Reading the Bible Systematically

QUESTION: I have been reading my Bible in a haphazard. way without getting as much good as I ought. Tell me how I can read it in a better way.

ANSWER: Get the American Standard Revised Bible, with maps and index to them. Locate every place you find in your reading. This will give you a sense of reality. When you begin a book get a synopsis of its contents by reading the headlines at the top of the pages. Then rapidly read the book through, and afterwards review such portions as most interest you, studying the various marginal readings and turning to the references. There is no easy way to a thorough knowledge of God's Word. If you do not find sufficient nutriment to your spiritual life in Ecclesiastes, alternate that book with John's Gospel, which is to be read in the same way. Read in both the Old Testament and the New daily. Have a Bible dictionary at hand to answer many questions respecting persons, places and doctrines which will arise in your mind. Don't be discouraged because of your slow advancement.

— Steele's Answers pp. 164, 165.

Is Perfect Love Real?

QUESTION: When I quoted to my pastor I John 2:5 and 4:18 he said "There is no such a thing as perfect love." What shall I say to him?

ANSWER: Tell him for me that he assumes that he is wiser than John and that a light so much brighter than the beloved apostle ought not to be kept under a bushel but on the world's candlestick. For John did not know any better, after leaning on the bosom of Jesus, than to teach that there is such a glorious reality as perfect, i.e., pure, love shed abroad by the Holy Spirit in the heart of him who exercises an all-surrendering faith in Jesus Christ as both Savior and Lord. If this is a chimera, those Christians who are chasing it ought to know it, but as it is a blessed verity, let it be proclaimed from the house-top in trumpet tones by every herald of the Gospel.

— Steele's Answers p. 164.

How to Treat False Teachers (2 John 10)

QUESTION: How can we apply in practice II John 10, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed"?

ANSWER: Have no fellowship with those teachers, who deny the very fundamentals of Christianity, such as the reality of Christ's body, making it a phantom, a sham, as in verse 7; for such a religious leader "is a deceiver and an antichrist." Both the first and second epistles of John are aimed directly at this gnostic error called docetism. Its teachers were not only false in faith, but corrupt in morals, not fit to be entertained by any Christian family. To sympathize with such leprous leaders is to become "a partaker in their evil works." The idea of leadership is in verse 9 correctly translated, "whosoever goeth onward" (R. V.) as a teacher, or leads others, etc.

— Steele's Answers p. 163, 164.

In What Sense Did John Remain Until Jesus' Coming?

QUESTION: Explain John 21:22, "Jesus saith unto him (Peter), 'If I will that he (John) tarry till I come, what is that to thee?'"

ANSWER: The passage is designedly obscure. It may mean it is none of Peter's business if Christ should let John live on the earth till Christ should come to judge the world and wind up its history. This erroneous interpretation, "went forth among the brethren." I prefer to understand the words, "till I come," to mean the coming of Christ in the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, at least twenty years before John's death (Matt. 24:80-34; 16:28; 10:28). But some writers think this "coming of Christ" was his special manifestation of himself to John in Rev. 1:12-20.

— Steele's Answers p. 163.

Punctuation in Matthew 19:28

QUESTION: How can we follow Christ "in the regeneration," as stated in Matt. 19:28, since he was never regenerated?

"And Jesus said unto them, 'Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'" (KJV)

ANSWER: The querist has failed to note the punctuation marks. When the commas are properly noted, it will be found that our Lord Jesus assures his disciples that "In the regeneration (the evangelized world) when he shall sit, etc., then they who had followed him should also sit," etc. This predicts the great honor and authority of the twelve apostles when the gospel shall have reconstructed the human society. The earlier edition of the American Bible Society had no comma after "me," but all the later editions are correct.

— Steele's Answers p. 162.

Holiness Sects

QUESTION: Some one enumerates thirty-two sects or sorts of holiness people. How is this to be accounted for?

ANSWER: Sects are liable to be formed wherever there is perfect religious liberty, and even where such liberty is very much restricted, or is non-existent, as in the Papal Church, where the various orders antagonize one another, the Jesuits exterminating the Jansenists. When professors of holiness come out from the various denominations, they find it easy to come out of the new organization for some trifling cause, much to the detriment of the glorious doctrine of Christian perfection.

— Steele's Answers p. 162.

Will We Know People in Heaven?

QUESTION: Have we any Bible proof that we shall know father and mother as such in heaven?

ANSWER: No. It has not pleased the Holy Spirit in the Revelation of spiritual truth to give us any light on this subject. But we have good ground for the inference that we shall recognize our earthly friends. Our heavenly Father, we are quite sure, will not deny us any lawful felicity. We cannot think that death will destroy our natural sensibilities, our capacity to enjoy sweet Christian fellowship. In Col. 1:28, Paul's ambition to present every hearer "perfect in Christ" implies his expectation that he will know them in the world to come. We do not believe in the heathen idea borrowed by Milton from Greek mythology:

"Lethe, the river of oblivion rolls
Her wat'ry labyrinth, which whoso drinks
Forgets both joy and grief."

— Steele's Answers pp. 161, 162.

Does God Permit Sin?

QUESTION: Can it be truthfully said that God permits sin?

ANSWER: No. Sin he abhors as being only evil. The most that can be said is that he does not prevent it. This he could have done by the non-creation of free moral agents. If he had been satisfied with things and non-moral animals and had been content to be the only personality in the universe, there would have been no sin. Having created free agents, who may commune with him and love and obey him. he cannot prevent their evil use of their freedom without uncreating them and turning them into machines. This would be an unwise use of his omnipotence, and defeat his purpose. It is no more a limitation of almightiness than it is to say that an earthquake cannot shake a demonstration of Euclid. The sphere of omnipotence is the kingdom of Nature; but in God's moral government it has no place. Even with an almighty trip hammer God could not turn a sinner into a saint against his will. If you wish to know what he can do for a self-surrendering will read Eph. 1:19. The possibility of sin is necessarily involved in the existence of free agents, each of whom is the cause uncaused, the first cause, of his own acts and the creator of his own moral character and eternal destiny.

— Steele's Answers pp. 160, 161.

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.