07 - Theory Versus Experience
Theory Versus Experience As we move further into these reflections on holiness we cannot avoid encountering a certain "strife of theories"; and our fear is lest to some readers (particularly younger believers) the precious subject should seem too tangled for further pursuance. We would gladly have over-leapt the next three chapters, except that they really are necessary if,’we are to guard as well as guide. Furthermore, in many an instance, one of the surest ways of showing how right the truth is, is to show how wrong error is.
J.S.B. could anything be more wonderful than the New Testament message of a present heart-holiness provided in Christ for His redeemed people? To all who read these pages we say: Seek this heart-holiness above all else. The more out of keeping it seems with the flimsy moral standards of the day and the poor spiritual average in the churches, the more needful is it. Enquire carefully what the New Testament actually teaches about it. Then wait on God for it until you have the inward witness that the reality is yours. So will you find the "joy unspeakable", and become indeed a channel of divine grace to others.
Never was that advice more eagerly given; but, alas, no sooner do we give it than we encounter a problem. There are sharply contradictory views as to how this inward sanctification is effected, and as to what extent it deals with indwelling sin. Because of this, in its doctrinal aspects, holiness has been made to look like "a house divided against itself". In fact, rival theories and seemingly irreconcilable cleavages of interpretation have gradually inflicted such seeming complexity on the subject that thousands of holiness-hungry heartshave turned away discouraged.
Yet what the Bible teaches on personal holiness is not only vital, it is simple. As in other connections, so here, it is human theory, not divine truth, which is complicated. Is anything simpler than the Lord’s Supper, as enjoined in the Scriptures? Yet see how ecclesiastical systems have complicated that! Dear reader, read on: if this and the next two chapters seem controversial it is only because we are hacking through theories which obfuscate the truth. Remember, often the truth itself is clearer and dearer to us when we have to cut our way to it through entanglements of human theory. Of holiness theories there are especially two which have long held sway; and still today, wherever the holiness emphasis remains, either one or the other is preached as the true "way of holiness"—not perhaps with the same dogmatism as formerly, yet just as decidedly. I am convinced that both theories are wrong. Both of them have brought wonderful promise of deliverance from indwelling sin, and both have brought thousands into later bondage. If we are again to see a revival of Christian believers rejoicing in the authentic experience of inward sanctification, the New Testament message (so I believe) must be rescued from these two impressive but subversive theories.
One of them is known as the "eradication theory"; the other as the "counteraction theory". Maybe many younger Christians today are unfamiliar with those expressions. None the less, all need to know what is represented by them, so as to be guarded from error and guided to the real truth. This is the more needful because both these theories are associated with honoured Christian leaders and movements. Therefore, reluctant though we are to interrupt the direct line of our present studies, we must turn aside awhile to counter these attractive errors. The Eradication Theory
Take the first of them; that which we call the eradication theory. Ever since the venerable John Wesley formulated it, this doctrine has been widely promulgated all over the Christian world, and still is. The teaching is, that in "entire sanctification", which comes by way of the "second blessing", there is complete eradication of "inbred sin", of the sinful "old man" or "old nature" or "the flesh", or the "carnal nature" which still lingers in the believer after conversion. The teaching is based on texts such as Romans 6:6, which, in our Authorized Version reads, "Our old man is crucified with Him [Christ] that the body of sin might be destroyed." Here are representative quotations from John Wesley.
"Inward sin is then totally destroyed; the root of pride, self-will, anger, love of the world, is then taken out of the heart. . . . The carnal mind, and the heart bent to backsliding, are entirely extirpated."
(Sermons, vol. i, p. 124.)
’I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me’—words that manifestly describe a deliverance from inward as well as outward sin ... ’I live not’ (my evil nature, the body of sin, is destroyed)."
(Sermons, vol. 2, p. 19.)
"The body of sin, the carnal mind, must be destroyed’, the old man must be slain, or we cannot put on the new man, which is created . . . in righteousness and true holiness."
Journal of Hester Ann Rogers. The same eradication doctrine floats to us in unhesitating overtones from the famous Methodist Hymnbook of 1780. For instance:
Enter my soul, extirpate sin, Cast out the cursed seed.
Speak the second time: Be clean!
Take away my inbred sin. Did Wesley and the hymnbook really mean "eradication"?—or was it poetic hyperbole? There can be no doubt that real eradication was meant, for it effected (supposedly) a complete "extinction" of innate sin. Alluding to Romans 6:6, Wesley wrote, "I use the word ’destroyed’ because St. Paul does. ’Suspended’ I cannot find in my Bible." (Letters 4:203.) Tyerman, in his Life of John Wesley, says that at the first Methodist Conference, in 1744, Christian perfection was thus defined:
"A renewal in the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness. To be a perfect Christian is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, implying the destruction of all inward sin; and faith is the condition and instrument by which such a state of grace is obtained" (italics ours).
Representative Others So has it been from then until now: the eradicationists have not only taught it, but have triumphantly gloried in it as a "going the whole way with the word of God". Here are a few representative quotations from influential teachers.
"In regeneration sin does not reign; in sanctification it does not exist. In regeneration sin is suspended; in sanctification it is destroyed. In regeneration irregular desires are subdued; in sanctification they are removed."
W. Macdonald, Perfect Love.
"Justification saves from sinning, but not from the tendency to sin, improperly called sin because it lacks the voluntary element essential to guilt. But in those proclivities to sin, though repressed, there is peril and cause of inward strife, the flesh warring against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. When this war ends by the extinction and annihilation of the flesh as the lurking-place of the sin-principle, there is deliverance from sin, also, as well as from sinning."
Daniel Steele, Love Enthroned.
"Entire sanctification is an act of God’s grace by which inbred sin is removed and the heart made holy. Inbred sin or inherited depravity is the inward cause of which our outward sins are the effects. ... It exists in every human being that comes into the world, as a bias or proclivity to evil. It is called, in the New Testament, ’the flesh,’ the ’body of sin,’ our ’old man,’ ’sin that dwelleth in me,’ and the simple term ’sin’ in the singular number." "Now all Christian denominations are agreed as to the real existence of this inbred sin and also as to the fact that it is not removed at conversion. . . . But God has in every age required His children to be holy. And to be holy signifies the destruction or removal of inbred sin, nothing more and nothing less and nothing else than that."
Dougan Clark, Theology of Holiness, pp. 27-29.
Present-day Voices
It may be asked, however, if the eradication of inbred sin is taught by responsible thinkers and teachers today. Yes, it is, and by excellent brethren too. One of the most respected evangelical Bible teachers in U.S.A., and a much valued friend of mine, published a writing shortly before his heavenly home-going, and said:
"In the purpose of God, at Calvary, every Christian died when Christ died. ’We who died to sin’ is our description (Romans 6:2) because of this fact. ’Knowing that our old man’—our natural self, ’was crucified with Christ’ (Romans 6:6). ... So we are to reckon ourselves ’dead unto sin’ (Romans 6:11).
"Now for the practical value of this for daily living. Instead of leaving me to struggle with my sinful nature and its promptings, Christ took that nature with Him to be crucified, ’that the body of sin might be done away’—made inoperative, put out of business—’that so we , should no longer be in bondage to sin’ (Romans 6:6, E.R.V.). Thus Christ made it unnecessary and unreasonable for me to sin.
"Knowing that the self in me which gets angry died with Christ, was put out of business, I am free not to get angry; and I never do. I used to be subject to the movings of envy and jealousy; but no longer, since I count myself dead to all such. I used to worry, but the ’I’ that worries, Christ included in His death. I used to be impatient, but the self in me which would get impatient, died with Christ, and I am free."
I recently read a useful holiness study by a contemporary author who is a gracious and gifted speaker at Conferences on the deeper spiritual life. I leave him anonymous simply out of personal esteem. He says,
"Some declare that sin must remain in the heart of the believer until death, but in Romans 6:6, we read that our corrupt, sinful nature can be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Three times in that chapter we are told that we are made ’free from sin’. Note that the word is ’sin’ and not ’sins’. It therefore refers to our sinful nature which can be put off (Ephesians 4:22), and cleansed away (1 John 1:7). We must hold to this clear teaching of God’s Word, though we will not argue with those who differ in their interpretation of it.... The cleansing of the heart from sin does not free us from errors, faults and mistakes. Nor must we confuse self with sin, or the natural man with the carnal man. We shall never be free in this life from our natural instincts. They need to be crucified every day (Galatians 2:20). It may be that some who claim that sin must remain in our hearts until death are confusing sin with our natural desires and instincts, or are regarding temptation as sin."
Recently the Manual of a well-known evangelical denomination gave the viewpoint of that body thus:
"We believe that original sin, or depravity, is that corruption of the nature of all the offspring of Adam by reason of which everyone is very far gone from original righteousness or the pure/state of our first parents at the tune of their creation, is averse to G6d, is without spiritual life, and is inclined to evil, and that continually. We further believe that original sin continues to exist with the new life of the regenerate, until eradication by the baptism with the Holy Spirit." (Italics ours.) The Big Contradiction Is the eradication theory right or wrong? We purpose a little later, to examine it exegetically (the written Word always being our decisive court of appeal). But before one word of exegetical criticism of it is submitted let me pay tribute to the many loyal servants of our Lord who have preached it. Some of the most illustrious names in the Church’s history of the last two hundred years are associated with it, from that saintly giant, John Wesley, onwards. Let all those dear brethren in the Christian ministry who still teach it be assured that my frank animadversions on the theory are expressed with cordial Christian love to them, among whom I cherish valued friends, and could wish I were half as devout as they. So, if they chance on these pages, let me ask their brotherly scrutiny. If what I submit can be refuted I will welcome correction. In this present chapter I touch on eradication only in relation to the hard facts of experience, and I do so by quoted testimony from one whom all of us have admired.
Dr. H. A. Ironside, in his trenchant little work, Holiness; the False and the True, paints a sorry picture of his own inner torture, and that of other Christian workers, brought up during earlier years in the eradication doctrine. If ever a young man sincerely handed himself over to Christ, and reverently "claimed the blessing", and intensively persevered to experience the eradication of inbred sin, he did. Yet at last, exhausted after years of painful trial and re-trial he knew that any further pretence was sheer hypocrisy: and at the same time he discovered that others around him who professed "the blessing" were similarly heart-sick with secret agony of disillusionment.
After his conversion in early youth, he linked up with the Salvation Army, which at that time, to quote his own words, was at "the zenith of its energy as an organization devoted to going out after the lost". Young Harry soon enjoyed the Army "Holiness Meetings". Substantially, the teaching. Was this: "When converted, God graciously forgives all sins pommitted up to the time when one repents. But the believer is then placed in a lifelong probation, during which he may at any time forfeit his justification and peace with God if he falls into sin from which he does not at once repent. In order, therefore, to maintain himself in a saved condition, he needs a further work of grace called sanctifi-cation. This work has to do with sin the root, as justification had to do with sin the fruit. The steps leading up to this second blessing are, firstly, conviction as to the need of holiness (just as in the beginning there was conviction of the need of salvation); secondly, a full surrender to God, or the laying of every hope, prospect and possession on the altar of consecration; thirdly, to claim in faith the incoming of the Holy Spirit as a refining fire to burn out all inbred sin, thus destroying in toto every lust and passion, leaving the soul perfect in love and pure as unfalien Adam."
Dr. Ironside tells how he continually sought the blessing, until: "At last, one Saturday night ... I determined to go out into the country and wait on God, not returning till I had received the blessing of perfect love. I took a train at eleven o’clock, and went to a lonely station twelve miles from Los Angeles. There I alighted, and, leaving the highway, descended into an empty arrayo, or water-course. Falling on my knees beneath a sycamore tree, I prayed in an agony for hours, beseeching God to show me anything that hindered my reception of the blessing. Various matters of too private and sacred a nature to be here related came to my mind. I struggled against conviction, but finally ended by crying, ’Lord, I give up all—everything, every person, every enjoyment, that would hinder my living alone for Thee. Now give me, I pray Thee, the blessing.’
"As I look back, I believe I was fully surrendered to the will of God at that moment, so far as I understood it. But my brain and nerves were unstrung by the long midnight vigil and the intense anxiety of previous months, and I fell almost fainting to the ground." Then a holy ecstasy seemed to thrill all my being. This I thought was the coming into my heart of the Comforter. I cried out in confidence, ’Lord, I believe Thou dost come in. Thou dost cleanse and purify me from all sin. I claim it now. The work is done. I am sanctified by Thy blood. Thou dost make me holy. I believe! I believe!’ I was unspeakably happy. I felt that all my struggles were ended.
"With a heart filled with praise, I rose from the ground and began to sing aloud. Consulting my watch, I saw it was about half-past three in the morning. I felt I must hasten to town so as to be in time for the seven o’clock prayer-meeting, there to testify to my experience." From then onwards, young Ironside was an earnest testimonial and advocate of the doctrine. The wilderness was past; he was in Canaan; he was "entirely sanctified"; inward sin-bias was now "destroyed"; or so he thought. But as time went on, evil desires began to reassert themselves. He was nonplussed. However, a leading teacher assured him that these were only "temptations", not actual sin: so that pacified him for a time. Later he became a cadet, then a lieutenant, then a captain, in the Salvation Army. During those years there were tormenting relapses, all-nights of prayer, renewed struggles after self-crucifixion, with inescapable evidence that the supposed eradication of his "sinful nature" was a delusive sophism. He writes: "And now I began to see what a string of derelicts this holiness teaching left in its train. I could count scores of persons who had gone into utter infidelity because of it. They always gave the same reason: ’I tried it all. I found it a failure. So I concluded the Bible teaching was all a delusion, and religion was a mere matter of the emotions.’ Many more (and I knew several such intimately) lapsed into insanity after floundering in the morass of this emotional religion for years—and people said that studying the Bible had driven them crazy. How little they knew that it was lack of Bible knowledge that was accountable for their wretched mental state —an absolutely unscriptural use of isolated passages of Scripture!
"At last I became so troubled I could not go on with my work. . .. Finally, I could bear it no longer, so I asked to be relieved from all active service, and at my own request was sent to the Beulah Home of Rest, near Oakland. . . . In the Rest Home I found about fourteen officers, broken in health, seeking recuperation. I watched the ways and conversation of all most carefully, intending to confide in those who gave the best evidence of entire sanctirica-tion. There were some choice souls among them, and some arrant hypocrites. But holiness in the absolute sense I saw in none. Some were very godly and devoted. Their conscientiousness I could not doubt. But those who talked the loudest were plainly the least spiritual. They seldom read their Bibles, they rarely conversed together of Christ. An air of carelessness pervaded the whole place. Three sisters, most devoted women, were apparently more godly than any others; but two of them admitted to me that they were not sure about being perfectly holy. The other was non-committal though seeking to help me. Some were positively quarrelsome and boorish, and this I could not reconcile with their profession of freedom from inbred sin. ... At last I found myself becoming cold and cynical."
Dr. Ironside tells how he struggled free at last from this specious perfectionism which had so flogged and foiled him. Then he adds: "Since turning aside from the perfectionist societies, I have often been asked if I find as high a standard maintained among Christians generally who do not profess to have the ’second blessing’ as I have seen among those who do. My answer is, that after carefully, and I trust without prejudice, considering both, I have found a far higher standard maintained by believers who intelligently reject the eradication theory than among those who accept it. Quiet, unassuming Christians, who know their Bibles and their own hearts too well to permit their lips to talk of sinlessness and perfection in the flesh, nevertheless are characterized by intense devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ, love for the Word of God, and holiness of life and walk."
Dr. Ironside later became one of the best-known evangelical leaders of our time; a powerful preacher and a judicious Bible expositor. We have given our quotations from him for three reasons: (1) In those early years, not only was he open-minded to the eradication theory, he was fervently disposed in its favour. (2) He not only sought and claimed "the blessing" with intense sincerity, but persevered protractedly, "hoping against hope" that it might yet prove real. (3) His eventual verdict is one of honest conscience, from first-hand evidence, not from prejudice. My own testimony is, that what he found, in himself and others, I too have found, in basically similar experience, and also through interchange with trustworthy Christian brethren who at first gloried in the teaching, then later found themselves mocked by it.
We respect the sincere desire of eradicationist teachers to "go all the way" with the wording of Romans 6:1-23, but (even if their interpretation of the wording in verse 6 were permissible) the theory is disproved by experience. I have yet to meet even an eradicationist who would seriously maintain that his or her supposedly once-for-all eradication-surgery had left an utter absence of all thoughts or desires less than the absolutely holy. The only way that our eradicationist brethren can make their experience even approximately measure up to their theory is by insisting (as some indeed do) on an easier doctrine of sin. Only is there sin (so they aver) where there is voluntary activity of the will. Yet even if we concede that such is true of sinful acts (i.e. transgression in thought, word, deed), what about those subtle stirrings, desires, inclinations, outside the domain of the will, and deeper than immediate consciousness itself, which with deadly repetition originate sin? The eradication theory, in loyalty to the wording of passages like Romans 6:1-23, teaches that all such proclivities are extirpated: but can we find such absolute and continuing extinction awywhere, even in saintliest experience?
Long before Harry Ironside floundered in his quagmire of eradicationist problems, John Wesley found his feet in similar bogs. Writing to Miss Jane Hilton in 1769, he lamented, "Although many taste of that heavenly gift, deliverance from inbred sin, yet so few, so exceeding few, retain it one year; hardly one in ten; nay, one in thirty." Similar regrets are jotted intermittently up and down his Journal. Again, in his Sermons (vol. 2, p. 247) he sadly observes, concerning certain persons who were once sanctified (in the eradicationist sense), "Nevertheless, we have seen some of the strongest of them, after a time, moved from their steadfastness. Sometimes suddenly, but oftener by slow degrees, they have yielded to temptation; and pride or anger, or foolish desires, have again sprung up in their hearts. Nay, sometimes they have utterly lost the life of God, and sin hath regained dominion over them."
All such instances of lapse pose a problem—a problem which, in the aggregate, becomes one of deadly acuteness for the eradication theory. It is this: if, in the entirely sanctified, the "old nature" has become extinct (as the eradicationists claim) and the new nature (as they say) cannot sin, being a direct divine impartation, then when entirely sanctified persons lapse into sin, which part is it which sins? It cannot be the "old nature", for that is gone; yet it cannot be the "new" for that is the inbreathed life of the Holy Spirit. Which other territory is there within the human personality? Is it altogether to be wondered at, that a perplexed John Wesley, in a letter to his brother Charles (see Works, vol. 12, pp. 135, 136) once wrote, "I am at my wit’s end with regard to ... Christian perfection." "Shall we go on asserting perfection against all the world? Or shall we quietly let it drop?"
What, then, of the words, "crucified" and "destroyed", in Romans 6:6? It will be our endeavour, a few pages hence, to prove that the eradicationist theory radically misinterprets not only that verse but the whole context in which it occurs. Meanwhile, according to our light, we counsel all those pilgrims who are enquiring after "the way of holiness" not to follow the eradicationist signpost. In saying this we do not forget esteem for those brethren who with highest motive have preached it as truly Scriptural. The eradication theory is one of those well-meant but misleading formulations that have made holiness seem strange and complicated to many. When once we free our minds from such misunderstandings, and get to the unencumbered teaching of the Word, we shall see how radiantly positive and simple the New Testament doctrine of holiness is. But if some still cling to the eradication theory we shall charitably defend their right to differ, and still "esteem them very highly, in love, for their work’s sake" (1 Thessalonians 5:13).