076. CHAPTER 35 - ADOPTION - WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT.
CHAPTER 35 - ADOPTION - WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT.
ONE of the great benefits of redemption, concomitant with justification, is adoption, We consider - I. THE NATURE OF ADOPTION.
Adoption may be defined, “that act of God’s free grace by which, upon our being justified by faith in Christ, we are received into the family of God and entitled to the inheritance of heaven.”
1. Adoption grows out of the fall of man, and his consequent alienation from God. That state from which adoption is a deliverance, is thus described by the apostle: “Ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” Ephesians 2:12. Again: “And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.” Colossians 1:21. Into the condition thus described all men have been brought by sin; but from this state adoption is a deliverance.
2. Adoption implies deliverance from all servile fear. “Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear.”Romans 8:15.
3. It implies filial confidence in God, as our Father. God now graciously receives us as his revolted but returning children, according to the promise of his word: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” 2 Corinthians 6:17-18.
4. Adoption follows immediately upon justification. The Spirit of adoption is “sent forth,” and that “into our hearts,” the very moment we are pardoned and born of God. Justification, regeneration, and adoption, though distinct from each other in nature, are always simultaneous in occurrence. Justification removes our guilt, which is a barrier in the way of our admission into God’s family; regeneration changes our hearts, imparting a fitness for admission into that family; and adoption actually receives us therein, recognizing us as God’s children redeemed by Christ, washed and sanctified by his blood and Spirit, and admitted into covenant relation with God as our Father.
5. This state entitles us to all the immunities of God’s Church on earth; to the comforting influence of his Holy Spirit; to the guidance of his counsel; and to the protection of his grace; and seals us heirs of the eternal inheritance of the saints in glory. How exalted the relation thus conferred! How precious the privileges and consolations it imparts! How enrapturing the hope it inspires! Well might St. John exclaim: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:2.
II.We now considerTHE EVIDENCE OF ADOPTION.
This, according to the teachings of the New Testament, is to be found in the direct witness of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the Christian. The doctrine here stated, while it has ever furnished a theme for sport and ridicule to the infidel world, has been denied by many professing the Christian name, and explained away by others. Yet we think that the following passages will clearly evince that it is taught in Scripture: -
Romans 8:15-16 : “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” Galatians 4:4-6 : “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons; and because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” 1 John 5:10 : “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself.” That the above passages teach that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the adoption of the Christian, is undeniable. But, we inquire, in what sense is that witness to be understood?
1. Some have contended that it is only the privilege of a “favored few” to know that their sins are forgiven; and that, consequently, the witness in question can be possessed by none others. To this it is a sufficient reply to say, that such view of the subject is perfectly arbitrary. The Scriptures make no such distinction, but speak of this blessing as being alike attainable by all who seek it. It is in reference to all who have been delivered from “the spirit of bondage to fear,” and who have “received the Spirit of adoption,” that the apostle declares that they are permitted to “cry, Abba, Father;” and have “the Spirit itself” to “bear witness with their spirit, that they are the children of God,” Again, in reference to the Galatians, God is said to have “sent forth the Spirit of his Son into their hearts,” not because they are a class of Christians favored above others, but “because they are sons” - that is, because they are Christians in the proper sense of the term. And in John, “he that believeth on the Son of God” (not a favored part of such) is said to have “the witness in himself.” Hence it appears that, to restrict this privilege to a favored few of the people of God, is to treat with great disrespect the plain language of Holy Writ.
2. Others, who have admitted this witness to be the common privilege of believers, have confounded the witness of the Spirit of God with the witness of our own spirit; and so allowed but one witness, while the apostle plainly teaches two. “His Spirit beareth witness” - not to, but “with our spirit.” The “Spirit of God” is one witness, and our own spirit is another. We shall endeavor to show, in the farther examination of this subject, that the witness of the Spirit of God is not only distinct from that of our own spirit, but that it is direct.
3. That we may come to a full understanding of this subject, we may now remark, that our justification or acceptance with God either can be known by us, or it cannot. To suppose that it cannot, would leave us in a state of remediless doubt and distress, little better than despair itself. Such a position would deprive the Christian of all solid comfort in this life, and be alike contrary to the views of all orthodox divines, and to the word of God itself. If, then, as we are bound to conclude, there is a method by which the Christian may, in this life, gain a knowledge of his acceptance with God we inquire, how is that knowledge obtained?
4. Justification, or pardon, is acknowledged to be an act of the Divine Mind, by which we are acquitted from the sentence of guilt, and admitted into the Divine favor. If so, it necessarily follows that none but God can know that this act has certainly been performed, unless God see proper in some way to give evidence of the fact. No witness can possibly testify beyond the extent of his own knowledge; hence it is clear that, as none but God can certainly know, except by testimony, that we are justified, so none but he can bear original testimony to the fact. Now, we think it will appear, upon a careful examination, that the indirect testimony of the Spirit amounts substantially to the same as the testimony of our own spirit, and, as such, must be inadequate to the purpose in hand.
5. By the witness of our own spirit is generally understood our consciousness of possessing those characteristics described in Scripture as constituting the Christian. This testimony of our own spirit, we do not possess by intuition, but it is derived through a process of reasoning, Thus the Bible describes certain moral qualities of the soul, and moral habits of life, as belonging peculiarly to the children of God. By the exercise of our own consciousness, and a contemplation of our own lives, we may form an opinion concerning our character; then, by the exercise of our reasoning faculty, we may compare our character with the character described in Scripture as pertaining to the child of God, and rationally draw the conclusion that we sustain that relation. This is the only plan by which our own spirit can witness to the fact. Now, to say that this is also the sense in which we are to understand that the Spirit of God witnesses to our adoption, we think, is an erroneous view of the subject, as appears from the following considerations:
(1) This is evidently, as already stated, to confound the two witnesses - to make the witness of our own spirit and that of the Spirit of God essentially the same, and really but one witness; whereas the Scriptures plainly teach that there are two witnesses - “the Spirit of God,” in the heart of the Christian, “crying, Abba, Father,” and “his own spirit,” uniting in testimony to the same fact.
(2) The above view of the subject appears evidently to exhibit the witness of the Spirit in a sense entirely inadequate to the purpose for which, according to the Scriptures, it is designed. The witness of the Spirit is designed to give us an assurance of our adoption, so satisfactory as to amount to real knowledge. Now, as the forgiveness of sin, or adoption into the family of God, is an act of God, it follows that God must be the prime witness of the fact; but to suppose that this witness is only given in the indirect sense, as described, is in effect to discard the witness altogether, so far as the simple question of adoption is concerned. For, if the description of the Christian character given in Scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is all the agency of the Spirit allowed in the witness in question, then it follows that this witness does not testify at all to the adoption of any individual. The Scriptures only testify to the general truth that all who possess a certain moral character are the children of God; but with regard to the question whether this or that individual possesses that character or not, they are silent. As to the simple fact of my adoption, according to the above theory, it is not learned from the testimony of the Spirit, but must be a matter of inference, derived through a process of reasoning.
Hence, unless we presuppose the infallibility of our reasoning powers, we may have erred in this intellectual process; we may have formed an improper view of our own moral character; we may have misunderstood the Scriptures in reference to the moral character peculiar to the children of God; or we may have blundered in the comparison of ourselves with the Scripture requirement, and in the conclusion, drawn from such comparison, that we are the children of God. In all, or any of these particulars, we may have erred; and if so, it follows that the conclusion arising from this process of ratiocination cannot amount to certain knowledge, but can, at best, be but probable conjecture. Therefore it is clear that, as it is the privilege of the Christian to know that he belongs to the family of God, it must be possible for him to have an evidence of the fact superior to the indirect testimony now in question.
(3) Again: this indirect witness, from its very nature, cannot be possessed by the Christian at the time he first becomes a child of God; for, as it results from a consciousness of having the “fruits of the Spirit,” or of bringing forth those good works which flow from a living faith, time must be allowed for those fruits to grow, and opportunity afforded for those good works to be performed, before they can have an existence; and to suppose that we have so clear and definite a knowledge of their existence as thereby to infer our sonship, previous to their actual existence, is absurd. But all who “are sons,” are said to “have the Spirit of God’s Son in their hearts, crying, Abba, Father;” hence, this witness must be something more direct and immediate than can result from the inferential reasoning above described.
(4) Again: these “fruits of the Spirit,” from which we are supposed to infer our adoption, from their very nature cannot precede the knowledge of our acceptance, but must flow from that knowledge. The most important of these fruits are “love, joy, and peace:” now, these graces and fruits of the Spirit, in the sense in which they are understood, cannot be exercised, except by such as have a knowledge of their acceptance with the Lord.
“We love him,” saith St. John, “because he first loved us.” But how could his love to us influence our love to him while we have no evidence of that fact? And how can we have an evidence of his love to us while we are “aliens,” and enemies by wicked works? To “love God,” in the filial sense of the text, is impossible to any but a child of God. Hence an individual must be a child of God before he can yield this fruit of the Spirit; and if, as St. Paul says, all who “are sons” have “the Spirit of adoption sent forth into their hearts, crying, Abba, Father,” they must have this Spirit to witness to their adoption before they can bring forth the fruits of the Spirit; consequently they cannot derive this witness from a consciousness of those fruits. The same may be said of “peace and joy.” We do not gain a knowledge of our acceptance from a consciousness of peace and joy; but, on the contrary, this peace and joy result from a knowledge of our acceptance. “Therefore, being justified by faith,” saith St. Paul, “we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This peace evidently results from justification; and if so, that justification must be a subject of knowledge. A condemned criminal does not rejoice because a pardon has been granted, until he gains a knowledge of the fact. So it appears that as peace and joy are the “fruits of the Spirit,” and as these do not precede, but follow, a knowledge of our acceptance, so the witness by which we gain this knowledge must precede the peace and joy resulting therefrom.
6. By some it has been alleged “that this witness of the Spirit does not result from a consciousness of the fruits of the Spirit in general, but from a consciousness of possessing saving faith.” This scheme labors under several very serious difficulties.
(1) The Scriptures give no intimation that we gain a knowledge of our acceptance from a consciousness that we possess faith; but everywhere this knowledge is attributed to the conjoint testimony of the Spirit of God with that of our own spirit.
(2) If we gain a knowledge of our acceptance with God from a consciousness that we possess faith, by that faith must be implied either faith in any conceivable degree, or faith in a certain definite degree. To suppose the former, would be to adopt the unscriptural and absurd hypothesis that every degree of faith is really justifying. To suppose the latter, would be to maintain that God has annexed the promise of pardon to faith in a certain limited and definite extent, which is contrary to fact. There is, perhaps, no problem in Christian character more difficult to solve than the precise amount or degree of faith which we possess at any given time. Before we can found our knowledge of acceptance on our consciousness of possessing faith, we must not only know that there is a certain degree of faith to which God has annexed the promise of pardon, and what that degree of faith is, but we must also certainly know that we possess that definite degree of faith; both of which are impossible.
(3) Again, were it true that God had annexed the promise of pardon to a certain definite degree of faith, and that we could always certainly determine whether we possess that degree of faith or not, still this theory would labor under the insuperable difficulty that it would make the knowledge of our acceptance precede our acceptance itself; in other words, it would involve the absurdity of teaching that we may know that we are accepted before we are accepted. For justifying faith, according to the Scriptures, precedes, and is the condition of, pardon; but if a knowledge of our acceptance always accompanies justifying faith, then a knowledge of our acceptance must precede that acceptance. In other words, we must first know that we are accepted before we can be accepted; so that we may be well assured that our knowledge of our acceptance does not result from a consciousness that we possess faith. From all that has been said, we arrive at the conclusion - that, as the testimony of God’s Spirit is not spoken of in Scripture as the peculiar privilege of a favored few, but as alike pertaining to all the “sons of God” - that, as this witness is not identical with the witness of our own spirit, but a distinct witness, bearing conjoint testimony with our own spirit -that as, according to the Scriptures, it is the privilege of Christians to know that they are accepted of the Lord - that, as none but God can bear primary testimony to this fact - that, as the indirect testimony of the Holy Spirit is substantially nothing but the witness of our own spirit - that, as such testimony is inadequate for the purpose for which the witness of the Spirit is designed - that, as neither a consciousness of the “fruits of the Spirit” in general, nor of faith, can impart a knowledge of our acceptance with God at the time the witness of the Spirit is said to be possessed - from all these considerations we arrive at the conclusion, that the witness of the Holy Spirit, as possessed by the Christian, must be direct and distinct in its nature from the witness of our own spirit.
If called upon for a full explanation of the manner in which the Spirit operates so as to produce this direct witness, we are constrained to confess our weakness; the subject is “too wonderful for us.” “The wind bloweth where it listeth,” but we cannot comprehend “whence it cometh or whither it goeth;” so the Spirit of God, in a manner to us incomprehensible, moves on the hearts of men, and bears witness to the believer that he is a child of God. But as to the fact of this witness, it is a matter expressly revealed.
We cannot better express the sense in which we understand the fact, than by adopting the language of Mr. Wesley: “The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly witnesses to my spirit that I am a child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; and that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God.”
III. We will close this chapter by noticing some of the leading objections to the doctrine of the direct witness of the Spirit for which we have contended.
1. It is objected, that “two witnesses to the same fact, if both good, are not needed; and if not good, they are useless.” To this we reply, that the two witnesses do not both depose directly to the same fact. The Spirit of God alone is directly and immediately cognizant of the fact of our adoption, and it alone bears direct testimony to that fact. Our own spirit, though a conjoint witness with the Spirit of God to the same fact, testifies, not directly, but indirectly. It witnesses to our adoption, only by assuring us that we have the direct witness of the Spirit of God to that fact. Thus in the hour of conversion, before we have time for good works, or the fruits of the Spirit, or even for engaging in a course of reasoning by which to infer our adoption by comparing our experience with the Scripture marks of regeneration, the Holy Spirit directly assures us that God loves us, and freely accepts us in Christ Jesus: immediately upon this evidence of the pardoning love of God, “we love him because he first loved us,” joy and peace spring up in the soul, and then first we receive the witness in our hearts, and hear - “Thy sins are forgiven! accepted thou art!
I listened, and heaven sprung up in my heart.” But how soon will we have occasion for the conjoint testimony of our own spirit! We may be tempted to believe that this direct witness is all a delusion; but the witness of our own spirit - our consciousness that we have the fruits of the Spirit - confirms us in the persuasion that we have not mistaken the testimony of the Spirit of God; and in this way the two witnesses continue their joint testimony to the fact that we are the children of God, so long as we “love God and keep his commandments.”
2. It is objected, that “this doctrine involves the absurdity of a special revelation to every Christian, and leads to a superstitious reliance on impressions from our own imaginations.” To this we reply, that, so far as the first branch of the objection is concerned, it is not contended that the witness of the Spirit conveys to the mind any new truth not contained in the Scriptures; but merely that a special and personal application is made, by the direct agency of the Spirit, of truths already clearly revealed in the Bible. The direct influence of the Spirit in conviction does not teach the sinner that any thing is sin which the Bible had not declared to be such, but it so quickens the powers of the soul as to cause the sinner to feel that he is a sinner - a fact of which he previously only had a speculative knowledge. Just so the witness of the Spirit possessed by the Christian, does not impart to him any original truth or doctrine, but merely causes him to feel that the promises of pardon to the penitent believer, and the great Bible truths of salvation through the merits of Christ, personally and individually apply to him. So that, in the proper sense, there is no new revelation contended for, in this view of the witness of the Spirit. In reference to the latter branch of the objection, we reply, that it cannot be superstitious to rely on any doctrine revealed in Scripture; but if the Scripture doctrine of the witness of the Spirit is perverted by any so as to lead to a dependence on impressions resulting from their own imaginations, the perverters of the doctrine, and not the doctrine itself, are to be blamed. The direct witness of the Spirit we believe to be a doctrine plainly taught in Scripture; and though some, through the deceitfulness of sin, may pervert it to the worst of purposes, it can never, on that account, be surrendered, but will still be ardently maintained by the thousands of sincere and experimental Christians, who derive therefrom their highest enjoyments in this life, and their richest prelibations of the life to come.