OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE TERM ERADICATION

A -- OUTLINE

Introduction

In the first chapter the chief objection to the use of the term eradication was dealt with. It had to do with the etymological, or physical, connotation of the word -- the fact that from the standpoint of its origin it refers to that which is rooted out. A further statement along this line will be made before we take up the other objections to the use of the term eradication. It must be remembered that practically all of our psychical and ethical terms have had a physical derivation. Here are a few illustrations of this fact: We lay hold of, grasp, or embrace a belief or an idea. We speak of the spirit, and yet spirit literally means wind -- something materialistic. Both purge and cleanse originally had to do with physical processes, and yet we talk about being purged, or cleansed, from sin.

I. Four Objections to the Term Eradication

1. Eradication is a nonscriptural term. In the first place, there are some who on fairly good grounds refuse to admit that eradication is a nonscriptural term. But let us pass this point by, since some would deny it, and think of eradication as a word which does not appear in the Bible. In answer to this argument, one can easily point to many of our important theological terms which are not scriptural. We would not get very far in building a theology if we were limited to only Biblical words. Besides, since theological terms are interpretive, it is often better to have words which are non-Biblical. In that way we can more definitely state our position. The word trinity is not a scriptural term, and yet it states the traditional interpretation of the Christian Church as to certain important passages in the Bible.

2. One man who uses the term eradication thinks that he has found a better and more up-to-date way of stating our position in connection with the term instinct. He fails to realize that the word instinct is no longer used in connection with human psychology. Thus he tries to substitute an out-of-date psychological term for what he thinks is a somewhat inadequate theological term. We cannot see the gain in such a procedure.

3. Again, it has been objected that eradicate is an excellent theological term, but is an inadequate experiential and practical word. It is difficult to see how such a distinction can be logically made without involving the maker in a worse dilemma than he was in before

4. Another writer objects that the word eradication is too radical term -- is radical a term -- it shocks people. Thus it arouses unnecessary antagonism. But the same might be said as to regeneration or any other definite Christian term in this day and age when all kinds of non-Christian theories are confronting the world. Repentance is radical to a proud and selfish people. Further, there is no way to camouflage people into the consecration and self-denial which Christ demands.

II. Four More Objections to the Term Eradication

1. We are also told that we should not use the term because it overstates what is really done in entire sanctification. This could not be if we really believe in the destruction of the old man, or the carnal mind, when one is sanctified.

2. Some object to eradication, as well as to much of the terminology which is used by the holiness movement, because, as they say, our terminology does not fairly represent our position. These people even go so far as to assert that those on the outside of the holiness movement make this complaint against our terminology. All that we can say in this connection is that, after many years in the holiness movement and plenty of contacts with people in other religious bodies, we have never once heard this criticism They may not agree with our position, but they do not say that our terminology fails to describe our position.

3. Some urge us to throw out eradication because those of us who profess entire sanctification do not live up to what it signifies. This is surely a poor argument, for many outsiders say the same as to those who profess to be regenerated.

4. There are those who suggest that the use of the term eradicate be given up because, by so doing. the holiness people could work harmoniously with certain religious groups. No doubt this would be the case; but can we afford to pay such a price, or surrender our clear-cut position, in order to win the co-operation of those who are definitely opposed to it? This question is answered in the negative. Such a procedure would be as dangerous as it would be to exchange another phase of our teaching for that of eternal security. In fact, it would be only a subtle way of persuading the holiness people to surrender the central truth in their teaching.

Conclusion

Eradication is a clear-cut and forceful word, and no other term has yet been found which can improve upon it. Not one of the objections urged against it is logically valid.

B -- MAIN BODY TEXT

In the first chapter of this book, the criticism which is most often brought against the term eradication was discussed. It dealt with the etymological or physical connotation of the word -- the fact that it refers to that which is rooted out. But from the standpoint of the dictionary and usage it was proved that the word is almost always used figuratively and not literally. Especially is this true today. The evidence for this was overwhelming.

In this chapter, some other objections to the use of the term eradication will be considered. However before proceeding to this particular discussion, there is another point which we shall mention that might have been dealt with in the first chapter. This is the fact that many of the terms which are used to express psychical activities have a physical derivation, but they have come to have a figurative meaning. For instance, we lay hold of, grasp, or embrace a theological position, belief, or truth; we reach a point in our thinking; we waver in our belief, or cast aside the idea which has been uppermost in our minds. In fact, it is difficult to find any term which is used today in connection with the study of the mind or spirit which has not arisen from a physical background.

Any study of philology, or the development of language, clearly proves this. Take the word spirit for instance. In all of its forms -- Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English -- it literally means breath or wind. Nevertheless, it has moved so far away from its etymological meaning that no one ever thinks of holy wind or breath when we speak of the Holy Spirit. So far removed are we from any such thought that it is almost sacrilegious to mention such a possibility. Some of the terms other than eradication which are used to describe the work of entire sanctification have a definite physical significance. Purge literally means to wash or clean, and yet a disposition is not washed or cleaned. The same may be said as to cleanse, which has to do with the elimination of dirt or stain.

The way is cleared now for the consideration of the other arguments against the word eradication. Some would refuse to use the word because it is not scriptural. This is not a new way of attacking a theological term. Back in the fourth century, after the Nicene Council, the word usia was objected to, and one of the grounds of this objection was that it was un-Biblical.

Fisher's History of Christian Doctrine has this to say about it: "The bishops at the Court were eager to stave off an open rupture in the Eusebian ranks. Their prescription was to abjure the use of the un-Biblical word usia, the center of the contention. In the second Sirmian creed (357), the members of which were Western bishops, it was declared that no more mention should be made of either 'Homoousion' or 'Homoeousion.'" This contention was of no avail then and has been ignored throughout the history of the Christian Church. The fact that a term is not scriptural has never been considered a sufficient reason for its rejection. Systematic theology is full of words and phrases which are not to be found in the Bible. Here are just a few of them -- trinity, incarnation, depravity, entire sanctification, trichotomy, dichotomy; creationism, traducianism, kenosis, sublapsarianism, supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, consubstantiation, transubstantiation, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and immutability. If anyone doubts this fact, let him turn to the third volume of Wiley's Christian Theology and look through the index.

Systematic theology rests on two forms of revelation: natural revelation, which comes through nature, history, and man; and special revelation, which is brought to us through the Bible. Here are two types of facts, and in order to properly account for them they must be interpreted. Thus their meaning is brought into sharp focus by words which are not in themselves scriptural, and the total teaching on any revealed subject is set forth in a clear-cut or unmistakable manner. On the other hand, a Bible term might be used by two different schools of thought. In that case, each would have its own interpretation, and there would be much confusion.

One helpful writer in the field of holiness suggests an interesting plan for eliminating the use of the term eradication. He believes that it is more harmonious with the thought forms of our day and, therefore, more up-to-date and appealing. His plan or scheme is as follows: The moral image of God in man is an instinct for holy living with man and with God. When man fell this instinct was lost. This instinct which was lost in the fall governs and co-ordinates all of man's otherwise independent impulses. Total depravity is the loss of this balancing, controlling instinct of holiness. In the first place, this is too negative a description of the situation. But, forgetting this fact, let us investigate this matter of instincts.

The author of this plan thinks that it is up-to-date, while the fact in the case is that it is not. I have before me now a text in general psychology. It is by Munn, and was copyrighted in 1946. I happen to know that it is the text which is being used in the University of Chicago and in the University of Kansas City. It has the sanction of the best universities and stands at the top in scholarship. After informing us on page 211 that the word instinct was used with so many different meanings in the somewhat recent past that "widespread controversy developed, and hundreds of articles were written on one aspect or another of the 'instinct doctrine,'" it continues as follows: "Several psychologists even claimed that there are no instincts; that all complex behavior is learned.

"However, when a differentiation between inborn drives, reflexes, and instincts was finally made, the viewpoint represented by this chapter, namely, that while instincts clearly exist in animals, they are obscured or perhaps absent in man, became widespread. Even McDougall, perhaps the strongest proponent of instinct, eventually came around to the view that instincts are peculiar to lower animals. He said, 'I recognize that, in the fullest and most universally accepted sense of the word, instinctive action is peculiar to the lower animals, and the extension of the term to the behavior of higher animals and of man has led to unfortunate confusion and controversy which have obscured, rather than elucidated, the true relations between lower and higher forms of action.'"

In this statement Munn has given a fair appraisal of the position of instinct in the psychological world today. This being the case, it is certainly not up-to-date to use instinct, which is now a term employed only in animal psychology, as descriptive of the image of God in man. I can conceive of the use of hardly any term in connection with entire sanctification which would be more confusing to present-day high school and college students. Now please do not misunderstand me. I differ at many points with the modern psychologist. Nevertheless, I surely would not use a psychological term entirely out of harmony with its present-day usage while attempting to be up-to-date. This same criticism holds for E. Stanley Jones and his use in a somewhat different way of instinct in his explanation of entire sanctification. I am compelled to say this about Jones and those who go along with him at this point, even though he and his books have been a very great blessing to me. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest men living and has made a very unusual contribution to the cause of Christ.

Some tell us that the term eradication is acceptable as a designation of a theological school of thought, but is inadequate when used in connection with the experience and practice of entire sanctification. But the fact about this objection is that eradication is an experiential term -- it is a doctrine which refers to experience. Any attempt to make such a distinction between theology and experience and practice really declares that eradication is all right from the standpoint of theory but is misleading when it refers to experience and practice. Such a separation between theology and experience cannot be logically made, because eradication is a theory or theology of experience and practice.

There are those who object to the use of the term eradication on the ground that it is too radical. They tell us that it shocks people and, therefore, arouses unnecessary antagonism and controversy.

But the same argument has been brought against many words which are in use in Christian theology. Especially is this true with reference to the theology of holiness. On this ground, entire sanctification, Christian perfection, perfect love, and holiness would be ruled out. In fact, regeneration, justification, adoption, the eternal Son of God, the only uncreated Son of God, and scores of other definite theological words or phrases which fundamentalistic and conservative theologians use today arouse and disturb many people. Any definite Christian term shocks and creates antagonism in the average man today. Further, strange as it may seem, there are those who hold that eradication is too radical and yet they employ terms in this connection which etymologically are just as radical or more so. Again, they do not hesitate to talk about the ineradicable nature of human infirmities while they refuse to refer to the eradicable character of the carnal mind.

Another objection to the use of the term eradication is that it overstates what is really done in entire sanctification. No one can make this claim who believes in the destruction of the carnal mind or inbred sin. It is either destroyed or else it is not. If it is destroyed, the use of eradication in connection with what takes place when one is entirely sanctified is not an overstatement.

Of course there may be those who define the carnal mind in such a way as to include more than it does. In this case, the thing to do is not to reject the use of the term eradication but rather to more exactly define what is eradicated -- that is, the carnal mind or inbred sin. We shall give ourselves to this task in the last chapter in this series, which will deal with the subject, "What Is Eradicated by Entire Sanctification?"

Someone has said that the usual criticism of the Wesleyan movement and the position of the Church of the Nazarene is that our terminology does not fairly represent our position. This may be the case, but I have never discovered it; and I have had numerous contacts with those who are outside of our ranks. I have heard many criticisms of our view, but not once have I heard any of them claim that our terminology is misleading. The only persons whom I have heard object to our terminology -- eradication or any other term -- have been those who are in the ranks of the holiness movement. Outsiders may say that they do not believe in or accept what our terms connote or indicate, but they do not assert that they misrepresent our doctrine.

The claim that eradication implies eternal security or the impossibility of backsliding is based on the notion that eradication refers to the rooting out of a material thing. That eradication does not signify any such thing has already been proved by the first chapter in this book. The connotation of eradication in this connection is figurative and points only to the complete destruction of whatever is referred to. In this case, it is a moral state or condition -- and moral states or conditions can disappear and return just as truly as mental states or conditions can. A habit may be completely broken or destroyed and then later be built up again.

It is very interesting to note that some argue that we should refuse to use the term eradication because Wesley did not use it, while others take just the opposite position. The latter say that we should break away from Wesley and his out-of-date terminology. "Wesley and Eradication" will be the subject of the next chapter in this book, and this matter will be discussed fully there. However, it may be said here that Wesley never used the term eradication, but he often employed words in this connection that were not Biblical -- and some of them were just as definite and radical as the term eradication.

Some would reject the term eradication because they cannot harmonize the experience which it describes with the lives of many of those who profess it.

In the first place, it may be said that such a claim may be made as to any level of Christian experience. There are people who profess to be regenerated who do not manifest it by their lives. Further, there is a very real sense in which the experience of regeneration demands as high a standard of life outwardly as the experience of entire sanctification does -- that is, freedom from conscious or deliberate sin. Therefore, whatever rules out entire sanctification or the eradication of sin on this basis would likewise rule out regeneration. Also, if this claim were true, we would not have the right to lower God's standard in order to make room for man's shortcomings. And finally, it must be insisted that there are those who profess that the old man of sin within has been eradicated and prove the fact by the lives which they live. It is asserted that we cannot harmonize our teachings with those who disagree with us -- especially the Calvinists -- if we continue to use the term eradication. The writer agrees with this contention and adds that he does not believe that agreement can ever come with those who are diametrically opposed to our position, except by surrendering our essential doctrines. This is too big a price to pay. There are many good people, among the Calvinists and others, who do not see entire sanctification as we do; but we cannot afford to give up the doctrine that has made the holiness movement, just to win their favor. Eradication -- complete deliverance from inbred sin -- is our fundamental position, and we cannot let down at this point and keep the favor and blessing of God.

In conclusion, it may be pointed out that eradication is a forceful and highly descriptive word. It expresses in a clear-cut and definite way the thoroughness of the moral cleansing which is wrought in the heart of the Christian by entire sanctification. Again, it has been historically associated with our interpretation of the Bible teaching as to entire sanctification, and we can see no good reason for discarding it.