06.02. The Terminology of Sin

The Terminology of Holiness By J. B. Chapman

Chapter 2 The Terminology of Sin

Just as one who would describe the doctrine of justification must first possess a doctrine of sins and guilt, so likewise one who would provide a doctrine of sanctification must first furnish a doctrine of sin and defilement. No picture can be drawn without a background, and except for sin there is no human background for redemption and salvation. And since we are concerned now with terminology, we are driven to the necessity of arriving at definitions for sin, that we may intelligently consider terms for describing the cure for sin.

It will be found, I think, that men’s conception of sin is fundamental to all their thinking and speaking on soteriology in all its various phases. Those who hold to a liberal interpretation of sin, that is, who describe sin as a light matter, will logically make little of redemption and salvation; and history, I believe, illustrates the truth of this observation. When sin is believed to be at worst only a weakness or a want of maturity, salvation can be posited as something obtuse, indefinite, and mild. When man is held to be but a slight sinner, a mere human savior is sufficient to meet his need.

There is, of course, a contrasting error to the effect that man is a sinner, lost beyond hope; so lost indeed that no atonement can cover his debt, and no power can lift him from his pit. This error is father to atheism and the abettor of pessimism of the deepest and most incurable type.

But, as is usually the case, the truth lies between the extremes. Man is indeed a deep-dyed sinner with no worth or merit to cover his guilt and no power to lift himself from the mire. But the prevenient grace of God is universal, and must be reckoned with as though it were inherent in man in his fallen state. It is to this prevenient grace that we really refer when we say, "There is good in every man, and something in the worst to which good may appeal." That good and that something to which good may appeal is not a residue of man’s original holiness, but is a bestowal of grace through Jesus Christ. And this unconditioned grace lifts man from the estate of a demon, and makes his recovery to the favor and likeness of God a possibility. It is this correct concept of sin that is basis for the gospel call to all men to repent, and it is this concept also that any and all who will heed that call.

Likewise, when we come to the subject of sanctification, correct and accurate thinking on sin as defilement or corruption of the nature of man is the necessary foundation for the superstructure of a true holiness doctrine. And there is in this sphere, as in that of sins and guilt, a tendency to follow the extremes rather than to pursue the golden mean. For there are those who would describe man’s fallen estate, as distinguished from his guilt for personal transgressions, as mere weakness and susceptibility to evil, and they would not estimate the condition of depravity and carnality as really deplorable. Then, over against this shallow interpretation of sin stands the hyper-Calvinistic tenet which holds that man is so identified with sin, that sin so coheres in his flesh and in his human nature, that the two cannot be separated while man yet remains in the body. To these last, "total depravity" means that man is as totally fallen in every atom of the warp and woof of his nature and being as it is possible for him to be.

Now it will be readily seen that the first view of sin mentioned builds no foundation for a worthy doctrine of holiness. No wise physician would use strong medicine in the treatment of a minor skin rash, and no consistent theologian would bring infinite forces to bear upon a state and condition of moral nature that at worst is in need only of education and growth. If sin as depravity is not either serious or deep-rooted, then its cure is not a matter of high concern; or if it is to be accomplished, it can be done without the employment of major redemptive forces. On the other hand, the hyper-Calvinistic interpretation of the fallen estate lays the foundation for nothing more than "positional sanctification," for actual, imparted holiness is made impossible by the definition of sin as proposed. This conception of sin, meeting the scriptural demand for holy living, has given rise to such strange theories as those dubbed as "suppressionism," "counteractionism," and that still more delicate notion that even its fathers are reluctant to name, but which proposes that no one can really know that sin is gone or, in the fullness of the Spirit, cannot even know it is not gone. But all these errors regarding holiness hark back to a faulty definition of sin. A proper definition of sin is as essential to the sound theologian as diagnosis of disease is to the physician who would prescribe for the body.

Depravity The true doctrine of sin, as it relates to depravity, may be stated in brief as follows: Man is truly fallen in every function and factor of his being. His body is fallen, and as a consequence is mortal and will die. His mind and judgment are fallen, so that he does not have either full or accurate knowledge or altogether dependable judgment in all things. His affections are polluted, so that he loves things that he should abhor, and is wanting in love for the good and true and holy. He is therefore "totally depraved" in that there is no function or factor of his personality that is not affected. But through prevenient grace the full blow of sin’s curse is avoided. So that physically, though mortal, man in the flesh is not yet dead. In the moral sphere, though evil, man is yet not a demon in that he is redeemable. And every factor and function of man which is better than the possible worst is not a residue of man’s Edenic state, but is a bestowal of God by reason of the intervention of Christ. This is prevenient grace. As a further step in the development of this doctrine of sin, we hold that sin as a condition or state is like a virus in the blood, and is not in any way essential to one’s life. But it is a menace to life and a hindrance to the functioning of life in both the body and the spirit. This virus can therefore be removed, the bloodstream can be purged, and the person can still live; in fact, can live more abundantly in both body and spirit than before. This doctrine of sin lays foundation for a doctrine of sanctification that is both consistent and practical.

We would not claim too much at this point. We cannot now take time to fully disestablish the definitions which we hold to be in error. Suffice it to say that all the systems mentioned are consistent within themselves, and that their truth or error is in the foundation-their definition of sin-rather than in the processes of their logic. Those we hold to be in error are in error in their premises. We do not charge them with inconsistent argument. Those who start with an insufficient definition of sin go on to say that holiness is not a subject that should very much concern us, for since we were never very sick, we need not concern ourselves greatly with any effort to become completely well. The others, holding that sin and man are inseparable, claim that holiness is impossible in the present world. Their concept of sin being what it is, their definition of holiness could not well be other than what it is.

Those of this school who attempt to obey the inner call to holiness, and yet determine to hold to their former definition of sin, logically and naturally differentiate between the baptism with the Holy Ghost and sanctification, and seek to possess the power of the Spirit while yet denying the necessity and possibility of being purified by the Spirit’s incoming. So from this school of thinkers arise that whole band of earnest people who shy away from claiming purity, but covet earnestly the power of the Spirit, and bolster their untenable position by the invention of ideas like "positional holiness," "suppression of inbred sin," "counteraction of indwelling sin," "suspension of sin within," and other such ideas that have no scriptural basis. That we may not appear to be rabid, we call attention again to the fact that our subject is terminology, and not the facts which underlie terminology. We would not presume to judge any. Candor compels us to say that there are those who hold with us on what we believe to be the true doctrine who, nevertheless, do not attain to the standards of grace and practice which the true doctrine implies. Likewise there are those whose doctrinal position we sincerely believe to be in error, whose attainments in both experience and conduct are much better than their doctrines demand.

Every sin against God is treason against the Lawgiver and Judge, and is therefore both mortal and capital. Except it be covered by the blood of Jesus Christ it will eventuate in eternal damnation. But through the infinitely precious atoning blood of Jesus Christ there are grace and mercy for all, no matter how red their guilt or how crimson their pollution. That sin against the Holy Ghost hath no forgiveness is not a limitation on the mercy of God, but is a judicial consequence of the sinner’s own persistent disobedience and neglect. The deepest guilt that can be charged against any man has its match in the fountain opened in the spear-pierced side of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in that blood there are pardon and purity for all.

There is a theoretical distinction between forgiveness, which is the act of God by which repentant sinners are justified, and regeneration and adoption. Forgiveness takes place in the mind and heart of God; regeneration takes place in the heart of man. Adoption is the restoration of proper relationship with God, and is based upon the facts of pardon and regeneration. But although these three are differentiated theoretically, there is no discernible distinction in experience, so that whoever is justified is also regenerated and adopted. When we speak of justified Christians, we refer to those who have come to God in repentance and faith and have been pardoned, regenerated, and adopted into the family of God, and have received the witness of the Spirit to their changed condition and rectified relation.

What, then, is the inner state of one who has been thus pardoned, regenerated, and adopted into the family of God? Let us first consider the orthodox conception of the state and condition of such a person. History, I think, sustains John Wesley’s claim [1] that there was no controversy in the primitive Church as to whether or not inbred sin remains in the regenerated. Wesley contended that Count Zinzendorf, his own contemporary, was the first (except for some "wild ranting Antinomians" of whom he had heard) to suggest and teach that at the time we are regenerated we are also cleansed from all sin and made holy. But this heresy has been revived and propagated in our own times, as has also the error of the antinomians, who, as Wesley found, "say and unsay, acknowledging there is sin in the flesh, although not sin in the heart." But Wesley was clear as to what is meant by sin, the sin that remains in the believer after regeneration, for of this he says, "By sin, I here understand inward sin; any sinful temper, passion, or affection; such as pride, self-will, love of the world, in any kind or degree; such as lust, anger, peevishness; any disposition contrary to the mind which was in Christ."

Speaking of the practical aspect of the question of sin in believers, and in berating the theory of Count Zinzendorf, Wesley observes: From what has been said, we may easily learn the mischievousness of that opinion, that we are wholly sanctified when we are justified; that our hearts are then cleansed from all sin. It is true, we are delivered, as was observed before, from the dominion of outward sin; and at the same time, the power of inward sin is so broken, that we need no longer follow, or be led by it; but it is by no means true, that inward sin is then totally destroyed; that the root of pride, self-will, anger, love of the world, is taken out of the heart; or that the carnal mind, and the heart bent to backsliding are entirely extirpated. And to suppose the contrary, is not, as some think, an innocent, harmless mistake. No: it does immense harm; it entirely blocks the way to any further change: for it is manifest, "They that are whole do not need a physician, but they that are sick." If, therefore, we think we are quite made whole already, there is no room to seek any further healing. On this supposition it is absurd to expect a further deliverance from sin, whether gradual or instantaneous. [2]

There is perhaps less call now for extended contention that sin remains in the heart of the regenerate than there was in the days of Wesley. The battle is now joined at a new point; for the general disposition is to admit that sin remains after regeneration, and then proceed on the assumption that this sin must remain until the end of the earthly life. If the followers of Count Zinzendorf were blocked from seeking sanctification by the unwarranted assumption that they received it when they were regenerated, those of our day who have by their very definition of sin made it impossible that we should be delivered from it in this life have doubled the bars and made the successful seeking of such deliverance a logical impossibility. Under such circumstances the quest for holiness must be abandoned before it is begun. But what, indeed, is the nature of that sin which remains in the believer after regeneration? All agree that it is not a remnant of guilt for transgression; all this was fully canceled at the time of the new birth. The very terms by which this remaining sin is described are strongly indicative of the nature of the sin itself. These terms are such as "inborn sin," "inbred sin," and "inherent sin." The first two of this triad are not quite strong enough in that they fail by definition to indicate fully the clinging nature and character of sin. Also they fall short of intimating by what means a child born of sanctified parents will still appear possessed of the sinful nature. The last of the triad is too strong in that it implies that this sin is inseparable and unalienable from the person possessed of it. Thus the sin that remains in the regenerated hides in between the extremes of definition. But the fact is that while the sin that remains in the regenerated is inherent as to the method of its transmittance, it is yet separable and alienable, and this statement is at the crux of our argument for both the need and the possibility of holiness. For it is evident that if the character and nature of sin is such that it cannot be separated from its possessor there can be no point in pursuing the subject further. No sane person can be expected seriously to follow after that which is unattainable. And, further, there could be no point in presenting commandments or promises, provisions or conditions for sanctification, if the nature of sin is such that deliverance from it is impossible in this life. If in the nature of things sin must remain in us until death, there is no point in debating the relative place of faith and growth in the processes of purification. If indeed sin cannot be alienated by any means whatsoever without destroying the personality of the man, then all our longings for purity are in vain. There is nothing we can do except to wait for death to bring the release which the grace of God is found unadapted for doing. The Scriptures clearly teach that before the fall of man there was neither sin nor death in the world, and that after the Fall both were present. Taking these facts into consideration, we have basis for the wide-reaching doctrine of sin and its consequences. For while death is not the only consequence of sin, it is the easiest of all universal consequences to recognize. And since no one can deny the presence of death in the world, it is likewise impossible for those who believe that consequences must have adequate causes to deny the presence and sinister character of sin. Furthermore, no thoughtful person can think of limiting the consequences of sin to the physical in the individual, any more than he can prescribe such limitations for the race and for the world at large. In general people have no difficulty in differentiating their bodies from their souls or spirits. But the exact point at which the physical stops and the spiritual begins may no man know. That there are weaknesses in the body as a result of sin, weaknesses that continue with us until the end of life, no sane person will deny. Nor will any question but that these weaknesses and destroying tendencies will finally eventuate in death. If, then, the term sin is to be applied to all the consequences of sin, no one may believe in the complete eradication of sin during this life. But both the Scriptures and the experiences of men agree that there is also a residue of sin in the moral nature of the regenerated believer. This residue is not a remnant of guilt, as before observed, but is in the nature of a defilement. It is an impurity in the fountain from which all moral life takes its rise rather than a fault in the stream of life itself. There is little debate as to whether or not this sin does remain. The debate gathers rather about the question as to whether this remaining sin can be separated and destroyed while the Christian yet remains in the body. The Human and the Carnal

Answering this question, we admit that the physical phases of the consequence of sin may properly be included under a general name like depravity. And when such general terms are used, a broad claim that depravity is separable is not valid. It is only the moral taint, the virus in the bloodstream of the spiritual man, which is included in the promise, "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." The holiness which is commanded and promised for this life is a wholeness of spirit, not a wholeness of the complete personality. Dr. Wiley is undoubtedly correct when he says, "Since mental strain often weakens the physical constitution, and physical weakness in turn clouds the mind and spirit of man, there is ever needful, a spirit of charity toward all men." [3] And to this we would add, what I think Dr. Wiley implies, that this charity should not exclude ourselves. There are many sincere people who very much need their own mercy to save them from unnecessary torment because of their weaknesses and tendencies that are involuntary and which are of the physical rather than of the moral nature.

Because of the delicate measure of the line which divides the physical and the moral, the human and the carnal, it is not always possible to distinguish the one from the other. And while we need charity for ourselves and for others that we may not call human weakness sin, we also need to be exceedingly careful (especially when appraising ourselves) that we do not call that which is sinful and carnal by some softer name. To do so would compromise the fundamentals of holiness on the altar of a misplaced charity. But however difficult it may be to distinguish the human and the carnal, it is the obligation of every Christian to do so within himself. Having made the distinction, human weakness remains as a badge of his humiliation, but sin is to be completely destroyed through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. In thought, and so far as possible in word, the term sin should be applied only to the carnal and separable. That which is only human and inalienable should be known as weakness or infirmity. Such an observance of terms would make for clarity and would save much misunderstanding.

Article V in the creed of the Church of the Nazarene is entitled "Original Sin, or Depravity." Dr. Wiley calls attention to the fact that the statement found here is historically related to Article VII of the Twenty-five Articles of Methodism, and to Article IX of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church. [4] The article in the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene reads as follows:

We believe that original sin, or depravity, is that corruption of the nature of all the offspring of Adam, by reason of which every one is very far gone from original righteousness, or the pure state of our first parents at the time of their creation, is averse to God, is without spiritual life, is inclined to evil, and that continually; and that it continues to exist with the new life of the regenerate, until eradicated by the baptism with the Holy Spirit. [5] Commenting on the "Doctrinal Aspects of Original Sin," Dr. Wiley says, in part:

Depravity belongs to the whole person of man, and not merely to some form of personal manifestation, whether through the will, the intellect, or the affections. It is a state or condition in which the person exists, and thus may be said to be a nature -- a term which in its metaphysical form is not easily grasped, but which is very real in actual existence. By "a nature" we may mean either of two things, (1) the constituent elements of man’s being which distinguish him from every other order of existence. In this sense human nature remains as it was originally created. (2) The moral development of his being as a growth from within, apart from external influences. It is in this sense only, that we speak of man’s nature as corrupt. This corruption is inherent and not merely accidental. Sin, however, in the former sense of the word nature, is not inherent but simply accidental. It was not a constituent element of man’s being as he was originally created. For this reason, sin is not in harmony with man’s true nature, as is witnessed by conscience and the profounder law of reason, which is an element of man’s natural image. This corrupt nature, therefore, is something alien to the primitive holiness of man’s nature by creation, and in thought at least is separable from the person whose condition it represents. [6]

We give this quotation both to confirm and to explain our claim that sin as it affects the moral nature of man is separable from man, and is therefore not inalienable during the whole course of life upon earth. As originally created, man was without sin, and he was preserved in a sinless state by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. When man sinned, the Spirit was withdrawn, and this deprivation made possible the depravation of which we now complain. But the depravation is not in the nature in which man was originally made, but only in that nature which became his thro