Love at War (Rewritten)

As long as sin exists in the world, love cannot remain passive. Love must fight. Christ himself came out of the Father’s love not merely to soothe the world, but to confront it — to bring a sword against sin. The cross stands at the center of this conflict, a rallying point for forces hostile to evil. The sinful soul is like a fortified stronghold, crowded with enemies opposed to Christ. Love advances on that stronghold step by step, determined to conquer and fully possess it.

1. Pardon through Christ’s Atoning Blood

The first move of love is the offer of forgiveness through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.

Righteousness Leading to Sanctifcation (Rewritten)

 "I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness." — Romans 6:19 KJV.

 "I am speaking in human terms because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification." — Romans 6:19 NRSV.

Ἀνθρώπινον λέγω διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν. ὥσπερ γὰρ παρεστήσατε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν δοῦλα τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνομίᾳ εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν, οὕτως νῦν παραστήσατε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν δοῦλα τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ εἰς ἁγιασμόν. — Romans 6:19

---

In the King James Version of the Bible, the phrase reads “righteousness unto holiness.” This does not refer to the initial holiness that comes with regeneration, but — as Dean Alford explains — to perfect holiness. In other words, believers are called to “present their members as servants to righteousness, leading to — resulting in — perfect holiness.”

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.

On the Governmental Theory of Atonement

THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY.

III. The Scripture which comes nearest to a statement of the philosophy of the atonement is Rom. iii. 25: "Whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith, by His blood, for the exhibition of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins before committed in the forbearance of God." The question is, What is the nature of the righteousness exhibited in the setting forth of Jesus Christ as a propitiation? Is it the justice of the Judge or the justice of the Governor? In probation God is not dealing with us as a Judge, but as a Governor. The righteousness exhibited is not judicial, exact, distributive, giving to each his exact deserts, but rectoral, governmental, general justice, defined by Webster as that "which carries out all the ends of law, though not in every case through the channels of distributive justice, as we often see done by a parent or ruler in his dealings with those who are subject to his control." The atonement was necessary for the same reason, precisely, that the penalty of the violated law was necessary: it takes the place of that penalty, in the case of penitent believers, answering the same end as would be answered by the infliction of the penalty, maintaining divine law. A more exact definition is that of Miley: 

 

"The vicarious sufferings and death of Christ are an atonement for sin as a conditional substitute for punishment, fulfilling, on the forgiveness of sin, the obligation of justice in moral government." 

 

The advantages of this theory are:

On the Penal Satisfaction Theory of Atonement

 The question must be answered,

WHY IS THE ATONEMENT NECESSARY?

Who or what demanded it? We pass by the first answer, that it was necessary to satisfy the claim of Satan, who had captured the sinful race of men, and was holding them as his prisoners. For more than a thousand years this was the common answer. I do not say the only answer, because here and there one, like Athanasius, and John of Damascus, declared that the satisfaction was paid to God the Father. But under the stimulus of the Gospel quickening the intellect, this theological crudity of a tribute to Satan was outgrown, and the way was opened for a thorough discussion of the necessity of Christ's atoning death, for He must be lifted up, He must needs have suffered. Out of the various answers we shall have time to speak of only three: first, God's essential justice; secondly, man's obduracy in sin; and thirdly, the requirements of a Divine government, offering conditional pardon to a race of sinners. The first and the last locate the necessity on the Godward side, while the second locates it wholly on the manward side.

Leviticus 14:10-20 - The Cleansing of the Leper (Part 2)

"10 And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals of fine flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil. 11 And the priest that maketh him clean shall present the man that is to be made clean, and those things, before the LORD, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: 12 And the priest shall take one he lamb, and offer him for a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: 13 And he shall slay the lamb in the place where he shall kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place: for as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the trespass offering: it is most holy: 14 And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot: 15 And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand: 16 And the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the LORD: 17 And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand shall the priest put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the blood of the trespass offering: 18 And the remnant of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall pour upon the head of him that is to be cleansed: and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD. 19 And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed from his uncleanness; and afterward he shall kill the burnt offering: 20 And the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the meat offering upon the altar: and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and he shall be clean." — Leviticus 14:10-20 KJV.

10. Eighth day — See Leviticus 9:1, note. Two lambs — The Hebrew term applies to young sheep till three years old. If it be of the first year the fact is expressly stated. Without blemish — See Leviticus 1:3, note. Three tenth deals — Three omers, about nine quarts: R.V., “three tenth parts of an ephah.” See Leviticus 23:13, note. Meat offering — See chap. ii, notes. One log of oil — The term “log” is transferred from the Hebrew. It contained the twelfth part of a hin, or six egg-shells=.833 of a pint. This olive oil was to be applied to the person of the cleansed leper. Whilst other requisites for the final cleansing varied, according to his ability, this was invariable, because of its typical significance — the unction of the Holy Ghost.

A New Principle of Life

Regeneration is the lodgement by the Holy Spirit of the new principle of life. This is love to God, which is the ruling motive of every genuine Christian. There is a radical and an essential difference between those who are born again and the best of those who lay claim to only natural goodness, a beautiful moral character revolving around self as a centre. But the great transition from spiritual death to spiritual life does not make the child of God at once complete in holiness. The Holy Spirit in sanctification does not work magically, nor mechanically like a washing machine, but by the influence of grace, in accordance with the essential constitution of man, and in the way of a vital process, only by degrees completely renewing the soul.

— From: The Gospel of the Comforter Chapter XIV “The Spirit’s Work in Regeneration.”

The Books Beyond the Gospels

QUESTION: Why should I receive the epistles of Paul, John and other apostles as authorities equal to the words of Jesus Christ?

ANSWER: Because he announced the incompleteness of his teachings and that the Holy Spirit would teach them truths which they could not bear to receive from his lips, such as the atonement, justification by faith, the in-gathering of the Gentiles, the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day, the substitution of baptism for circumcision, the abolition of the whole Levitical law.

— From Steele's Answers p. 13.

Are Infants Born Justified?

QUESTION: If infants are born in a state of justification, are they not also regenerated, since regeneration accompanies justification?

ANSWER: No. Justification is a legal term for forgiveness of sin and hence it cannot be properly applied to one who has never sinned and is incapable of sinning. Acceptance would be a better term. This does not imply the infant's regeneration. All infants belong to Christ, who redeemed them. It is not wise to apply to them the terms which belong only to believers, such as justification, regeneration and sanctification. Bishop Gilbert Haven, at my dinner table, asked the lady presiding whether the children were not born regenerate. Her reply was, "If they were, they all backslid before they were more than three weeks old."

— from Steele's Answers pp. 9, 10.

Leviticus 5:7-19 (Trespass Offering)

 "And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder: And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering. And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him. But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering. Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest’s, as a meat offering. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering: And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him. And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the LORD." — Leviticus 5:7-19 KJV.

7. Not able to bring a lamb — For the adjustment of the Divine requirements to human ability, see Leviticus 1:14, note. One for a sin offering — This brings the sinner into reconciliation with God. The other for a burnt offering — This typifies the complete consecration of the reconciled sinner, soul, body, and spirit, unto Him who hath redeemed him with his precious blood. The sin sacrifice symbolically brings the penitent offerer into the state of justification, and the whole burnt sacrifice, in like manner, initiates him into entire sanctification.

8. The sin offering first — This direction is important, as it determines the order of the sacrifices. See The Order of the Levitical Sacrifices.

10. According to the manner — See Leviticus 1. 13-17.

11. Turtledoves… pigeons — See chap. 1, notes, also see: The Sacrificial Animals in Leviticus.

The tenth… ephah… flour — The most impoverished person was supposed to be able to present three quarts of sifted wheat or barley flour for the disburdening of his conscience. No oil… neither… frankincense — The addition of these would make a מִנְחָה (mincha), or bread offering, Leviticus 2:2, a eucharistic sacrifice, which could be offered only by one in a state of acceptance with God. The sinner must secure pardon before he offers praise. Says Kurtz: “Oil and incense symbolized the Spirit of God and the prayers of the faithful; the meat offering, always good works; but these are then only good works and acceptable to God when they proceed from the soil of a heart truly sanctified. The sin offering, however, was pre-eminently the atonement offering; the idea of atonement came out so prominently that no room was left for others. The consecration of the person, and the presentation of his good works, to the Lord, had to be reserved for another stage in the sacrificial institute.” How strikingly this corroborates the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification as a work distinct from justification. Jesus, the great Sin Offering, so fills the vision of the penitent sinner that there is no room for the consideration of his other office, by which he is made unto the believer “wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification.”

DEFECTS IN HOLY THINGS, 14-19.

15. Commit a trespass — This is the first time that the word מַ֔עַל, to act treacherously, or to be faithless, is found in the Bible. By the use of a new term the sacred writer speaks of a peculiar kind of moral delinquency which flows from human infirmity, neglect, or cowardice. Holy things of the Lord — This relates to deficiencies in the tithes, firstfruits, sacrifices, vows, redemption of the firstborn, and other sources of revenue to the priests, which have occurred through forgetfulness or negligence. Those who had erroneous judgments or short memories in respect to their dues to the house of God — a numerous class, which, unfortunately, did not become extinct with Judaism — were to be enlightened and convicted of their delinquencies, and excited to make amends and seek forgiveness. With thy estimation — The person addressed is Moses, who here represents the priest. The “estimation” is the assessed amount of the deficiency, which, with a fifth added, and a perfect ram besides for a sin offering, was deemed a sufficient indemnity for the past and safeguard for the future. When we see the sin “in the holy things of the Lord” committed by careless or covetous Christians, we are inclined to wish that the Gospel were a system of precepts instead of principles — precepts prescribing the exact payment of a certain proportion of income to the Lord’s treasury, instead of broad principles easily forgotten or misapplied. Yet the Gospel, the law of liberty, has its compensations in the many noble characters which this system of spiritual freedom develops, while the preceptory religion of the Hebrews sadly failed to eradicate that “covetousness which is idolatry.” Malachi 3:8-10.

17. If a soul sin… though he wist it not — The case described in verses 17-19 differs from the preceding in the fact that this sin of ignorance never comes to knowledge, while there is ground for suspecting that the sin may have been committed. In this case the person is not to give himself the benefit of the doubt, but he should make amends for the hypothetical delinquency. The example cited by the rabbins is that of a person who has grounds for suspecting that he has eaten suet, or fat of the inwards, intermingled with other food. His conscience can be relieved of the doubt only by bringing a ram as a trespass offering. Thus that principle is divinely established which is cogently argued by Bishop Butler, namely, that doubt in religious matters involves proof enough to incite to the performance of religious duties, and to criminate the doubter if he refuses. See Romans 14:23.

CONCLUDING NOTE.

Opponents of that central doctrine of both the Levitical and Christian dispensations, the vicarious atonement, endeavour to invalidate it by an objection drawn from this chapter, namely, the prominence given to defilements not moral, but merely bodily and external, as contact with the carcass of an unclean beast. But an attentive examination will show that this prominence is seeming rather than real. These ceremonial impurities appear to be of the greatest importance, because they are minutely defined and broadly spread out before the reader. But it will be found that the mention of them is only supplementary, lest the people should suppose that such comparatively trifling offences against the law of purity were not included. This must be evident to him who reads the preceding chapter, where it is said in regard to the priest, the prince, the congregation, and the private individual, if they sin “against any of the commandments of God,” let the prescribed sin offering be made. Here it requires no minute definition of sin, since the decalogue had been written on the tables of stone, a visible expression of the older decalogue written on the tablets of the heart. It was impossible for the Hebrews to understand “the commandments of God” in any other sense than the moral precepts and prohibitions given on Mount Sinai. These were prominently before their minds, and for infractions of these chiefly was the blood of the victims to be shed. Again, when the symbolical nature of ceremonial institutions shall be correctly unfolded, there will be found a moral element deeply embodied in them, for the sake of which alone these shadowy rites were instituted, the uncleanness of a man prefiguring the filthiness of “the flesh and spirit,” and the dead body fore-showing the natural corruption of the unregenerate heart, styled by St. Paul, “the body of this death.”

The Order of the Levitical Sacrifices

At the first view there seems to be no prescribed order in which these different kinds of oblations are to be offered to Jehovah. There is a prevalent, yet erroneous, idea that this was left wholly to the option or caprice of the worshipper. But a more careful inspection discloses two key-texts which open the question of the order. 

The first is found in Leviticus 5:6, 7, where the law directs that the poor man may bring two fowls instead of a lamb or a kid; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. The priest is explicitly directed to offer the sin offering first, and then the burnt offering. 

The second key-text is still more valuable, inasmuch as it opens to us the order of the three classes of offerings. It is found in chap. 8 — the order of offerings at the consecration of Aaron and his sons; the sin offering, the whole burnt offering, and the ram of consecration, which answers to the peace offering. 

In other words, the conscience of the offerer was first to be ceremonially purged from sin to render him acceptable to God before he could dedicate his entire being to him. After this the self-consecratory burnt offering is in order; then the peace offering or the meat offering may be presented, as a medium of communion with Jehovah, who gives the largest part of the peace offering back to be eaten by the offerer and his friends in a joyful sacrificial feast. The beautiful correspondence of these offerings, in this order, to justification, sanctification, the communion of the Holy Ghost, and the communion of saints, will be pointed out in the notes.

It is remarkable that both these key-texts should have escaped the keen eye of Keil, who says that these laws "contain no rules respecting the order in which they were to follow one another, when two or more sacrifices were offered together."

The Struggles of the Justified

The spirit of sin, or inbred sin, technically called original sin, because it is inherited from Adam, is the state of heart out of which acts of sin either actually flow or tend to flow. Until this state is changed, the conquest of love over the soul is incomplete.

Regeneration introduces a power which checks the out breaking of original into actual sin, except occasional and almost involuntary sallies in moments of weakness or unwatchfulness. These are a source of grief and condemnation to the justified soul. They are a humiliating, yet only temporary defeat. For there is with all well instructed believers a resort to the blood of sprinkling, and a pleading of the promise, "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

Whedon: The Witness of the Spirit

Guest blog by Daniel D. Whedon (1808-1885):

Where God performs directly the work of justification and of regeneration, is it not to be expected that he will as directly give notice of so wonderful a mercy? And this thought suggests the reasonableness of the doctrine of the witness of the Spirit, directly testifying to us that we are born of God.

The witness of our own spirit is that self-judgment which we are rationally able to pronounce, in the light of consciousness and Scripture, that we are the children of God. This is a logical inference, drawn from the fruits we find, by self-examination, in our minds and external conduct.

But besides this, is there not felt in every deep religious experience, a simple, firm assurance, like an intuition, by which we are made to feel calmly certain that all is blessedly right between God and our own soul? Does not this assurance seem to come into the heart as from some outer source? Does it not come as in answer to prayer, and in direction, as if from him to whom we pray? Scripture surely makes the assuring and witnessing act of the Spirit to be as immediate and direct as the justifying or regenerating acts. Hereby, then, we have the witness of God's Spirit, concurrent with the witness of our own spirit, testifying to the work of our justification and adoption. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." Rom. viii, 16.

— Daniel D. Whedon, "The Doctrines of Methodism" Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1862.

Not All Professors are Possessors

QUESTION: If all sin is eradicated from the heart, what is the source of the impatience, harsh criticism, censoriousness, etc., that we see in those who are stoutly contending that they are sanctified wholly?

ANSWER: Not all is gold that glitters; not all professors are possessors. This is as true of justification as of sanctification.

— Steele's Answers pp. 200.

Are the 10 Commandments Still in Force?

QUESTION: Our holiness preacher says the Decalogue is not in force now, having been nailed to the cross and is not binding now. Is this so?

ANSWER: Paul, in Col. 2:14, is speaking of "forgiveness of trespasses." Christ's atoning death affords a new ground of our acceptance with God instead of the plea that we have perfectly kept his law, which condemns us all, for we have all sinned, and therefore are excluded from legal justification. But evangelical justification is now possible, because God through Christ has taken away the law as the ground of justification, but not as THE RULE OF LIFE. This is what Paul means when he says, "We are not under the law but under grace." Some have done much harm by teaching that believers are not under obligations to keep the moral law. They are called Antinomians. See the book entitled, "A Substitute for Holiness," published by the Christian Witness Co., for an extended answer to this pernicious error.

— Steele's Answers pp. 187, 188.

Natural Religion Fails to Discover Forgiveness

At another vital point do all systems of natural religion fail utterly in affording to the guilty soul the assurance of forgiveness. Here is a practical test. Does my religion save me now from the guilt, the pollution and the dominion of sin? Go and question nature until you are gray. Her lips will ever be dumb. Though Bishop Butler may find in the constitution and course of nature some faint analogies which may confirm the doctrine of forgiveness when it has been once revealed, there is not in the whole range of nature sufficient light for the discovery and demonstration of this cardinal evangelical truth.

The analogies of suffering invariably treading upon the heels of violated natural law with no provision in nature to arrest the penal consequences, strongly incline men to believe that punishment must inevitably, without an exception, follow the transgression of moral law. Hence paganism teaches that the penalty follows the sin as surely as the cart-wheel rolls in the footsteps of the ox. Socrates was so impressed with the cardinal doctrine of natural religion, that God is just, that he doubted whether God could pardon sin. The semi-paganism of the liberalists and free-religionists teaches the absolute impossibility of the pardon of sin. In their estimation it would be plucking down the pillars of God's throne and subverting the moral order of the universe. But turn to Christianity and you find that not only forgiveness through faith in the atoning Savior, but also the knowledge of forgiven sin, is its grand and glorious peculiarity. From the day the apostles went forth preaching to guilty men the knowledge of the forgiveness of sins till this hour, there have not been absent from the earth witnesses to the truth of this doctrine. Millions have crossed the flood, and millions are crossing now who can say, "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

— Jesus Exultant Chapter 9.

Justification and Regeneration

QUESTION: Are justification and regeneration always concomitants?

ANSWER: It would not be safe for God to do a work for us without at the same time doing a work within. This unsafe thing every priest does who pronounces absolution, for he cannot get inside of the person and create him anew. It is true that some time may elapse after the burden of guilt is consciously removed — the real spiritual birthday — before there is a joyful assurance through the Spirit's testimony to adoption.

— Steele's Answers pp. 179, 180.

When Was Peter Converted?

QUESTION: Explain "When thou art converted strengthen thy brethren." (2) Was Peter converted before the crucifixion of Christ?

ANSWER: To be converted is to be turned back from the course one is pursuing. Peter in a few hours would be in the way of apostasy, when by divine grace, the grace of repentance, which accompanied the sorrowful look of Jesus, he would be turned back to loyalty and love to his Master. (2) Peter became a disciple of Christ, a Christian, when he left all and followed him. By his apostasy he lost justifying faith, but not the faith of conviction and penitence. As a backslider he needed to be restored and was restored, within a few hours after his fall.

— Steele's Answers p. 173.

Entire Sanctification at Conversion?

QUESTION: The same preacher [see yesterdays' post] says that he was entirely sanctified when he was converted. Is this a Wesleyan experience?

ANSWER: No. This doctrine of Count Zinzendorf that "the moment the believer is justified, he is sanctified wholly, and from that time he is neither more or less holy even unto death," was stoutly and constantly opposed by Wesley, because it denies imparted holiness and insists on the imputed holiness of Christ. Let this Methodist preacher canvass his church and ascertain how many of his members were wholly sanctified when they were converted. The result of his inquiry will be that he has no converted members, if entire sanctification is identical in time with regeneration, and not the consummation of a work begun at conversion.

— Steele's Answers p. 160.

Did John Wesley Teach a Second Definite Work of Grace?

QUESTION: Our Methodist preacher is saying that Wesley did not teach entire sanctification as a second definite work. What do you say?

ANSWER: I suspect this preacher must have been the author of "Historic Doubts Respecting Napoleon Bonaparte," an elaborate and apparently conclusive argument proving that no such man ever lived, that he is a myth, the outgrowth of the military spirit of the French. This preacher's next assertion we may naturally expect to be that John Wesley is a historic myth, the product of Methodism. This proposition is just as capable of proof as that he did not persistently proclaim with tongue and pen Christian perfection or entire sanctifieation as "the second blessing." This he did from near the beginning of his long ministry to the end. There is just as much propriety, in the light of his Journals, in asserting that he did not preach justification as that ho did not preach entire sanctification as a distinct, subsequent work.

— Steele's Answers p. 159, 160.