. So long as we are in the world, so long as Satan goeth about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, so long as we have five senses which come in contact with a world abounding with evil, we may expect to be tempted. It is no sin to be tempted, provided proper caution has been used to avoid the occasions of temptation.
"Are the temptations of the entirely sanctified soul the same as those of persons merely regenerated? While they are essentially the same, yet temptations of each are peculiar to themselves. The temptations of the entirely sanctified are usually sharper and shorter than others. They are also entirely from without; there being no foes within a sanctified heart, all is peaceful, friendly, and right there. The temptations of a sanctified soul find no favorable response from within, while those of the unsanctified do, more or less. In the one case, temptations find corrupt inclinations in the heart in their favor; in the other, they find none. An entirely sanctified soul is tempted just as others are from without, and while his temptations tend in common with temptations of those not entirely sanctified, to the excitement of desires, he does not allow them to take hold of the desires. His heart is in a moral condition where he arrests them at this point, and successfully repels them. He may be tempted as much intellectually, but certainly not so much sensitively, as his passions and appetites are pervaded and purified by the presence and power of the divine spirit, and the inward tendency is towards God. In the one case temptation finds no inward sympathy or tendency to evil; in the other, it may find more or less of desire or inclination to side with it. An inclination to side with temptation, if known to be an evil, or temptation, is evidence of indwelling sin, as that is the principal way depravity is manifest -- in wrong leanings or inward inclinations. Wrong tendencies are the expression of a back-lying corrupt state, and when this corruption is cleansed away, the tendency ceases" (Perfect Love, pp. 61, 62).
Dr. G. Peck: "The great difference between the temptations of those who are entirely sanctified and, those who are not is that the temptation, coming into contact with the latter, often stirs the sediment of corruption, while assaulting with equal violence the former, it meets with uniform resistance, and leaves no trace behind but an increase of moral power and the fruits of a new triumph" (Christian Perfection, p. 433).
3. Since we have this treasure in earthen vessels we are liable to mistakes. Mistakes arise from the infirmity of our human nature, which is to be remedied only by the resurrection, and to this we have not "already attained," neither this sense "already perfect" (see Phil. 3:12). Yet we may be human without being sinful.
(2) The Presence of Temptation and the absence of Sin -- We have already seen that since "we have this treasure in earthen vessels," we are always subject to temptation. This fact has baffled some, for they have not yet so clarified their thinking as to be able to distinguish between the two vitally different facts of temptation and sin. Hence in the conflict hour they slump and allow Satan to rob them of their confidence. Two simple statements will help us to find solid ground here: 1. Temptation is ever the lot of the holiest souls while in this mortal state; but sin may forever cease. That it is not sin to be tempted is proved from these facts: Our first parents were tempted in their original innocency (see Gen. 3). No condemnation came to them until they yielded to the tempter's snare. Joseph was tempted in Egypt (see Gen. 39). Although only seventeen years of age, he stood the test and came out of the conflict with a soul as pure as when he went in. Our Lord Himself was tempted in the wilderness, beside the fact of perpetual harassment from His subtle foe. But He never yielded, and for thirty-three years kept His soul free from sin (see Matt. 4:1-11; Heb. 7:26).
Rev. J. A. Wood: "No temptation or evil suggestion to the mind becomes sin till it is cherished or tolerated. Sin consists in yielding to temptation. So long as the soul maintains its integrity so that temptation finds no sympathy within, no sin is committed and the soul remains unharmed, no matter how protracted or severe the fiery trial may prove" (Perfect Love, p. 63).
Dr. G. Peck: "First, I suppose all will admit that when the temptation gains the concurrence of the will the subject contracts guilt. There can be no doubt here. Secondly, it is equally clear that when the temptation begets in the mind a desire for the forbidden object, the subject enters into temptation, and so sins against God. Thirdly, it is also clear that temptation cannot be invited or unnecessarily protracted without an indication of a sinful tendency toward the forbidden object, and consequently, such a course not only implies the absence of entire sanctification, but involves the subject in actual guilt" (Christian Perfection, p. 435).
Bishop Foster: "To this most difficult question we answer, sin begins whenever the temptation begins to find inward sympathy, if known to be a solicitation to sin. So long as it is promptly, and with the full and hearty concurrence of the soul, repelled, there is no indication of inward sympathy; there is no sin" (Christian Purity, p. 55).
Rev. Thomas Cook: "Some precious souls are in constant bondage because they have never been taught to discriminate between evil thoughts and thoughts about evil. They must discern between the things that differ. So long as we are in the world, and so long as we have five senses coming in contact with a world abounding with evil, Satan will be sure to use these as avenues of temptation. But no taint comes on the spirit from temptation which is at once and utterly rejected. It may and should be instantly repelled. Milton says: 'Evil Into the mind of God or man May come and go, so unapproved, and leave No spot or blame behind.'" It may seem difficult to some to ascertain whether certain states of mind are the result of temptation or the uprisings of evil in their own nature. But when suggestions of evil awaken no response and kindle no desire, when they cause a shudder and a recoil, when they are opposed to our usual inclinations and desires, and cause pain, we may safely conclude that they are from without and not from within, and no self-reproach need ensue.
"An evil thought springs from evil existing in the heart, but a thought about evil is a suggestion flashed upon the mind by what we see or hear, or by the law of association, or by the enemy of souls. Those who are holy have no evil within, consequently, no evil thoughts; but intruding thoughts and whispers of evil will often need to be resisted. These are an unchangeable condition of probation. Provided proper caution has been used to avoid occasions of temptation, 'no spot of blame' is left behind, any more than the shadow of a cloud passing over a beautiful lake disturbs or defiles it. It is not temptation, but the yielding to it, that is sinful, and there is a condition in which we may, with St. Paul, always triumph.
"Temptation is first presented to the intellect, flashed, it may be in a moment, the thoughts are appealed to -- this is the earliest stage of temptations. Thence it is transmitted to the sensibilities, in which region it operates upon the senses, appetites, passions, or emotions. There is a danger lest these be excited with a desire for gratification. A critical stage of temptation is now reached, but no guilt is necessarily contracted. In the case of those whose hearts are not entirely cleansed from sin, the temptation finds more or less inward sympathy, but there is no guilt incurred unless the evil suggestion is cherished, or tolerated. The will has yet to be challenged, and upon its decision depends entirely whether the tempter is to be successful or not. If the will says 'No' to the temptation, the tempter is foiled and defeated, and the soul comes off more than conqueror. ... Holiness makes none so secure that he cannot sin, but it gives him to possess all the elements of strength and stability. Though the warfare may be long and severe, yet, by abiding in Christ, victory may be constant and complete" (New Testament Holiness, pp. 17-19).
Samuel Rutherford: "The devil is but a whetstone to sharpen the faith and patience of the saints. I know that he but heweth and polisheth stones all the time for the New Jerusalem." The distinction between the two may be set forth in the following statements: Temptation comes unsolicited and undesired, while sin must have the consent of the will. Temptation comes with divine permission, but sin brings divine condemnation. Temptation may have definite beneficial results, but sin is always injurious. None can deliberately sin without being eternally the worse for it; the wound, though healed, leaves the warrior weaker for the experience. Every victorious conflict leaves a stronger soul. 'Each victory will help you some other to win.'"
We conclude with a quotation from Dr. R. T. Williams: "The sanctified person has a great advantage over the unsanctified in the matter of temptation. Not in the number of temptations, as it is possible that Satan will try harder to break down a sanctified life; and, too, the sanctified person is opposed and persecuted more by the people, even in some cases apparently good people, than the unsanctified person is. The advantage in favor of the sanctified is in the inner condition of the soul. The justified are on God's side, they are saved, and they hate sin, they are living for the next world. They are not of this world, but they are fighting the carnal mind. In conversion the carnal mind is conquered but not destroyed. There is therefore a struggle not only with outside influences but a fight to keep this inner enemy down and conquered. This fallen nature, this inbred sin, throws its weight of influence with any desire that would tend to lead one wrong. This sinful self is against God and the efforts of the justified man to obey God. The sanctified man does not have this alien enemy within him to take sides against him in the battle with temptation. His fight within is only with human nature. Instead of a carnal nature within him to aid the enemy without, he has the Holy Ghost enthroned within without a rival, having a pure heart filled with God. It is consequently easier for him to live the Christian life and be an overcomer. (A Neglected Theme, pp. 78, 79).
(3) The Presence of Infirmity and the Absence of Sin -- As with temptation, so it is with infirmity -- we must distinguish between this and sin. At this point there is much confusion. The trouble arose with Augustine, and following him, Calvin, and later the general Calvinistic schools of thought, all of whom so crudely confound the carnal nature within the believer with the essential human nature that they fail to distinguish between the things which vitally differ. The Confessions of St. Augustine will indicate this line of thought, especially in Book X. To Augustine, human nature is irrecoverably bad. Not even the Calvary work of the Son of God can liberate it from its corruption in this life. A bad dream is an indication of a bad heart. Pleasure in taking food is sinful, and even the love of music is wrong (see Confessions of St. Augustine, Bk. X).
This, of course, is extreme; but it is out of this teaching that the modern "must sin" theory has evolved, insisting that, constituted as we are since the Fall, sin is inevitable, but through our believing, though persistently sinning, "Calvary covers it all." Such teaching we cannot endorse. Until we have learned to distinguish between the infirmities of our humanity and the sins resulting from carnality, we have failed in our comprehension of one of the most vital distinctions in the spiritual life.
Rev. John Fletcher: "An infirmity is a breach of Adam's paradisical perfection, which our covenant God does no require of us now; and evangelically speaking, a sin for a Christian is a breach of Christ's evangelical law of Christian perfection; a perfection this, which God requires of all believers. An infirmity, considering it with the error which it occasions, is consistent with pure love to God and man; but a sin is inconsistent with that love; an infirmity is free from guile, and has its roots in our animal frame; but a sin is attended with guile, and has its roots in our moral frame, springing either from the habitual corruption of our heart, or from the momentary perversion of our tempers: an infirmity unavoidably results from our unhappy circumstances, and from the necessary infelicitous weakness of our present state; but a sin flows from the avoidable and perverse choice of our own will: an infirmity has its foundation in an involuntary want of light and power; and a sin is a willful abuse of the present light and power we have. The one arises from involuntary ignorance and weakness, and is always attended with a good meaning, a meaning unmixed with any bad design or wicked prejudice; but the other has its source in voluntary perverseness and presumption, and is always attended with a meaning altogether bad; poor at least, with a good meaning founded on wicked prejudices."
Rev. John Wesley: "Question: Do you affirm that this perfection excludes all infirmities, ignorance, and mistake? Answer: I continually affirm quite the contrary, and have always done so. Question: But how can every thought, word, and work be governed by pure love, and the man be subject at the same time to ignorance and mistake? Answer: I see no contradiction here. A man may be filled with pure love and still liable to mistake. Indeed I do not expect to be freed from actual mistake until this mortal puts on immortality. I believe this to be a natural consequence of the soul's dwelling in flesh and blood. For we cannot now think at all, but by the meditation of these bodily organs, which have suffered equally with the rest of our frame. And hence we cannot avoid thinking wrong, till this corruption shall have put on incorruption. We may carry this thought further yet. A mistake in judgment may possibly occasion a mistake in practice. For instance, Mr. DeRenty's mistake touching the nature of mortification, arising from prejudice of education, occasioned that practical mistake, his wearing an iron girdle. And a thousand such instances there may be, even in those who are in the highest state of grace. Yet where every word and action springs from love, such a mistake is not properly a sin; however, it cannot bear the rigor of God's justice, but needs the atoning blood.
"Question: But how can a liableness to mistake consist with perfect love? Is not a person who is perfected in love every moment under its influence? And can any mistake flow from pure love? Answer: I answer, 1. Mistakes may consist with pure love. 2. Some may accidentally flow from it. I mean love itself may incline us to mistake. The pure love of our neighbor springing from the love of God, 'thinketh no evil,' 'believeth and hopeth all things.' Now this very temper, unsuspicious, ready to believe and hope the best of all men, may occasion our thinking some men better than they really are. Here is a manifest mistake, accidentally flowing from pure love (Plain Account of Christian Perfection).
Rev. J. A. Wood: "Question: Does Christian perfection exclude the infirmities of human nature? Answer: It does not. Freedom from these is not to be expected in this world. We must wait for deliverance from these until this mortal puts on immortality. These infirmities, so numerous and various, are the common inheritance of humanity. They are not sins; they are innocent; and although they may be our misfortune, they are included in the 'all things' which, by the grace and blessing of God, shall work together for our good. Although Christian perfection does not admit of any outward or inward sin, properly so called, yet it does admit of strong convictions of numberless infirmities and imperfections, such as slowness of understanding, errors of judgment, mistakes in practice, erratic imaginations, a treacherous memory, etc. If it be claimed that these innocent infirmities need the blood of Atonement, praise the Lord, the blood of Jesus meets every demand.
"Question: Is it important to distinguish between inbred sin and the innocent infirmities of fallen human nature? Answer: It is; otherwise we may on the one hand blame and afflict ourselves needlessly; or, on the other, excuse ourselves from blame when we are really culpable. An intelligent, faithful Christian will wisely discriminate between them, and seek the extirpation of the one, and patiently endure the burdens of the other. Mr. Wesley says, let those who do call them sins beware how they confound these defects with sins, properly so called (Plain Account). Inbred sin is a carnal principle or root remaining in the unsanctified heart, sending up sprouts of bitterness which cling to the desires and appetites. It is the source of moral evils, such as envy, pride, stubbornness, malice, anger, jealousy, unbelief, fretfulness, impatience, revenge, covetousness everything opposed to the will of God. Human infirmities are various and numerous, such as mental aberrations, sophistical reasonings, treacherous memory, erratic imaginations, involuntary ignorance, and all those frailties and defects which may co-exist with the very best intentions. St. Paul recognizes this distinction; he writes to Timothy, 'Them that sin rebuke before all, that others may also fear,' and yet he writes to the Romans, 'We that are strong should bear with the infirmities of the weak.' Here are two plain commands; the first, not to bear with sins, and the second, to bear with infirmities. Many who reject the doctrine of Christian perfection confound infirmities and sins. Infirmities may entail regret and humiliation, but not guilt. Sin always produces guilt" (Perfect Love, pp. 65, 66).
Dr. Daniel Steele: Infirmities are failures to keep the law of perfect obedience given to Adam in Eden. This law no man on earth can keep, since sin has impaired the powers of universal humanity. Sins are offenses against the law of Christ, which is epitomized by John, 'And this is the commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another' (1 John 3:23). Infirmities are an involuntary outflow from our imperfect moral obligation. Sin is always voluntary. Infirmities have their ground in our physical nature, and they are aggravated by intellectual deficiencies. But sin roots itself in our moral nature, springing either from the habitual corruption of our hearts or from the unresisting perversion of our tempers. Infirmities entail regret and humiliation. Sin always produces guilt. Infirmities in well-instructed souls do not interrupt communion with God. Sin cuts the telegraphic communication with heaven. Infirmities, hidden from ourselves, are covered by the blood of Christ without a definite act of faith, in the case of the soul vitally united with Him. On the great Day of Atonement the errors of the individual Hebrew were put away through the blood of sprinkling, without offering a special victim for himself. 'But unto the second [tabernacle] went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people' (Heb. 9:7). Sins demand a special personal resort to the blood of sprinkling and an act of reliance on Christ. Infirmities are without remedy so long as we are in this body. Sins by the keeping power of Christ, are avoidable through every hour of our regenerate life. Both of these truths are in Jude's ascription, 'Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling [into sin, or as the Vulgate reads, sins peccato, without sin] and present you faultless [without infirmity, not here, but] in the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.' Jude understood the distinction between faults, or infirmities, and sins. In this scheme of Christian perfection, faults are to disappear in the life to come, but we are to be saved from sins now. A thousand infirmities are consistent with perfect love, but not one sin. Thus we see on undisputed authority we may be conscious of human weakness yet well pleasing to God" (Mile-Stone Papers, pp. 44-47).
(4) Purity and Maturity -- As we have already seen, entire sanctification is a work of purification (pages 48-59) , and this experience is by no means stagnant, but facilitates growth in grace (pages 69-73). Some, however, find it difficult to reconcile these two ideas, contending that a soul entirely delivered from sin would have reached the climax of spiritual experience and would be incapable of further development in this world. "Moreover," they argue, "the great Apostle Paul made no such profession. Indeed, he definitely declared, 'Not that I have already attained, either were already perfect, but I follow after." What a pity it is that so many are content to speak so glibly instead of pausing for a while to think seriously. Did Paul here say that he had not attained heart purity? Just what was it that Paul had "not already attained," and in what sense did he declare himself "neither already perfect?" Let the context be carefully read for the answer (Phil 3:7-15). The key to the problem lies in the fact that there is a distinct difference between purity and maturity; one is the heritage of faith, while the other is only the result of growth.
Rev. Thomas Cook: "There are various degrees of impurity, but, strictly speaking, there are no degrees of purity. According to Webster, the word 'pure' means 'entire separation from all heterogeneous and extraneous matter, clear, free from mixture; as pure water, pure air, pure silver or gold.' The word in the New Testament which is most frequently translated 'pure' occurs in some of its forms nearly seventy times. .. The idea is that that which is pure consists of one thing; it is uncompounded, without mixture or adulteration; it has all that belongs to it and nothing else. Gold that is free from alloy, unmixed with any baser metal, we call pure gold; milk that contains all that belongs to milk, and nothing else, is pure milk; honey that is without wax is pure honey. In like manner, a pure heart that contains nothing adverse to God. Where there is mixture there cannot be purity. By purity of heart we mean that which is undefiled, untainted, free from evil stains, without earthly alloy. . ..Purity is the removal of whatever God could not admit into His immediate presence, and fellowship with himself; in other words, the abolition of sin itself. By maturity we mean all this, and much more. The error of confusing purity of heart with maturity of Christian character lies at the base of nearly all the objections made to instantaneous and entire sanctification. Identifying and confounding these have occasioned most of the difficulties we find among Christians in reference to this doctrine. The Scriptures always discriminate between purity of heart and ripeness and fullness of Christian virtues. The one is the work wrought within us in a moment by the omnipotent power of the sanctifying Spirit, and the other a natural process involving culture and discipline. Purity has reference to kind or quality, but maturity has respect to degree or quantity ... Holiness is both a gift and a process, and as such is both instantaneous and gradual" (New Testament Holiness; pp. 39, 40).
Rev. J. A. Wood: "Identifying purity and maturity as the same makes serious confusion, and is the occasion of nearly all the objections made to instantaneous sanctification. Christian purity is a present privilege and duty, and differs from maturity, which is largely a subsequent attainment, subject to the laws of growth, involving time and a progressive religious life. Christian maturity is indefinite and comparative. There are 'babes,' 'young men' and 'men full age' in a state of entire sanctification. There is a difference in entire sanctification in its beginning, in its infancy, and in its maturity as an advanced, established and confirmed state of purity. One just fully sanctified, and the other so grown and developed as to be 'rooted and grounded in love.' Maturity is not, a condition of admittance into heaven, while purity is. The heart may be cleansed from all sin, while the Christian graces are immature, and the cleansing is a preparation for their rapid, unhindered and symmetrical growth. Maturity can be predicated only of age, time, culture, discipline and growth, in which, after the heart is fully cleansed, the process of enlightenment, enrichment, adornment, and endowment with love and power may be carried forward more easily than ever before, as the destruction and death of sin gives free scope to a life of righteousness" (Mistakes Respecting Christian Holiness, pp. 71-73).
"Is there a distinction between purity and maturity? There is, and a very important one. Identifying and confounding these lie at the base of nearly every objection made to an instantaneous sanctification; and has occasioned many strange notions, and much confusion upon this subject.
Purity has respect to moral cleansing or freedom from the defilement of sin. 'Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.' Health is not manhood. Maturity has respect to moral stature and strength -to adulthood. 'The fullness of the measure of the stature of Christ.' Purity, in the light of gospel provisions, is a present privilege and duty. 'Be ye holy.' Maturity is a question of time, and is subject to the laws of growth and development. 'Grow in grace.' Purity, being instantaneous, may be received at once. 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.' Maturity is a gradual, progressive and indefinite development. 'Take heed,' and 'add to your faith virtue,' etc. No Christian is cleansed into maturity, nor do any grow into purity. The Bible nowhere promises maturity as a work of God by faith, but purity it does. Even 'a babe in Christ may be cleansed from all inbred sin and become a pure Christian; but a 'babe in Christ' becomes 'a young man,' and 'a father,' by growth and development, and not by cleansing power. It must be seen that there is a difference between purity or entire sanctification, in infancy -- as just received -- and in maturity, as an advanced and confirmed state of purity, 'rooted and grounded in love.' There are 'babes' 'young men' and 'men of full age' in a state of entire sanctification. There are two classes of commands and figures in the Scriptures in regard to Christian character and duty. One contains commands and figures enjoining and illustrating growth in grace and maturity; the other class enjoins and illustrates Christian holiness or purity. Maturity is nowhere made a condition of entrance into heaven, while purity is. Millions of Christians die in immaturity and are saved: they have been made pure, which is the moral qualification for heaven" (Perfect Love, pp. 84, 85).
The distinction between purity and maturity may be set forth as follows: Purity is the entrance into Canaan-maturity is the possession of the land. Purity is received maturity is acquired. Purity is the work of a moment -- maturity is the harvest of years. Purity is always received by faith maturity is often reached through pain. Purity has to do with quality -- maturity has to do with quantity. Purity fits the soul for heaven -- maturity acquires material for reward. Purity brings fellowship -- maturity develops experience.