Charles Finney emphasizes the gravity of sin in relation to the light and knowledge one possesses, arguing that the guilt of sin is measured by the degree of understanding of God's will and the value of the good that is rejected. He explains that moral obligation requires not only the intention but also the awareness of the consequences of one's choices, asserting that greater knowledge leads to greater guilt. Finney warns that those who have received the light of the gospel and yet remain impenitent bear a guilt far exceeding that of those in ignorance, as they knowingly reject the truth. He calls for a deep reflection on the implications of our moral choices and the urgent need for repentance in light of the knowledge we have received.

Charles Finney addresses the complexities of moral obligation in relation to ignorance and natural ability, challenging the notion that the law of God requires more from individuals than they are capable of fulfilling given their circumstances. He argues that ignorance, often a result of moral failure, constitutes a natural inability to obey God's commands, and that the law's demands are aligned with one's current capacity. Finney emphasizes that true sanctification can only occur as ignorance is dispelled through the truth and the Spirit of God, and he critiques the inconsistency of those who claim that God requires perfect obedience while denying the impact of human depravity on moral agency. He calls for a deeper understanding of the relationship between knowledge, moral obligation, and the law of God, urging his brethren to reconsider their positions on these critical theological issues.

Charles Finney emphasizes that the measure of guilt in sin is determined by the degree of knowledge and light one possesses regarding moral obligation. He explains that moral obligation is rooted in the intention of the mind and the understanding of the value of the good to be chosen. Finney argues that guilt cannot be assessed by the nature of the sin or the authority of God alone, but rather by the awareness of the moral law and the rejection of the highest good, which is the well-being of God and the universe. He warns that those with greater knowledge of their duty incur greater guilt, making the impenitent sinner in a Christian context more culpable than those in ignorance. The sermon calls for self-examination and repentance, highlighting the grave consequences of ignoring the light one has received.

Charles Finney addresses the complexities surrounding the doctrine of entire sanctification, emphasizing that misunderstandings often stem from fundamental philosophical questions rather than biblical clarity. He outlines key positions that need exploration, including the nature of moral obligation, the essence of holiness, and the attainability of entire sanctification in this life. Finney argues that moral obligation is intrinsically linked to natural ability and knowledge, and he critiques opposing views that deny this connection. He aims to present a non-controversial examination of the subject to foster understanding within the Church. Ultimately, he asserts that entire sanctification is both a duty and a privilege for all believers.

Charles Finney emphasizes that God is morally obligated to do right, as He embodies disinterested benevolence, which is the highest good for all beings. He explains that God's nature requires Him to establish moral governance and act in accordance with the law of benevolence, which is essential for His moral character. Finney argues that all moral beings must be willing for God to do right, as this willingness is crucial for salvation and true virtue. He asserts that any reluctance to accept God's actions as right reflects a rebellion against His moral authority. Ultimately, Finney reassures that the Judge of all the earth will always do right, providing comfort and hope to believers.