08 - A Well-Meant Alternative

A Well-Meant Alternative

Error is least of all pleasant to disapprove when it is utterly sincere and clothes itself in the theories of saintly men whose aim is altogether the honour of our Lord. Therefore, unorthodox though our procedure may be, we have decided to leave our quotations anonymous where we make adverse comment. This completely re­moves all personal flavour and restricts attention to the subject alone. Some of the brethren quoted are no longer with us, but we are resolved not to let our reasonings on such a sacredly spiritual subject as Christian holiness seem at any point to reflect even in the faintest degree upon dear men of God the memory of whom is as "precious ointment poured forth".

J.S.B. in our preceding chapter Dr. Harry Ironside shone his red lamp of warning on the eradication theory. Yet neither he nor we could ever leave unspoken our genuine esteem for the many outstanding servants of our Lord who have taught it. Some of them have been such saints, and have walked so closely with God, that although we diverge from their theory, we may well covet their experience. Our attitude is equally warm as we now touch on that other theory which we mentioned, i.e. the teaching that inward sanctific-ation is effected, not by an eradication of our inherited sin-bias, but by a powerful counteraction of it. The counteraction theory is meant as an alternative to that of eradication.

There is little difference, really, between the "counteraction" theory and what used to be called the "suppression" theory (i.e. that although the sin-bias cannot be eradicated it can be thoroughly suppressed). The "counteraction" form of presen­tation is an exegetical amplification of the other, and has often been referred to as the Keswick theory.

Let this be clearly grasped: the "counteraction" theory denies eradication, and teaches victory over our hereditary sinfulness rather than complete freedom from it. It holds that the way of sanctification is by the counteraction-effect of an inward joint-crucifixion with Christ, and by "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus". Through the years, this theory has become firmly associated with certain well-known movements which are highly thought of by very many. In this chapter we give representative quotations. Let it first be understood, however, that wherever we make disapproving comment it is always with cordial esteem for men whom we regard as consecrated servants of the Lord, and in some cases as uniquely gifted scholars of the Word. Our purpose is to show that this peculiar teaching of sanctification by counteraction misinterprets Scripture and engenders bondage in Christian believers; but the pure motive and high aspiration of many who have taught it will never once be in question.

Frankly, criticism here is most distasteful to us, even though it is purely exegetical, never personal. On such a subject as holiness we would fain shun the controversial. Yet if we are most effectively to open up what we believe to be the true New Testament teaching we cannot evade prior encounter here with this further theory which in our judgment deforms the truth. So, if these earlier pages seem rather argumentative may I point out that there is a big difference between exercising one’s critical faculty, and indulging a critical spirit. For the former we thank God and pray to use it reverently. From the latter may our dear Lord save us and give us instead a gracious sympathy. The fairest method we can think of is to give actual quotations, so as to let the theory talk to us in its own words, and then append our comment. The quotations are kept to a minimum, yet such is my concern not to cast reflection on any of the excellent brethren who are quoted that I leave all the quotations anonymous (see fly-leaf note). Most of them are taken from a composite publication issued a few years ago, containing expositions by different con­tributors from about fifty years ago up to the present. The theory is taught as definitely today as it was fifty years ago, though there may be some shift in incidental form or phrase of presentation.

Mark this well at the outset: In sharp contrast to the eradication theory which says that the so-called "old nature" may be entirely removed, the usual form of the counteraction theory has it that although the "old nature" must be "crucified", it remains ever with us, counteracted yet continuing to our last breath on earth. This and other aspects will appear clearly in the following excerpts.

"The man who believes in a sanctification which eradicates sin from his person, as a principle, must be satisfied with his own condition, and be able to take his place more or less independent of the Saviour ..."

"The fact is, that if there were no sin in a man on earth, I hardly know how he could take up Jesus every moment and sing His praises every moment; he would not need to do so, in my belief." Is it not strange to be told that a complete deliverance from the sin-principle would induce self-satisfied independence of the Saviour?—and that such a deliverance would stanch our "praises" to Him? Will our sinless condition in heaven induce such effects? Must we always carry the disease just to make us feel a sickly need of the Physician?

"Though God does not remove that indwelling principle, or corrupt thing we call sin, yet He does by His infinite mercy give us a perfect, perpetual, and enjoyable deliverance from the activities, from the power, from the domination of sin, moment by moment, so long as we trust Him and acknowledge ourselves to be guilty sinners at every instant of our lives. I pause at that word, and reiterate it: while we acknowledge ourselves to be guilty sinners every moment. . . ." (Italics ours.)

I could have wished that the speaker’s use of that word, "guilty", here had been merely an obiter dictum, or accidental mis-statement of a theological point; but no, he reiterates it to emphasize it!—we are "guilty sinners at every instant of our lives"! Must we not deny outrightly the Scripturalness of such a statement?—for if there is one thing which the Word makes clear, it is that in Christ we are saved from both the penalty and the guilt of sin. To quote just one Scripture: "THERE IS THERE­FORE NOW NO CONDEMNATION TO THEM THAT ARE IN CHRIST JESUS. . . ." (Romans 8:1.)

"A friend said to me, ’I thought you preached absolute deliverance from the principle of sin, eradication of the root of sin.’ I said, ’God forbid.’ ’Then,’ she said, ’what is the difference?’ My answer was, ’You preach a perfect sinner: I preach a perfect Saviour.’"

Epigrams such as, "You preach a perfect sinner: I preach a perfect Saviour," beguile only the unwary. We all know that our Saviour Himself is perfect; but the saviourhood presented by the preacher is the pathetic picture of a so-called "perfect" physician who cannot cure his patients of their disease (not until they die!) but only gives them grace to live with it or at best to hold it down!

"Then one said to me, ’If Christ was revealed to destroy the works of the devil, how can there be any sin left? I replied, ’Dear brother, do wait a bit; Christ’s day is coming’ . . . When God sees fit to take us away from this poor, corrupt, mortal flesh, corruption shall give place to glory." (Italics ours.) So deliverance comes only by our being ridded of the physical body—as though the body itself ("this poor, corrupt mortal flesh") were sinful!

"Notwithstanding that indwelling corruption does, as I hold, necessarily stain every thought and word and deed of life . . . the Lord Jesus Christ is only thereby made more and more beautiful. ..."

Yet however anxious the preacher may have been to convince us that the "evil nature" remains in us "to the last", staining "every thought, word, deed", it strangely jars on our spiritual sensibilities to be told that our Lord Jesus is "thereby made more and more beautiful!" The Word of God recognises no such use­fulness of indwelling sin! On the contrary, it is indwelling sin which dulls our perception of His beauty.

"Thanks be to God—let us announce it very clearly—though sin does remain to the very last, we believe, both in the being of the man, and also in the outcome from the man, yet there is no necessity what­ever for a child of God ever to commit one single known sin."

So, by bold pronouncement, there is no deliverance "to the very last" from this evil nature, this "indwelling corruption", yet there is "no necessity whatever" to commit "one single known sin"! The physician says, in effect, to the patient, "You are a cripple; you will always be a cripple; yet there is ’no necessity whatever’ for you ever to take one crippled step again!" Or, "You are a withered consumptive; you will always be a consumptive; yet there is ’no necessity whatever’ for you ever to breathe one consumptive breath again!"

"The great teaching that we have come here to put forward is that there is a delivering Lord, a mighty Jesus, who by His infinite love has made provision . . . for the preservation of every child of God from any one known sin; and to pass through us such thoughts, such words, and such deeds as shall be always acceptable to God the Father when they are rightly presented to Him through Christ Jesus our Lord." So there is no changing of our nature; but Christ causes, "acceptable" thoughts, words, deeds to pass through us. Those thoughts are not strictly our own, arising from a renewed human nature; they originate with God and come through us. As the preacher adds, "The thoughts of God ... are passed into the child of God through the brain; and then they are coming out into words and works." Alas, even then we can have no personal holiness; for the preacher pathetically explains that although the "thought" is passed to us from God, and "comes to us absolutely perfect", it passes out of us "tainted, as water passing through a pipe would necessarily be tainted if the pipe were in some degree denied in its composition". So, not only does our nature remain uncleansed, but even the holy thoughts of God through us are "tainted" in transmission! The speaker himself must have per­ceived that in supposedly preaching holiness he was denying the possibility of it, for he finalizes the point thus:

"Then you say: Where is this peace and this blessed rest of soul? Why, it is in this: As the thing [i.e. the thought from God] comes forth from me, as it were through a [defiled] fountain, the blood of Christ is ever dripping upon it as it emanates." Is not that a strange picture of holiness! My sinful nature cannot be changed; indwelling corruption must remain "to the last". There is never "a single thought, word, or deed" that is not "tainted by sin". No holy thoughts originate in myself, they are God’s thoughts "passed through me", and even those are "tainted" in transit through me and the blood of Christ must be "ever dripping" upon them as they "emanate" from me. What good is it that the dear preacher forgets himself in one place, and says, "I can begin to think the thoughts of God"? Nay, he has made such holy thought impossible by insisting that the "I" is incurably corrupt. But what a comforting contradiction he slips into when he says, "That taste . . . that appetite . . . may, by the grace of God, be subdued and removed I" Perhaps that word, "removed" was a slip, but it breaks like a sunshaft through drab clouds! And, of course, we are prompted to ask, quite naturally: If one "appetite" may be "removed", as the preacher remarks, then why not others?—and why not all?

Other Slants and Aspects

I pass by other addresses, with recurrent expressions such as "empty of self", "dead to self", "the death of the self", all of which are unscriptural as well as psychological impossibilities, and halt at an address upon Threefold Deliverance, i.e. deliverance from sin (1) as defilement, (2) as a habit, (3) as a law or tendency. Bound up with the counteraction idea, certain peculiar distinc­tions are drawn. Here is one:

"But let me now very earnestly entreat you to mark the distinction between the heart and the nature. The evil heart is not the evil nature. It is in this connection that thousands of people are making a great mistake. No wonder they get confused in the matter of sanctification. The heart is capable of passing through varying conditions. The nature remains unchanged. The heart may be cleansed, sanctified, and made the dwelling-place of God. But you cannot sanctify the evil nature. Therefore let us not confuse the heart, the evil heart, with the evil nature."

Now surely this distinction here between the "heart" and the "nature" is artificial and misleading. We have looked up the 958 instances where our Authorised Version has the word "heart", in its singular, plural, and compound forms, also the Hebrew and Greek usage; and if one thing stands out it is this: that when used in its figurative sense the heart represents, more often than any­thing else, either the whole mental and moral being, or the centre-point of thought, desire, will, and feeling. In a representative sense, the "heart" is the "nature", the living, self-aware human person. In a moral sense, what I am in my heart, that I am in my nature. Yet we are told that the heart may be cleansed, but not the nature![I may usefully appropriate the comment of Dr. Chester K. Lehman on the Scriptural use of the word "heart". He says, "Guided by Old Testament usage, we would say that to David heart meant the whole inner man. It was variously used for the mind and understanding, for the will, for the affections, for the conscience, for the motives, for the whole soul." (The Holy Spirit.)] The speaker rightly defines the heart as "the place within you where three things are focused—your thoughts, your desires, and your will". On another line he calls it the inner world of intellect, emotion, volition. Now if all our thought, desire, will, intellect, emotion, volition, are the "heart" (as he himself says) but not the "nature", then what can the "nature" possibly be! What else is there in our mental and moral being beside intellect, emotion, volition, desire, and conscience? If the "nature" is some vagary outside all these, is it worth even noticing? And if "you cannot sanctify" the nature, then why do we let audiences sing such prayers as, "O Thou Spirit divine, All my nature refine"? Of course, we need to realize that in these intricate distinctions and in the ensuing references to inward crucifixion with Christ, Keswick is defending holiness doctrine from the "eradication" idea that the evil "old nature" may be removed. But, as we shall increasingly see, the self-contradictory "counteraction" theory is a wrong reply.

"If you are regenerate, you can never become unregenerate, but you can have an evil heart."

Nay! If the "heart" means thoughts, desires, and will (as the speaker says), and if all that can be evil ("an evil heart"), and if (as he says) the "nature" cannot be changed, then what is regener­ation?—and what part does it regenerate? This superfine distinction, however, between "heart" and "nature", is followed by another which, to my own mind, seems just as strangely factitious.

"Now here let me again very earnestly emphasize the necessity of making another distinction, between the ’old man’ and ’the flesh’. They are not the same.... The ’old man’ is not the flesh,"

He tells us that the "old man" is "the unconverted self", or "the unconverted man", or "your old self". Then, referring to Romans 6:6, he continues:

"What does that mean? It means that not only were your sins laid upon Christ, but you yourself, as an unconverted person, were nailed on the Cross with Christ; your old self was crucified with Him. Let us bear in mind, then, that the old man (your ’old self) is not the old nature." So the "old self" was crucified with Christ, but the "old nature" was notl—part of me hanging there, and part not! Paul indulges no such exegetical vivisection. When Romans 6:2 says, "We died to sin," it allows no such dissection as the speaker makes. Similarly, Galatians 2:20, "I have been crucified with Christ," means the whole "I".

How complicating are all these artificial distinctions!—the "heart" is not the "nature". The "evil heart" is not the "evil nature". The "old man" is not the "old nature". The "old self" is not "the flesh", nor is it the "old nature". The "evil heart" may be "cleansed"; but the "evil nature" cannot be cleansed. The "old man" alias the "self" or "yourself" (i.e. the you] was "nailed to the Cross" and "crucified", but the "old nature" apparently was not\ But why do such gifted and well-meaning teachers trip them­selves into such contradictions and ambiguities as we have noted? It is because neither they nor any other can possibly fit Romans 6:1-23 into their "counteraction" theory. They are obliged somehow to dispose of that awkward sixth verse so as to answer the forth­right interpretation of the eradicationists who take the words, "crucified" and "destroyed", in their plain meaning. Romans 6:6, however, remains obstinately there: a "thorn in the side" of the counteraction theory; and none of the doctors can remove it. I myself believe entirely in counteraction, in the sense that the believer’s inward sin-condition is counteracted by "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (who could disbelieve it when it is so clearly Scriptural?) but the struggle to wring it from Romans 6:6 is about as successful as squeezing blood out of a stone or growing figs on a thistle.

It is pathetic to see how, again and again, counteraction exponents will drag Romans 6:6 into their reasonings when it is not even germane, and only causes them to take risks with the wording of Scripture.

"Now we too have a nature which in itself is absolutely sinless, a new ’divine nature’ (2 Peter 1:4); but although we dare not say, even when in the most glorious enjoyment of full salvation, that sin is dead, yet we can truthfully say (and we dare not say otherwise) that when abiding in Christ, and fully believing in Romans 6:1-23, we are dead, dead to sin, dead with Christ."

So, according to that speaker, we must not say that "sin is dead" in us, but we can say that "we are dead" to sin. Yet in downright^v reality, what is the practical difference between the two? What matters it in experience, whether we say that sin is inwardly dead to me, or that / am inwardly dead to it! If either is true, then both are; and if either is untrue, then both are.

"If the Bible tells me that it is one of God’s facts that the ’flesh’ is to be incorrigibly bad, even to the very end (Romans 8:7), I do not grieve over the fact, although it is very humbling; but I fix my eye on God’s provision against it, a provision so glorious that I cry out of joy— Jesus Himself, a Saviour, who not only took my sins to the Cross and paid my debt, but took me to the Cross, and nailed up my ’old man’ to the accursed tree; who has power to keep that ’old man’ from coming down from the Cross; yea power to enable me to reckon myself as ’crucified, dead, and buried’ with Himself, and to make the reckoning good. This ’having died unto sins’ (1 Peter 2:24 R.V.) is practically cleansing by blood." Is not that a further confection of contradictions? The "old man", the "me", is nailed to the Cross, yet is not dead, but Christ "has power" to prevent his "coming down from the Cross". Simultaneously our Lord enables me to reckon that same "old man", or "me", to be "dead and buried", and He "makes the reckoning good" in my experience! I am fastened on the Cross, yet dead in the grave, both at the same time!

Well, both cannot be true? so which is? If you say (with some counteractionists) that the "old self" is pinioned there, in con­tinuous crucifixion but not actually dead, then not only do you make the sanctified life one of continuous inward torture, but you destroy the believer’s real identification with Calvary; for our Lord’s crucifixion (like every other crucifixion) ended in real death, without any such prolongation of crucifixion. On the other hand, if you say that the sinful self has actually died with Christ, and that He makes this good in experience, you have become an eradicationist!

Counteractionist Dilemma

I refrain from giving more quotations lest this more negative part of these studies may seem unkind after all. Wherever I turn, I find these or similar contradictions tied up with the counteraction theory. The plain fact is that Romans 6:6 ("Our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed") is an awkward spoke which simply will not fit into the wheel of the counteraction theory. So long as its exponents keep to counteraction as taught in Romans 8:1-39, i.e. the counter­action of "sin" and of "the flesh" by the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus", all is well; but as soon as they try to force it from Romans 6:6 they stumble into unavoidable self-contradic­tion ; for Romans 6:6 does not teach counteraction; it teaches destruction through crucifixion, as anyone can see.

One after another counteractionist preachers will "explain" to us that the word "destroyed", in Romans 6:6, does not really mean destroyed, but only "rendered inoperative" or (according to viewpoint) "done away". Those among them who say that "the body of sin" means our "sinful old nature" insist on "rendered inoperative". Those among them who say that "the body of sin" means our "unregenerate former self" prefer to read it "done away". But these superfine distinctions are mere hair-splitting; for in Romans 6:6, as any straight-thinking mind must see, the word, "destroyed", is the completive counterpart of the verb, "was crucified"—

"Our old man was CRUCIFIED with Him, that the body of sin might be DESTROYED."

Therefore, "destroyed" here cannot mean anything less than what crucifixion brings about. Or, more pointedly, Romans 6:6 teaches DESTRUCTION BY CRUCIFIXION. Does this mean then, that Scripture teaches a destruction-by-crucifixion of "inborn sin" or the so-called "old nature" in a Christian? We hope to show that Paul’s expressions, "the old man" and "the body of sin" have no reference whatever to a* suppositionary "old nature" inside the believer. All I am con­cerned with here is to show the contradictoriness of the counter­action theory as it is still often presented. So long as they stay with chapters 7 and 8, its exponents are on safe ground; but as soon as they start "explaining" chapter 6, especially verses 6 and n, they put themselves in a barbed-wire entanglement. Then why do they not leave chapter 6 alone? Simply because they must somehow lessen the force of that word, "destroyed", which means so much to the eradication theory. Thus a curious antithesis arises between the eradicationists and the counteractionists. The eradicationists are always struggling to level experience up to the wording of the text while the counter­actionists are always trying to weaken the wording of the text down to the level of experience!. That word, "destroyed"

One only needs to dig a little into the Greek behind our English translation to see how tenuous, how exparte, is the counter­actionist argument against that rendering, "destroyed". The Greek word, katargeo, which our King James Version translates "destroyed", is made up of the verb, argeo, which means to render idle or inactive, and the particle kata, which is prefixed to intensify it; so that the combined form, katargeo, has the sense of utterly so. It means, put utterly out of action. It occurs 27 times in our New Testament. No less than fourteen English words are used to represent it in our Authorised Version. (For an analysis of these see our postscript to this chapter, on the word, "Destroyed".)

One has only to glance through those 27 occurrences to know what is the basic meaning of katargeo. It is to "bring to nought" or to "do away". In itself it does not necessarily mean to destroy in the sense of effecting non-existence, but neither does it neces­sarily not mean that. In each instance the usage and context must decide. In some cases it obviously does mean utter cessation (1 Corinthians 13:8, 15, 26, etc.). In others it scarcely can (Romans 7:6, Luke 13:7). In Romans 6:6, where katargeo is translated as "destroyed" (A.V.) and "done away" (E.R.V. and A.S.V.), it goes with "was crucified". When a body is "destroyed" or "done away" by crucifixion, what is meant? Nothing less than the utter end of life in it. To insist, as some of our counteractionist brethren do, on translating katargeo as "rendered inoperative" may possibly be allowable in some places; but to force it to mean only that in Romans 6:6 is scarcely a justifiable delimitation from an exegetical point of view.

Yet even if we do thus delimit the translation, it does not lend support to their form of the counteraction theory; for if the so-called "old nature" or "former self" is "done away", or "rendered inoperative", why is there any further need to counteract it? Peculiar inconsistency!—"done away" yet with us to our dying day!—"rendered inoperative" yet always needing counteraction!

We refrain from further animadversions here, and would emphasize again that those already ventured are made in a cordial spirit. In our next pages we shall endeavour to prove by frontal attack that both those theories are fundamentally wrong. Then, having cleared our way through those long-persisting misinterpretations, we shall set forth what we believe to be the true message of inwrought holiness, or "Usefulness of the blessing".

Yet while we firmly believe that both of the above-mentioned theories are untenable Scripturally, we do not forget all the many precious truths concerning consecration and holiness which have gathered round them, and have focussed in them, and have been preached along with them. All the way through these studies our longing prayer and earnest purpose—far from any mere refuting of theories—is to get at the real truth of Scripture, and point the way to a true experience of Christian holiness.

With all my heart I long to know The way, the one true way to go Wherein to tread with eager feet In God’s all-holy will complete; And on my pilgrim journey press With songs of heart-deep holiness.

How many signs, the way along, Can look so right but be so wrong!

How oft do errors still beguile, And lead astray by many a mile!

How many pilgrims, lured aside, In devious by-paths wander wide!

Yet in the Book of Truth divine How steadily the way-marks shine, To make those pilgrims truly wise Who read with heav’n-anointed eyes! And since the way is writ so clear Why need we further doubt or fear?

Dear Spirit, clear my inward eyes To see the truth which sanctifies—

God’s way of holiness, wherein Is true, full vict’ry over sin; That holy walk with God to know— The bliss of heav’n begun below!

Postscript On The Word, "Destroyed" In Romans 6:6 As stated, the Greek word, katargeo, rendered as "destroyed" in Romans 6:6 occurs 27 times in the New Testament. No less than 14 English words are used to translate it in our Authorized Version. Its 27 occurrences are as follows, given in the Authorized (or King James) Version, the English Revised Version, and the American Standard Version, which in my own judgment are together, the best in our English tongue.

Is it not clear beyond misunderstanding that the basic meaning of katargeo is to bring to nought; to do away. How can it mean less in Romans 6:6?