Heart Circumcision (Rewritten)

Abraham’s spiritual life unfolds through three major turning points — three decisive moments that mark his growth in faith and obedience.

The first came when he was called to leave his country and his relatives at God’s command. This moment mirrors the call of the Holy Spirit that eventually reaches every sinner: a call to turn away from known sin as preparation for saving faith in Christ.

Sanctified Parents

QUESTION: Why are not the children of entirely sanctified parents born without any bent toward sin?

ANSWER: This bent is derived from fallen Adam. His sin damaged the whole race. The perfected holiness of the parents is not a natural but an acquired quality, which cannot be transmitted any more than any manual dexterity of mental attainment can be transmitted by descent. There are mysteries in heredity. How can black-haired parents have a redhead among their children? How did it come down from some ancestors who lived centuries before? When these questions are answered we will try to answer how a depraved child can be born of holy parents. It is true that the parent may intensify or diminish the evil trend in their child, but they cannot wholly remove it. That is the work of God only.

— From Steele's Answers pp. 13, 14.

Is It the Same Spirit?

In Luke 1:15 the angel Gabriel predicts the following of John the Baptist - "...for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He must never drink wine or strong drink; even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit." (NRSV)


QUESTION: Was the Spirit predicated of John from his birth (Luke 1:15) identical with the Pentecostal gift to the disciples?

ANSWER: The Third Person of the Trinity has always been in the world, but his activity before Pentecost differed from his operations after his public manifestation as the Pentecostal gift, as an outward temporary gift, like skill to Bezaleel, physical strength to Samson, the kingly feel to Saul, differs from the permanent inward grace adorning the soul with all the Christian virtues, love, joy, peace, etc. We are not to understand that John was an exception to the law of heredity by which all of the offspring of Adam except the second Adam were tainted with a tendency toward sin. See Rom. 5:12, "For all have sinned," i.e., became sinful. John the Baptist  was so under the influence of the Holy Spirit as to be kept from actual sin and through faith to be cleansed from depraved tendency even in childhood. Were parents as deeply spiritual in these times as John's were there would be frequent instances of sky-born children sanctified to God before the devil could touch them. Oh, for more houses filled with the heavenly atmosphere of perfect love in which childhood may be early purified and trained for Christ and his church! It is a great blessing to be well born.

— from Steele's Answers pp. 10, 11.

Could God Have Prevented Sin?

QUESTION: Could not God have refused to create the tree bearing forbidden fruit, and in this way have prevented the sin of Adam and Eve?

ANSWER: He could have refrained from such a creation, but in that case there would have been some other way of testing their obedience to their Creator. A test must consist in something which appeals to desire. The good-looking fruit appealed to appetite. It would have been too severe if there had not been a great variety of permitted fruit for their health and pleasure. Every free agent, without intelligence and experience, in attempting to find the line between right and wrong, will probably sooner or later find out by stepping over this fiery boundary and getting well scorched for his daring act. The liability of free agents to sin can be prevented only by suppressing their freedom and converting them into machines, i. e., by uncreating them. It is reasonable to suppose that out of all possible plans of a moral universe God selected that one which he foresaw would involve the least suffering. Therefore we should praise God for creating us with all our moral risks instead of censuring Him for the self-induced failure and suffering of as few perhaps relatively as the prisoners in our State prisons are to the entire population outside.

— Steele's Answers p. 258.

In What Sense is Sin Inherited?

QUESTION: In what sense may sin be transmitted?

ANSWER: Not as guilt, which implies an intelligent, willful, wrong act, but as a downward tendency according to the laws of heredity, by which not only physical and intellectual traits are transmitted, but also moral proclivities.

— Steele's Answers p. 182, 183.

The Biblical Proofs of Inbred Sin

QUESTION: What are the Biblical proofs of inbred sin or birth sin?

ANSWER: They are chiefly found in the Old Testament, such as Ps 51:5, "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me;" 58:3, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." Job 15:14, "What is man, that he should be clean? And he that is born of woman, that he should be righteous?" Rom. 5:12-21 contains proofs that the effect of Adam's sin was universal. Eph. 2:3, "by nature children of wrath," has been considered a strong proof of original or inbred sin, but from the context we learn that Paul is describing adult, actual, responsible sinners, whom he deems worthy of punishment, expressed in the Hebrew idiom as "children of wrath." Richard Watson thought that John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh," is the strongest proof of inbred sin to be found in the Bible. But scholars now study the meaning of words as used by different writers, and they agree that nowhere in John, and probably nowhere in the Gospels, is "flesh" used in a bad sense to denote depravity. "The flesh," says President Timothy Dwight, "is to be understood here in the physical, not in the moral, sense." "Flesh and spirit," says Westcott, "are not related to one another as evil and good; but as two spheres of being with which man is connected by the spirit of heaven, by the flesh to the earth."

— Steele's Answers pp. 132, 133.

The Salvation of a Dying Infant

QUESTION: On what grounds is the dying infant freed from Adamic depravity?

ANSWER; On the ground of the atonement made for the fallen race by Jesus Christ. Cut off from development and sanctification, by which he could have been delivered through faith in Christ from the effects of an evil heredity, he is unconditionally cleansed by the second Adam from the defilement of Adam. The plaster is as large as the wound. "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." This is as true of the infant incapable of faith as it is of the believer in Christ.

— Steele's Answers p. 118.

"Sins" and "Sin" — Singular and Plural

QUESTION: Is  it not a fact that all Scriptural texts speaking of sin in the singular number have reference to inbred sin and never refer to actual sins (plural)? Is not this true?

ANSWER: It is not true. In the singular "sin" is found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt., Mark and Luke) but once, "Every sin and blasphemy," etc. (Matt. 12:81). Stephen prayed, "Lord lay not this sin to their charge" (Acts 7:60), "If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death," etc. "There is a sin unto death" (I John 5:16), and "If we say we have no sin" (1:8), in all these texts some act of sin is meant. The phrase "to have sin" is found elsewhere only in John 9:41, "If ye were blind, ye would have no sin;" 15:22, 24, "If I had not * * *  spoken * * * they had not sin." Also, "He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin" (19:11). This phrase "to have sin" the experts say is the strongest possible expression for an act entailing guilt. The poet Euripides uses it of one who has committed murder. John uses the term "sin" in only one signification, "the transgression of the law." Paul rhetorically personifies sin, i.e., sinning, as an imperial personage ruling sinners who become his slaves, and John personifies sin as a slave holder (8:34). "The slave of sin is bondage to sinning." Sow a thought, and you reap an act, sow an act, and you reap a habit; sow a habit and you reap a character; sow a character and you reap a destiny. The consequences of Adam's transgression have damaged me, but the guilt he did not bequeath to me, because it is non-transferable. Yet Wesley in the second of the Articles of Religion speaks of Christ as "a sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also for the actual sins of man." Substitute Adam's for "original," and I will accept it.

— Steele's Answers pp. 117, 116.

Are We Responsible for Original Sin?

QUESTION: Are we not responsible for inbred sin?

ANSWER: I cannot he responsible for any inborn quality. But when I find that there is a perfect cure in the blood of Christ and I prefer the disease to the cure, I become responsible for the continued existence of the inherited evil tendency. The whole Christian world from before the days of Jerome down to Wesley inclusive believed in the guilt of the original sin, that we all sinned in Adam and deserve punishment for Adam's sin and that we cannot plead an alibi, i.e., that we were elsewhere. This doctrine which has perplexed Christians and clouded the character of God 1,500 years, came from a mistranslation of Rom. 3:12, "in whom all have sinned," instead of "in that we all sin" (sooner or later), all except the Son of man. This mistake is, in the earliest Latin Version, and was copied by Jerome in the Vulgate, guilt of "original sin" became fixed in the theology of the church from which it descended into some reformed churches, especially those of the Calvinian type.

— from Steele's Answers pp 94, 95.

Where Did the Term "Original Sin" Originate?

QUESTION: When did the term "original sin" originate in Christian theology?

ANSWER: The doctrine of an inborn propensity to sin was taught by the New Testament writers, but the phrase "original sin" probably arose soon after Jerome, the author of the Vulgate version, erroneously translated Rom. 5:12, "in whom all men have sinned." This was quoted in proof that we all were present in Adam and were guilty of the sin we then committed and are consequently deserving of eternal punishment. The correct rendering is "death passed unto all men, for that all sin," sooner or later. That is the bent of fallen humanity. Original sin is now understood to mean that hereditary leaning toward moral evil which is removed by the completed work of the Holy Spirit in entire sanctification.

— Steele's Answers pp. 91, 92. 

Transition Points in the Life of Abraham

There were three remarkable transition points in the religious development of Abraham.

The first was separation from his kindred and country at the Divine command. The call of Abraham is typical of that call of the Holy Spirit, which sooner or later comes to every sinner, to turn away from all known sin as a preparation for saving faith in Christ.

The second point of transition in Abraham's life was his justification by faith. He believed in Jehovah; and He counted it to him for righteousness. St. Paul cites this as a conspicuous instance of justification by faith under the old covenant. Abraham had exercised faith in obeying the call to separation; but it was what theologians style prevenient rather than saving faith.

Is Original Sin a Biblical Doctrine?

QUESTION: Are the phrases "original sin," "birth sin," "inbred sin" found in the Bible?

ANSWER: No. But a doctrine may be in the Bible while the term invented by men to express it is not scriptural, such as Trinity, sacrament, eucharist. Atonement is not found in the Revised New Testament. Theologians, feeling the need of a term to express racial bent or inclination towards sin inherited from Adam and Eve, called it original sin, using the term "sin" in an improper sense, because "sin properly so called," says J. Wesley, "is the willful transgression of a known law of God." Hence Arminians, whenever they use any one of these three phrases, are obligated to disclaim the elements of volition and guilt, which constitute the essence of sin. Much perplexity and many theological discussions would have been avoided if a different term had been invented to denote the racial trend towards sin. Paul used the terms "flesh" and "carnal" in 1 Cor. 3:1-3, and Gal. 5:17 in describing Christians in whom there was still lingering the proclivity to sin. But this word has about a half dozen meanings, mostly good, so that its use to denote badness is very confusing. Hence many speakers and writers decline to use the term so equivocal. The phrase "sin which dwelleth in me," occurs in Rom. 7:17 as descriptive, not of a regenerated person, but of a convicted moralist, personated by Paul, a character striving to realize his ideal of righteousness without faith in Jesus Christ. If real sin dwells in a man, he is not born of God, but is a child of the devil, according to 1 John 3:9, 10.

— Steele's Answers pp. 75, 76.

Is Self-Loathing Piety Necessary?

Growth in grace, while accompanied by increasing power to abstain from actual sin, has no power to annihilate the spirit of sin, commonly called original sin. The revelation of its indwelling is more and more perfect and appalling as we advance from conversion.

Hence, in Calvinistic writings especially, we find that the measure of true piety is self-abhorrence. The more entire the consecration, the more vile in their own eyes do eminent saints appear. This standard of piety is a peculiarity of all the truly devout souls who were taught to believe that there is no power to deliver from inborn depravity this side of the grave. To these persons a piety which is not self-loathing and self-condemning is as contradictory as a piety which is not penitent.

But the sinless Jesus exhibited the marvelous proof of an impenitent piety. May not they who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb stand forth, even on earth, as specimens of a piety which glorifies God without self-vilification? Does God get the highest revenue of glory from us while we perpetually proclaim that the blood of Christ fails to reach the root of evil in our natures? If not, then the self-loathing style of piety, like that of David Brainerd in his early ministry, who saw so much corruption in his heart that he wondered the people did not stone him out of the pulpit, is a mere initial and rudimentary form, reflecting not the highest honor upon its Author.

— Love Enthroned, Chapter 18.

Can Christians Live Without Sin?

QUESTION: Are we to understand that the regenerated can live without sin?

ANSWER: "Sin properly defined," says Wesley, "is the willful transgression of the known law of God." The new birth implants a new principle in the heart which gives him victory over sin. The principle is love to God "shed abroad in the hearts by the Holy Spirit." It is unnatural for one who loves God willfully to violate his known command. Hence John says: "He that is born of God sinneth not." There is an improper definition of sin of a wider sweep embracing the least deviation from the absolute holiness of God, not only in voluntary and intelligent acts, but also in the depraved tendency inherited from Adam and perfectly involuntary. This is called by theologians "original sin." The Methodists, and Arminians generally, teach that this lacks the essential elements of sin which are volition and guilt. From this kind of sin regeneration does not deliver. But it does enable the believer to resist every temptation to transgress the visible, fiery boundary between what is known to be right and what is known to be wrong. It does greatly weaken that "bent to sinning" which entire sanctification removes, but it does not remove the soul from the sphere of temptation. Every soul in probation is within bow-shot of the devil, as was the Son of God himself while on the earth.

— Steele's Answers pp. 58, 59

---

EDITOR'S NOTE: I have discovered that people are often shocked to discover what John Wesley actually taught on this topic. Compare what Steele says above with what Wesley says in the quotes compiled here: THE JUSTIFIED AND REGENERATE STATE DOES NOT ADMIT OF COMMITTING SIN.

Is Inward Sinfulness Necessary to Keep Us Humble?

But is not sin in the heart necessary to keep the soul humble? Will not spiritual pride lift itself up as soon as sin is destroyed ?

As well might you ask whether a man would not lift up his head haughtily when his neck has been broken. The Holy Spirit, taking complete possession of the heart, not only breaks the neck of sin, but casts out this strong man, leaving no seed of pride behind. Perfect love to Christ is perfect lowliness. When it is demonstrated that men must drink a little whiskey daily in order to temperance, — steal a trifling amount every day in order to be honest, — tell a few fibs every twenty four hours in order to be truthful, — and occasionally violate the seventh commandment that they may maintain their purity, — then we will sit down and soberly answer the objection that a little nest-egg of sin in the heart is a necessary nucleus about which all the Christian virtues are to be gathered.

— from Love Enthroned, Chapter 5.

The Propensity to Sin

QUESTION: Opposers to holiness in our town assert that those who have no bent toward sin are incapable of temptation, that Adam before his fall and that Jesus Christ himself had this bent, otherwise they could not be tempted.

ANSWER: If this reasoning is correct, it follows that the devil and his angels had depraved tendencies before they fell into sin, and that they were created with a propensity to sin implanted in them by God. This makes Him the author of sin. If you ask how a perfectly holy soul can sin, we reply that we do not know. How sin got into a holy universe is a question which puzzles all the sages. To give a good reason for sin would justify sin. Sin is unreason. In the Bible the sinner is properly styled a fool. My mind reposes upon a doctrine I cannot explain, that every sinner is the first cause of his own sin, a cause uncaused which no man can explain or comprehend. Every moral intelligences angel, or man is the absolute creator of his own character and destiny.

— from Steele's Answers p. 40. 

On Sin in Believers

What is the difference then, between sin in a sinner, and sin in a believer? The same difference that there is between poison in a rattlesnake and the virus of that serpent injected into a healthy man. The venom is natural to the reptile. He delights in it, secretes and cherishes it with pleasure. But all the vital forces of the man resist the injected poison, and rally to thrust it out of the system.