Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

justification, the degree of sanctification is commensurate with the strength of the
Christian’s faith and the persistence with which he apprehends Christ.
H. THE IMPERFECT CHARACTER OF SANCTIFICATION IN THIS
LIFE.
1. SANCTIFICATION IMPERFECT IN DEGREE. When we speak of sanctification as being
imperfect in this life, we do not mean to say that it is imperfect in parts, as if only a part
of the holy man that originates in regeneration were affected. It is the whole, but yet
undeveloped new man, that must grow into full stature. A new-born child is, barring
exceptions, perfect in parts, but not vet in the degree of development for which it is
intended. Just so the new man is perfect in parts, but remains in the present life
imperfect in the degree of spiritual development. Believers must contend with sin as
long as they live, I Kings 8:46; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20; Jas. 3:2; I John 1:8.
2. DENIAL OF THIS IMPERFECTION BY THE PERFECTIONISTS.
a. The doctrine of perfectionism. Speaking generally, this doctrine is to the effect that
religious perfection is attainable in the present life. It is taught in various forms by
Pelagians, Roman Catholics or Semi-Pelagians, Arminians, Wesleyans, such mystical
sects as the Labadists, the Quietists, the Quakers, and others, some of the Oberlin
theologians, such as Mahan and Finney, and Ritschl. These all agree in maintaining that
it is possible for believers in this life to attain to a state in which they comply with the
requirements of the law under which they now live, or under that law as it was adjusted to
their present ability and needs, and, consequently, to be free from sin. They differ,
however: (1) In their view of sin, the Pelagians, in distinction from all the rest, denying
the inherent corruption of man. They all agree, however, in externalizing sin. (2) In their
conception of the law which believers are now obliged to fulfill, the Arminians,
including the Wesleyans, differing from all the rest in holding that this is not the
original moral law, but the gospel requirements or the new law of faith and evangelical
obedience. The Roman Catholics and the Oberlin theologians maintain that it is the
original law, but admit that the demands of this law are adjusted to man’s deteriorated
powers and to his present ability. And Ritschl discards the whole idea that man is
subject to an externally imposed law. He defends the autonomy of moral conduct, and
holds that we are under no law but such as is evolved out of our own moral disposition
in the course of activities for the fulfilment of our vocation. (3) In their idea of the
sinner’s dependence on the renewing grace of God for the ability to fulfill the law. All,
598