|
Chapter 19
CONTROVERSIAL SCRIPTURES Passages Used As Proof Texts By The Opponents Of Full Salvation (1) Old Testament (2) New Testament
(1) Old Testament -- The opponents of full salvation truth not only bring against it the amazing stock arguments dealt with in the last chapter, but also seek to buttress their position by quoting from the Scripture itself. Usually, however, their quotations have two outstanding characteristics:
a. They are incomplete. An expression is taken from a verse or a verse from a paragraph without any regard as to context or historical setting.
b. They are incorrect. Often they are stock quotations, picked up from others and not the result of personal reading or original thinking. Sometimes a Scripture verse is used with the alteration (not necessarily intentional, but nevertheless vital) of what would seem on the surface to be a most insignificant word, but when carefully checked the importance is seen.
Take for instance: Gal 5:17: "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other; so that we cannot do the things that we would." Let the student compare this quotation with the actual reading in the Word of God, noting the words misquoted, and pondering over them until their significance is apparent. These brethren usually harp upon the necessity of having a Scriptural basis for experience, and then go on to mutilate and misinterpret the most precious and vital portions of the Word of God, while, on the other hand, they bring in passages which to any thoughtful mind are obviously not connected with the subject in hand. It will be well for us to take up the passages generally used, and thereby fortify the student against coming attacks.
1. I Kings 8:46; II Chron. 6:36: "There is no man that sinneth not." This sentence is a parenthesis in the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the newly-erected temple, consequently the entire prayer should be read before any attempt is made to interpret the one sentence. Assuming that this has been done, we will ask Dr. Daniel Steele, late professor of theology at Boston University, to explain this: "We answer that Solomon, when correctly interpreted, as he is in the Vulgate, the Septuagint, and most of the ancient versions, gives no countenance to sin. All these read, 'There is no man that may not sin.' The Hebrew language, having no potential mode, uses the indicative future instead. The context must determine the meaning. The context is nonsense in the King James Version, using an if where there is no room for a condition -- 'If any man sin, for every man sins.' Let me illustrate the absurdity of this translation. At the laying of a cornerstone of a state lunatic asylum, the governor, in his address, is made by the reporter to say, 'If any person in the commonwealth is insane -- for every person is insane -- let him come here and be cared for.' "We should all correct the blundering reporter, and say, 'may become insane,' instead of 'is insane,' in order to make the governor talk sense. Correct the reporter, or translator rather, of Solomon, and let him talk sense also, and you will hear him say, 'If any man sin, for there is no one who is impeccable, who may not sin"' (Difficulties Removed from the Way of Holiness, pp. 8, 9).
2. Eccles. 7:20: "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." This passage has three reasonable interpretations, any of which is a sufficient answer to our critic: a. The answer to the previous Scripture (I. Kings 8:46) may be applied here also. From another angle we would say, the statement here is positively true. This very fact is the basis of all evangelical doctrine. It is a statement of man's natural condition apart from grace. But while it clearly states that there is "not a just man upon earth," evidently meaning "just" by nature, it does not say that there is not a "justified" man on earth, nor a sanctified one, for this would not be true. The statement of this verse is abundantly confirmed by Rom. 3:23, and other New Testament passages. c. Some have viewed the book of Ecclesiastes as the lament of a pessimist whose outlook on life is that of things "under the sun" (earthly) , in contrast with the Ephesian Epistle, life in the "heavenly places" (spiritual). If this is allowed, the critic is answered again.
3. Job 9:2: "How should man be just with God?" Job's question simply indicates the need of a basis for human justification in the sight of God, which is not in man himself. He can only be "Justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (see Rom. 3:23-28).
4. Job 9:20: "If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me; if I say I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse." That is exactly what every accredited teacher of holiness would say. He never seeks to "justify himself," nor would he ever think of saying, "I am perfect." It is just because he knows that there is no perfection in human nature that he seeks and finds it through Christ.
5. Psa. 14:1 -- 3: "They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon on the children of men to see if there were any that did understand and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Just why this should be used against "holiness" any more than against "regeneration" we fail to see. It is simply a statement of man's depravity, making necessary the work of grace in his nature.
6. Psa. 51:5: "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Here again is a statement of inborn corruption, necessitating the work of saving grace.
7. Psa. 119:96: "I have seen an end of all perfection; but thy commandment is exceeding broad. " Just another statement indicating human insufficiency. But neither the Psalmist nor anyone else has seen an end of divine perfection, nor of the perfection which God imparts.
8. Psa. 130:3: "If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquity, O Lord, who shall stand?" No one, for "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). But what if instead of "marking iniquities" He should forgive them? (See Jer. 33:8; I John 1:9). This God proposes to do.
9. Prov. 20:9: "Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?" None but a hypocrite indeed. Such expressions as, "I have made, . . . I am pure . . ." are not the expressions of a sanctified soul. The sanctified man says, "I have trusted God to cleanse my heart, I am purified from my sin" (see Acts 15:8, 9).
10. Isa. 64:6: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all righteousnesses are as filthy rags." That is exactly what we are as a race. That is our natural condition, hence the need of the Atonement and of personal cleansing.
11. Jer. 13:23: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil?" We find no difficulty here. It is simply a declaration of the sinner's inability to change his nature or his ways. This very fact is the basic need for the work of redemption and its personal application in the experiences of regeneration and entire sanctification.
12. Jer. 17:9, 10: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Here again is a simple statement of man's heart condition by nature. Redemption is not even approached. It is the ground-work indicating redemption need.
(2) New Testament -- We now consider "proof texts" which opponents of the doctrine take from the New Testament.
1. Matt. 6:12: "And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors." Luke 11:4: "And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us." This petition, using the word "debts" in Matthew's Gospel, "sins" in Luke, and "trespasses" in the general English form of the prayer, is part of what has come to be known as "The Lord's Prayer," although, strictly speaking, it is "the disciples' prayer," as taught by the Lord. Dr. Adam Clarke: "The three terms, 'debts,' 'sins' and 'trespasses' certainly all mean the same thing, and are used not only to indicate certain wrong actions, but also the ethical and judicial relations of such actions, whether as respects their procuring cause, or their final results." The 'Lord's Prayer' is not so much a form of supplication to be presented to God as an embodiment of the substance of prayer, to be presented by the true worshiper to the divine compassion; and, brief as it is, it contains all that may properly enter into our prayers." Says the objector: "If sanctified wholly, there would be no further need of the Lord's Prayer." But why not? If it is, as Dr. Clarke indicates, a general prayer "containing all that may properly enter into our prayers," then for the person using it that portion having to do with his immediate need would become applicable. The petition, "And forgive us our sins" need have no more immediate concern for the person conscious of a past already forgiven, a heart cleansed and a life in constant communion with God than "Give us this day our daily bread," uttered after supper before retiring to rest. The use of the Lord's Prayer, with its fifth petition, has for the sanctified heart a threefold significance: It is a reflective recognition of past sins so freely forgiven. It is a grateful confession of present dependence on the grace and love of a forgiving God. It is a constant self-reminder of our human weakness and limitation, which is free from actual transgression only as we are kept by the power of God.
2. Rom. 7: Read the chapter. This passage is a favorite with holiness critics. Dr. Daniel Steele: "That fancied Magna Charta for the necessary existence of sin in the Christian heart prompting to sinful acts" (Difficulties Removed, p. 23). Concerning it, various views are held, among which are:
a. That it represents a real Christian experience. That is, it was the experience of the apostle himself represents that of the child of God today. To this we reply: We doubt whether Paul as a Christian ever knew such an experience. If he was saved on the Damascus road (Acts 9:6) and entered into the life of spiritual fullness three days later (Acts 9:7-20) what time would there be for him to know it? The Scriptural standard of the new birth experience is far beyond this (see 1 John 2:29; 3:9, 14,17; 5:1, 4, 10). Believers everywhere who have really sought God's best have reported an experience far higher than this chapter indicates.
b. That it represents the experience of a Jew under law. Dr. Daniel Steele: "This was never designed to depict the ideal Christian life, but is rather the portrayal of the struggles of a convicted sinner seeking justification by the works of the Law" (Love Enthroned, p. 79). Rev. John Fletcher: "St. Paul no more professes himself actually a carnal man in Romans 7:14 than he professes himself a liar in Romans 3:7, or James professed to be a curser in James 3:9. It is the figure hypotyposis, so-called in rhetoric by which the writers use the present tense to relate things past or to come, to make narration more lively. It is St. Paul's past in the present tense. "
c. That the passage is to be divided: (1) Verses 7 -- 13 treat of unregenerate experience. (2) Verses 14 -- 25 describe the regenerate experience. Leaving the numerous opinions concerning the chapter, we suggest that the key hangs right there on the front door in verse 1. In fact, this is to be recognized concerning each of the three chapters --6, 7, and 8. The key word for chapter six is the word "grace" verse 1. The key word for chapter eight is the word "Spirit" verse 1. The key word for chapter seven is the word "law" verse 1. We submit the thought that this seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans is, in its original intention, a description of the Jew convicted of his need, and vainly trying to find relief under law. As a secondary interpretation, however, it may be regarded as an apt portrayal of a child of God convicted of his need of holiness, but not as a normal portraiture of the Christian life.
3. 1 Cor. 9:27: "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." This has nothing whatever to do with the sin question. The mastery of the body here referred to must be distinguished from the divinely ordained way of dealing with sin. Compare this verse with Rom. 6:6, noting the word "body" in each and its distinctly different application. In Rom. 6:6, "The body of sin"-- lit. , the totality of sin, which "is to be destroyed." In 1 Cor. 9:27, "My body" -- the natural appetites of my humanity which are to be "kept under." One is the object of destruction, while the other is the subject of redemption (see Rom. 8:23).
4. I Cor. 15:31: "I die daily." Here again the sin question does not enter. The context plainly shows that the idea in the apostle's mind is his daily exposure to possible martyrdom. In the previous section we hinted at a frequent misquote of this verse. We have heard it very glibly quoted: "So that we cannot do the things that we would." Now Paul never said that, and in our interpretation of this passage we must bear in mind the entire drift of the Epistle of which it is a part. The greeting of the Epistle will be found to differ from that of all the rest. To the Romans: Rom. 1:8: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." To the Corinthians: 1 Cor. 1:4: "I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ." To the Philippians: Phil 1:3: "I thank my God upon every remembrance of you." To the Colossians: Col. 1:3: "We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you." To the Thessalonians: 1 Thess. 1:2: "We give thanks to God always for you all." 2 Thess. 1:3: "We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren . .." To the Galatians: Gal. 1:6: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel." The distinction is clear immediately. On the one hand, "I thank my God," on the other hand, "I marvel." Numerous expressions in the Epistle carry their own implication: a. They were "removed from him that called them" (ch. 1:6). b. They had been spiritually "bewitched" (ch. 3:1). c. They had "begun in the Spirit," but were now living as though they expected to be "made perfect by the flesh" (ch. 3:3)
d. They were "turning again to the weak and beggarly element" (ch. 4:9). e. They were becoming "entangled again in a yoke of bondage" (ch. 5:1). It is these backslidden Galatians to whom the apostle writes, and in no instance does he identify himself with them in personal experience. Concerning himself he writes, "I am crucified with Christ . .. Christ liveth in me. ." (ch. 2:20). Concerning the Galatians, he writes, "Ye cannot do the things that ye would" (ch. 5:17). What has chapter 5:17 to do with a normal spiritual experience? One writer has said: "We can no more measure a freed soul by the Galatian experience than we can measure a free nation by a nation in bondage. "
5. Phil. 3:12-14: "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehended that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." "There!" says our objecting friend, "Paul himself admits that he has not 'attained.' He says that he is still following after. Do you profess to have gone beyond that choice soul ?" No, we have not gone beyond Paul. We are just marching shoulder to shoulder with him, and his cry becomes ours, "Not that I have already attained, . . . but I follow after." But wait a moment. Attained what? Follow after what? "The resurrection of the dead" (verse 11). Who but a fool positive would ever think of making such a claim? With the glorious truth taught in the passage it is not for us here to deal. Our only business at the moment is to show that the holiness critic is entirely out of order in using this passage for his destructive work. In this very chapter Paul makes it clear that there is a "perfection" which he claims to possess (verse 15). In the evangelical sense he claims to be "perfect," but in the resurrection degree he is yet to be perfected, and for this he "presses toward the mark."
6. I Tim. 1:15: "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." Dr. Daniel Steele: "This is another of the apostle's perverted texts. Our readers may be surprised to learn that Paul the aged, in the fullness of his faith, and love, and professed holiness (1 Thess. 2:10) was at the time of writing this epistle actually out time of writing this epistle actually out-sinning all the sinners on the earth. This is the interpretation of some who search the Scriptures with the microscope to find proofs that sin must continue in the heart and crop out in the daily life of the best Christian so long as he is in the body. They emphasize the present tense, "of whom I am chief." Let us read the context and see whether Paul is describing his past or his present character: sinning all the sinners on the earth. This is the interpretation of some who search the Scriptures with the microscope to find proofs that sin must continue in the heart and crop out in the daily life of the best Christian so long as he is in the body. They emphasize the present tense, "of whom I am chief." Let us read the context and see whether Paul is describing his past or his present character: "Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious." Now it is a rhetorical usage for a writer describing past events to change to the present in order to render his narrative more lifelike and impressive. This is called the historical present tense, which need not be confounded with a real present, especially when the historian begins, as Paul does, by advertising the reader that he is narrating past events. The Spirit of inspiration assumes that his readers will exercise the same good sense in reading the Bible as they do in reading other books. St. Paul had been the chief, or a chief, of sinners. He is now the chief of save sinners" (Difficulties Removed from the Way of Holiness, pp. 20, 21).
7. Jas. 3:2: "For in many things we offend all." Of who does the writer speak when he says "we"? Is it of himself and the rest of the apostles, or has it to do with men in general? The context answers the question, and consequently deals with the objection.
8. I John 1:8: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Dr. Daniel Steele: "I wish to notice the connection in which those words stand. The connection is this, if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, . . . the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.' "Now, if "we" here means the persons cleansed, just spoken of when it says 'The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin,' we must convict this inspired writer of a manifest contradiction in affirming that the same persons are cleansed from all sin, and yet are still living in sins. It is very much like saying that vaccination is a prophylactic against small pox, but if anyone tries it, and is cured, and makes declaration of the fact, it is false. That is the absurdity to which John is reduced by that kind of exposition.
"He is addressing a class of men who believe there is no sin in their souls. This is one fallacy of the gnostics -- they believe that these two principles of good and evil exist in the world, run on parallel lines, and never touch. The sin principle they believe to be only in the body, the envelope of the soul, never staining the soul itself. The sin is all laid off upon the body, and is only a seeming sin; the soul is not a sinner and is unpolluted. "A person may appear to be a great sinner, mixed up strangely with sin, but he is not. The figure they used was this: You may cast a gold ring into a pig pen, and have it trodden down in the filth there, and it remains gold still; the filth does not really touch or render the gold impure. So the gold of their souls remained pure and holy, though their bodies were full of sin, of drunkenness, of lust of all iniquity. "That is the class of men John had to deal with, a class that sprang up in the age of the apostle; and says, If you say you have no sin that needs the Atonement, that needs the cleansing blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, you utter a falsehood and the truth is not in you. But if you own up and make a clean breast of it, and confess that you are a sinner before God, and flee to the great fountain of cleansing, then what follows? We shall see. 'If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,' and to go a step further, not only to forgive the sins that have reference to the past, but to cleanse the nature from the sin principle which is in it, 'from all unrighteousness"' (Difficulties Removed from the Way of Holiness). To sum up, we say again that there is no passage in the entire Word of God which, if read in the light of its context and its historical setting, will not be found to teach either the need, the promise, or the possession of full salvation.
|