But, Don't Infants Need the New Birth?

QUESTION: If the necessity for regeneration is found in our fallen nature, do not infants need the new birth?

ANSWER: Certainly. But if cut off from life before becoming accountable, they are unconditionally saved by the second Adam from the wrong tendency entailed by the first Adam. If allowed to attain intellectual and moral development, the new birth is left to their free choice.

— Steele's Answers p. 119.

"Unrighteousness" in 1 John 5:17

QUESTION: Does the word unrighteousness in I John 5:17, "All unrighteousness is sin," refer to conduct or to a condition of heart?

ANSWER: It may include both, but it probably refers to some deed violating law and justice, or some marked failure to fulfill our duty one to another. Bishop Westcott thinks that it also includes sins which flow from human imperfection and infirmity in regard to which there is a wide scope for Christian sympathy and intercession.

— Steele's Answers p. 119.

Sin as a Condition of Heart

QUESTION: Is the word sin ever used in the Bible to denote a state or condition of heart?

ANSWER: Yes. When a man sins he takes on a sinful character. "Not only does sin have its seat in the will; it is a state of the will. it is not merely a series of voluntary acts; it consists rather in the fixed moral preferences; it is character, a moral perversity, a false direction." (Prof. Stevens, Methodist Review, September, 1904.)

— Steele's Answers pp. 118, 119

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.

Books Opposing Universalism

QUESTION: What book is the best antidote for universalism?

ANSWER: The Bible. The next best is a book by Rev. N. D. George, entitled "Universalism Not of the Bible." It is published by the Methodist Book Concern, New York. It may be out of print.

— Steele's Answers p. 118.

The Elect

QUESTION: Who are "the elect" in the New Testament?

ANSWER: All persevering believers in Jesus Christ, in contrast with "the called" who have been invited and by their refusal or indifference show themselves unfltted to partake of the marriage supper spread by Christ. This term is also applied to those angels whom God has chosen out from other created beings to be peculiarly associated with him in the government of the universe. Sometimes it signifies dear, choice, select, as in II John, verses 1 and 9.

— Steele's Answers pp. 117, 118.

If It is Impossible to Keep the Law of God Why Should Anyone Be Held Guilty?

QUESTION: If it is impossible to keep the law of God, why should we be condemned for not keeping it? (2) Do we need pardon for unconscious violations of a perfect law?

ANSWER: Law has several meanings in the Scriptures. The Adamic or Paradisaical law, the Levitical or Ceremonial law, and the Moral law. Only the latter are we bound to obey. It is possible for every one who is born of God to keep this law, because he loves Christ the Lawgiver, who makes the moral law to be "the law of liberty," not liberty to sin, but emancipation from the dominion of evil. Hence it is possible for every one to keep the royal law, the king of all laws, the law of love which carries the moral law in its bosom, for it is possible for every man, through penitent faith in Christ, to be born into the kingdom of love. (2) The law of love cannot be unconsciously violated, for if love turns to hatred, or indifference, consciousness must note the change. An act put forth in love may inadvertently harm my neighbor, but this is not sin. Do I not sin if I fail to keep the Adam law? The only expressed law given in Paradise was a prohibition. The implied Adamic law was love up to the full measure of his capacity, undiminished by sin. I am not required to serve God with Adam's powers, but with my present abilities crippled by sin. "Where little is given, little is required." Under the atonement everybody who knows the distinction between right and wrong has, through faith in Christ, the gracious ability to abstain from sinning — posse non peccare. The Lord Jesus be praised! This is the next best thing to the heavenly state — non posse peccare — the inability to sin. The first state leads to the second. Glory to God! The declaration that God's law cannot be kept reflects on both his justice and his goodness.

— Steele's Answers 116, 117.

"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.

Is Atonement Taught in the New Testament?

QUESTION: A friend of mine says (1) that Jesus said nothing about the atonement, and (2) that the word is not in the New Testament. Is this so?

ANSWER: We should bear in mind that the four Gospels contain all the truths of Christianity in seed form. The atonement is thus taught in Matt. 20:28, "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many." If Christ had said more than this before his death and resurrection demonstrating that he is both God and man, and that for this reason he only was capable of making an atonement, he would have bewildered and confounded his disciples by teaching a doctrine which they could not then have received. But after his blood had been shed and he had arisen, ascended, and poured out the Pentecostal gift in proof that he had reached the throne of his Father and was glorified, the doctrine of the atonement could now be clearly unfolded and its relation to salvation be revealed by the Paraclete as Jesus had promised with respect to the many things he had to say which they could not then bear. (2) While it is true that the term atonement is not found in the Revised New Testament, the thing itself is found everywhere in other terms, such as redemption, propitiation, blood of sprinkling and sacrifice of himself. The absence of the words Trinity and sacrament is no valid argument against the fundamental doctrines, which are abundantly taught in other terms.

— Steele's Answers p. 114, 115.

Did Elijah Ascend to Heaven?

QUESTION: Reconcile the translation of Elijah [in] II Kings 2:11 (1) with John 3:13 "And no one has ascended into heaven," and (2) I  Cor. 15:20,  "Flesh and blood. cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven."

ANSWER: It is evidently an elliptical quotation from Deut. 30:12, "Who shall go for us to heaven, and bring it (God's command) unto us," etc.; also Prov. 30:3, 4, "Neither have I the knowledge of the Holy One, who hath ascended up into heaven, and descended?" Christ omitted the last clause of these texts, the return from heaven with a message for men. The  context very clearly proves that this is the correct explanation. He is asserting his own sole competence to reveal heavenly truth, because he, the Son of man, is the only human teacher who has been in heaven and has brought down truths absolute and eternal. (2) Elijah's personality resides in his spirit. This certainly is in heaven. But on the mount of transfiguration he appeared in a visible form. We are taught in I Cor. 15:51, that when the dead are raised the living believers "will be changed in a moment." It is not unreasonable to suppose that Enoch and Elijah were the first fruits of this change of the living "in the twinkling of an eye."

— Steele's Answers pp. 113, 114.