ZINZENDORFISM

     Does depravity remain in the heart of that person who is justified? is a very important question, and deserves further notice. Different schools of thought have arisen which have promulgated widely divergent ideas. One class takes the position that depravity must invariably remain in the heart until death; they hold that although some may honestly profess deliverance, yet, sooner or later, the evil nature will again appear, and thus show that the per. son has been mistaken. The scores of Scriptural passages which command and promise holiness of heart, and which any person can find for himself, are, for the present, sufficient proof of the error of this position.

     Another class exaggerates the power and outcroppings of remaining depravity, until there is little or no difference between the life of a professed Christian and that of an open sinner; and, on the other hand, there are some who so minimize the inbred foe that they leave little or no room for any further change, either in heart or life, in the article of entire sanctification. These two erroneous extremes are brought about by either minimizing or exaggerating the experience of regeneration. Both extremes should be carefully avoided.

     Still another class teaches that as long as any depravity remains in the heart, the person is not accepted of God. The author of this belief was Count Zinzendorf, and because of his connection therewith the doctrine has been named for him.

     Zinzendorf was a German count. He was born in Dresden, May 26, 1700, and died May 9, 1760. He was the founder of the Moravian denomination. At one time he visited London and was received with much consideration by Wesley. He founded the Moravian colony at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, in 1741. Concerning his character and religious zeal, the Columbian Cyclopedia says: "His natural ardor sometimes led him to press his doctrinal statements beyond Scriptural limits, and to decide questions on an appeal to his feelings, and to act with a zeal whose force was like fire; but he had a splendid nobleness of character, a great love for his fellow men, a readiness for self-sacrifice in doing good, a high conception of the Christian calling, and a devoted affection for the personal Lord Jesus, which mark him as one of the princes of the kingdom of God on earth. His great estate was nearly all expended in a work which was his delight -- the founding and maintaining the Moravian Brethren as a little church within a church."

     The life and spotless character of Zinzendorf viewed in connection with his errors in doctrine go to show that a person may be saved and much devoted to the cause of God, and yet be mistaken concerning some important doctrine. The very fact that he possesses a good character will make his misstatements all the more dangerous.

     William Bramwell wrote, "An idea is going forth that when we are justified we are entirely sanctified; and 'to feel evil nature after justification is to lose pardon,' etc. You may depend upon it, this is the devil's big gun. We shall have much trouble with this, and I am afraid that we cannot suppress it."

     Wesley has written a sermon entitled, "Sin in Believers," in which he has fully answered all the chief arguments which are advanced in favor of the peculiar doctrines of Zinzendorf. We can do no better than to transcribe a part of this sermon.

     "Is there then sin in him that is in Christ? Does sin remain in one that believes in Him? Is there any sin in them that are born of God, or are they wholly delivered from it? Let no one imagine this to be a question of mere curiosity; or, that it is of little importance whether it be determined one way or the other. Rather it is a point of the utmost moment to every serious Christian; the resolving of which very nearly concerns both his present and eternal happiness.

     "And yet I do not know that ever it was controverted in the primitive church. Indeed there was no room for disputing concerning it, as all Christians were agreed. And so far as I have ever observed, the whole body of ancient Christians who have left us anything in writing declare with one voice that even believers in Christ, till they are 'strong in the Lord and in the power of his might,' have need to 'wrestle with flesh and blood,' with an evil nature, as well as 'with principalities and powers.'

     "However, let us give a fair hearing to the chief arguments of those who endeavor to support it. And it is, first, from Scripture they attempt to prove that there is no sin in a believer. They argue thus: 'The Scripture says, Every believer is born of God, is clean, is holy, is sanctified, is pure in heart, has a new heart, is a temple of the Holy Ghost. Now, as that which is born of the flesh is flesh, is altogether evil, so that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, is altogether good. Again, a man cannot be clean, sanctified, holy, and at the same time unclean, unsanctified, unholy. He cannot be pure and impure, or have a new and an old heart together. Neither can his soul be unholy, while it is the temple of the Holy Ghost.'

     "I have put this objection as strong as possible, that its full weight may appear. Let us now examine it part by part. And, 1. 'That which is born of the Spirit is spirit, is altogether good.' I allow the text, but not the comment. For the text affirms this, and no more, that every man who is 'born of the Spirit 'is a spiritual man. He is so. But so he may be, and yet not altogether spiritual. The Christians at Corinth were spiritual men; else they had been no Christians at all; and yet they were not altogether spiritual: they were still, in part, carnal. 'But they were fallen from grace.' St. Paul says, No. They were even babes in Christ. 2. 'But a man cannot be clean, sanctified, holy, and at the same time unclean, unsanctified, unholy.' Indeed he may. So the Corinthians were. 'Ye are washed,' says the apostle, 'ye are sanctified,' namely, cleansed from 'fornication, idolatry, drunkenness,' and all other outward sins (1 Cor. 6:9-11), and yet at the same time, in another sense of the word, they were unsanctified; they were not washed, not inwardly cleansed from envy, evil surmising, partiality. 'But sure they had not a new heart and an old heart together.' It is most sure they had; for at that very time their hearts were truly, yet not entirely renewed. Their carnal mind was nailed to the cross; yet it was not wholly destroyed. 'But could they be unholy, while they were temples of the Holy Ghost'? Yes; that they were temples of the Holy Ghost is certain (1 Cor. 6:19), and it is equally certain they were, in some degree, carnal, that is, unholy.

     "However, there is one scripture more which puts the matter out of question: 'If any man be [a believer] in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new' (2 Cor. 5:17). 'Now, certainly a man cannot be a new creature and an old creature at once.' Yes, he may; he may be partly renewed, which was the very case with those at Corinth. They were doubtless 'renewed in the spirit of their mind,' or they could not have been so much as babes in Christ; yet they had not the whole mind which was in Christ, for they envied one another. 'But it is said expressly, "Old things are passed away: all things are become new."' But we must not so interpret the apostle's word, as to make him contradict himself. And if we will make him consistent with himself, the plain teaching of the words is this: His old judgment concerning justification, holiness, happiness, indeed concerning the things of God in general, is now passed away; so are his old desires, designs, affections, tempers, and conversation. All these are undeniably become new, greatly changed from what they were. And yet, though they are new, they are not wholly new. Still he feels, to his sorrow and shame, remains of the old man, too manifest taints of his former tempers and affections, though they cannot gain any advantage over him, as long as he watches unto prayer.

     "The whole argument, 'If he is clean, he is clean,' 'if he is holy, he is holy' (and twenty more expressions of the same kind may easily be heaped together), is really no better than playing upon words: it is the fallacy of arguing from a particular to a general; of inferring a general conclusion from particular premises. Propose the sentence entire, and it runs thus: 'If he is holy at all he is holy altogether.' That does not follow; every babe in Christ is holy, and yet not altogether so. He is saved from sin; yet not entirely; it remains, though it does not reign. If you think it does not remain (in babes at least, whatever be the case with young men, or fathers), you certainly have not considered the height, and depth, and length, and breadth of the law of God (even the law of love laid down by St. Paul in the thirteenth of Corinthians); and that every disconformity to or deviation from this law is sin. Now, is there no disconformity to this in the heart or life of a believer? What may be in an adult Christian is another question; but what a stranger must he be to human nature, who can possibly imagine that this is the case with every babe in Christ!"