|
Chapter 18
OBJECTIONS Philosophical And Theological Quibbles With The Doctrine Strange as it may seem, there are those within the Christian church who fight the teaching of deliverance from sin -- and fight it bitterly, too. Christendom has split into contending camps on the holiness question. The objections raised are not new. It is amazing to find what parrots intelligent men often are. They think things through in matters of business, but in things which concern the soul they will parrot stock phrases and repeat threadbare objections which, if they only took time to ponder, they would be ashamed to repeat. Here are some of them: Says objector number 1: "It is not an essential experience." To which we reply: If God has made provision for it, and commanded that we should possess it, there is surely some distinct reason in the mind of God why we should have it. Says objector number 2: "It is not a Scriptural experience." To which we reply: The man who makes such a statement either is ignorant of, or deliberately twisting, the teaching of his Bible. In command and promise, prayer and precept, testimony and teaching the Scriptures ring with the truth of holiness. There is nothing in the Scriptures to the contrary. No passage in any part of the Book, when read in the light of its context and historical setting, in any way contradicts this teaching, but all unite to declare either the need, the possibility or the possession of full salvation. Says objector number 3: "The standard is too high." To which we reply: We admit that the standard as preached by some would so seem, but our concern is not with some extravagant talker but with holiness as it is taught in the Word of God. God's standard is reasonable. Here it is: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matt. 22:37-39). Says objector number 4: "The conception of the holiness of God and the sin of man is faulty and inadequate in humans; that is why some talk so glibly about holiness." To which we reply: No human can ever adequately conceive either of the majesty of God in His holiness or of the depravity of man in his sin. Yet it was Isaiah's temple vision of these that drove him to cry for cleansing, and that cry brought an assured deliverance from the awful fact of corruption within (see Isa. 6). Says objector number 5: "This holiness idea engenders pride. A sense of sin is indispensable to a requisite humility." To which we reply: Nothing could be farther from the truth. Who was more humble than our Lord? Yet He knew no sin. Who is more proud than the devil? Yet he is full of sin. "When it can be shown that health leads to sickness, strength to weakness, light to darkness, wealth to poverty, virtue to vice, then, in the nature of things, this objection may be true. No Christian (other things being equal) has so clear and correct views of original and acquired depravity, of actual sin, of his dependence on Christ, of his numberless weaknesses and infirmities, as he who is made perfect in love" (Rev. J. A. Wood, Perfect Love, p. 234). If the nature is freed from sin, then it is freed from pride, for humility is an essential part of the experience of holiness. There is, however, an essential difference between the consciousness of present sin and the recognition of original sinnerhood. This distinction will be seen by a comparison of I Cor. 4:4 with I Tim. 1:15." Tis true I have no room to boast; When most I'm saved, I'm humbled most; Kept low by grace, but not by sin, My soul shall make her boast in Him." Says objector number 6: "This holiness experience is abnormal, leading to oddness, eccentricity and fanaticism." To which we reply: Please give us reasonable proof. When and where has it happened? That fanatical persons have allied themselves with this cause cannot be denied, and that some well-intentioned people have been inclined to extravagant ideas is all too true. These things, however, are not holiness, neither are they the products of it. They are the unfortunate excrescences which unavoidably appear in any movement. They indicate lack of balance and control. They are the outcome of misconception as to what holiness really is. There is another side, however, which is frequently overlooked. Among what other section of the Christian church have there been such stalwarts for God; sound, reliable, spiritually progressive men and women, as among those who have espoused the truth of full salvation? Here are some conspicuous holiness "oddities," if any care to call them such; but who will dare? John Wesley, Charles Wesley, George Whitefield, John Fletcher, William Bramwell, William Carvosso, George Fox, James Caughey, Bishops Whatcoat, Asbury, Hamline, Peck, Simpson, Foster and others; Dr. Fowler, Dr. Steele, A. B. Earle, William and Catherine Booth; J. A. Wood, Dr. Lowery, Inskip, McDonald, Frances Willard, Frances Ridley Havergal, Thomas Cook, Samuel Chadwick, beside the many other stalwarts of the grace who are still alive. Take these and their work and influence out of the history of the church, and see how much remains. Says objector number 7: "This holiness business makes cliques, and tends to isolation." To which we reply: In most cases it might be more correct to say that because of their testimony they are cold-shouldered and pushed into isolation. A faithful pastor who is loyal to the Word of God will find that he has no more devoted members in his church than those who enjoy the experience of full salvation. Says objector number 8: "Is it not strange that so many really good people in the church do not profess the experience?" To which we reply: There are no more really good people in the church who do not profess the experience of holiness than there are morally good people in the world who make no profession of religion at all. This latter fact, however, is no argument against salvation, neither is it an argument against entire sanctification. But this "really good" idea is only our human judgment after all. Then again, many believers sincerely desiring to do God's will are bound in their mental concepts by preconceived ideas learned from childhood. They are not sanctified wholly because they do not take the step of faith, but at heart they are better than their creed. Says objector number 9: "This high-flown profession of holiness is just plain modern Pharisaism, that is all." To which we reply: By this we understand the critic to mean that wrapped up in this profession of holiness there is of necessity some element of hypocrisy. The term "Pharisee" has come to be regarded as a synonym for "hypocrite," and consequently here the parable of the Pharisee and the publican is frequently quoted. Yet, the person who will honestly read this parable and then carefully listen to the testimony of a truly sanctified man will soon discover that the two have nothing whatever in common (see Luke 18:9-14). Note the drift of the parable: "And he spake this parable unto certain which: "Trusted in themselves." A truly sanctified man never does that. "That they were righteous." A truly sanctified man never says that. "And despised others." A truly sanctified man never does that. Listen to the testimony of the sanctified man: I thank God that: Corrupt as I was- He sanctified me wholly -- And He can do the same for you. Says objector number 10: "This teaching exalts sanctification at the expense of regeneration." To which we reply: We fear that it is true that some have given such an impression, but these are not to be regarded as authenticated teachers of this great truth. The Word of God does not allow for known sin in any state of grace, and though "babes in Christ" may be "in Christ" though "carnal" (1 Cor. 3:1-4) , it is only that they might "go on unto perfection" (Heb. 6:1). The experience entered at the new birth is far beyond what some have said concerning it. A safe conception of the "born again" experience may be formed on the basis of those seven characteristics of the new birth to be found in John's first Epistle. Says objector number 11: "If you were made good all at once, there would be no need to grow better." Or, to put it in more direct theological language, "If this work were done once for all, there would be no need or possibility of growth in grace." To which we reply: It is at this point that growth really begins. No plant can thrive while a worm eats away at its root. With the soul, sin is that worm. Destroy it and growth is assured. Says objector number 12: "If carnality were really destroyed, one would never be able to sin again." To which we reply: That would not be so great a tragedy as it seems, would it? But unfortunately it is not so. Sinful or holy, man is a free moral agent and is on probation so long as this life shall last. After sanctification he need not sin again. Provision is made that he should not -- and also lest he should (see 1 John 2:1, 2). Says objector number 13: "If a soul were really delivered from all inward sin, it could not be tempted any more." To which we reply: That is certainly not true. Adam, fresh from the hand of a holy God and standing in his original purity, was tempted by the devil. The Son of God Himself was "tempted in all points like as we." The fact of holiness puts a keener edge on the temptation, but it supplies also a new power to resist. Says objector number 14: "If sin should really cease, that would end the Christian warfare, and yet we are exhorted to 'fight the good fight of faith.'" To which we reply: It does end warfare, on one side, but intensifies it on another. It ends the fight of Gal. 5:17, but increases the warfare of Eph. 6:12. "When the heart is pure, Satan is not chained in hell, and a pure heart may have war with outside enemies, both offensive and defensive. After all sin is expelled from the heart, we shall have a warfare to keep it out. It is a mistake to suppose that the Christian warfare is confined to inward bosom foes. Satan goes about 'as a roaring lion,' whom we are to 'resist, steadfast in the faith.' Our blessed Savior was entirely free from sin, but He had warfare, and was 'tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.' 'The servant is not above his Lord' " (Rev. J. A. Wood, Perfect Love, p. 232). Says objector number 15: "If sin were really taken out we should be immediately ready for heaven." To which we reply: That is exactly so, in fact, we begin to live in its very portals, or as Bunyan called it, in "Beulah Land." We may go at any time, not merely as isolated individuals by the way of death, but as one great company, caught up without dying to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:13-18). For the present, however, we are most needed down here. We stand toward the world in the relationship of: Salt -- checking its corruption; and light -- illumining its darkness (Matt. 5:13-16; Phil. 2:15, 16). Our Lord prayed for His people, not that they should be taken out of the world, but rather that they should be kept from the evil one while in it (see John 17:15). Says objector number 16: "If all sin were destroyed, what further need would there be for the blood of Jesus?" To which we reply: Such an objection does not indicate a very clear conception of the relation of the atoning blood to the believer's salvation. The blood is basic; it is the procurative cause, and also the only means of our approach. Our "boldness to enter into the holiest" is by the blood of Jesus (see Heb. 13:12; Eph. 2:13; Heb. 10:19)." To say that the doctrine of Christian perfection supersedes the need of Christ's blood is no less absurd than to assert that the perfection of navigation renders the great deep a useless reservoir of water" (Rev. J. Fletcher, Last Check to Antinomianism, p. 574).
|