ERADICATION VERSUS SUPPRESSION (A)

A -- OUTLINE

Introduction

In this chapter we discuss the most important phase of the whole question of eradication -its relation to suppression. This being the case, we shall deal only with some general, or preliminary, matters in this chapter, while in chapter five we shall have to do more with the details of the arguments involved.

I. Minor Uses of the Term Suppression

Some second-blessing holiness people talk of the "old man of sin," or the carnal mind, being kept under, or suppressed, while we are saved, or regenerated, but not sanctified wholly. The use of suppression in connection with this presanctified state is not the usual sense in which the word is employed.

Another minor use of the term suppression is in relation to the post-sanctified life. The natural, or legitimate, appetites are spoken of as being kept under, or suppressed, after we have been sanctified wholly. Paul, they declare, had this in mind when he spoke of keeping the body under. This is not the meaning of the term suppression as used in this or the next chapter. Further, it is more exact to say that the natural appetites must be directed or guided rather than suppressed after entire sanctification.

II. Both Eradication and Suppression Excluded

There are those who hold that man is born naturally good, and, therefore, they could not believe in either eradication or suppression of the inborn sin nature. The naturally good could not have any carnal mind to be suppressed or eradicated. Another group would not go this far, but they would exclude inbred sin or sin as a native inclination. They believe in sin as an act, but not as an inborn trend. Both those who hold that there is a natural tendency toward good in man and those who claim that sin exists in act only are unscriptural and illogical.

III. Eradication and Suppression Theories

Almost all Christian churches in their creedal statements hold that man is naturally sinful, that is, he is born with a sinful bent. Further, as a rule, the Christian churches claim that this sinful condition within is not eliminated when a person is saved. Then his sins are forgiven, but his fallen nature is not destroyed. The big question is, then, when do we get rid of this carnal mind? For there can be no sin in heaven.

The Church of the Nazarene follows John Wesley's interpretation of the Bible in asserting that this sin nature can and should be eradicated instantaneously in this life.

Next, there is the growth theory, which teaches that the old man of sin is gradually expelled after justification by the constant help of the Holy Spirit. Theoretically, it takes the position that there may and sometimes does come a time in this life when this carnal mind is completely gone. However, those who hold this position never seem to reach this goal, but are rather always approaching it. This is an eradication theory, but it maintains that the eradication is gradual rather than instantaneous. In fact, all theories which make sin natural to man's present existence teach its final eradication -- they all hold that no sin can finally remain in the heart of the man who has entered into the state of everlasting blessedness.

A third view stands for the gradual eradication of the sin nature and sinning, but neither the sin nature nor the sinning will be completely done away with until death. This is the general Reformed view, and it stands for eradication; but it is an eradication which does not reach its culmination until death. This view does not hesitate to fall back on some form of imputation of the righteousness of Christ as a supplement to its eradication view.

The fourth theory is the suppressionist theory in the technical sense. It holds to the instantaneous suppression of sin with the instantaneous eradication of sinning. This is brought about by the baptism with the Holy Spirit, which is a second work of grace. The sin nature is not reduced at all in this life. However, it may be kept under, or suppressed constantly, so that we live a life of victory over sin. The Keswick movement in England and the Victorious Life group in America have been the chief exponents of this position. There have been many fine Christians in these groups, and some of them have come very close to the first view which we discussed.

The fifth doctrinal position as to this sin nature is the two-nature theory. It makes no room for a second blessing. When one is saved, the Holy Spirit comes in; and from then on there is a struggle between the two natures, with the Christ-nature, or Holy Spirit, dominating the whole situation at times. With this theory, however, there is no eradication in this life. It comes at death, when our present body is shuffled off. This theory is not new, as some would have us believe. Nevertheless, it is having quite a revival today.

Conclusion

The anti-eradication views include any of the teachings which hold that the sin nature cannot be or is not eradicated in this life. Such positions are unscriptural; unpsychological; overemphasize power and service to the neglect of inner purity, or heart holiness; substitute consecration for entire sanctification; and permit imputed, reckoned, potential, or positional righteousness to take the place of imparted righteousness.

B -- MAIN BODY TEXT

This chapter takes up the most important phase of the whole question of eradication. Since this is the case, we shall now consider several significant general or preliminary matters. In the next chapter, we shall consider in detail the specific arguments -- scriptural and otherwise -which are for and against eradication.

First of all we shall briefly point out two minor uses of the term suppression. The Wesleyan or full-fledged adherent of eradicationism sometimes uses the word suppression in relation to inbred sin in the heart of the regenerated. In this pre-sanctified state, man does not commit deliberate acts of sin. He is saved, not from the presence, but from the power of the carnal mind. Thus the "old man of sin" is kept under or suppressed.

Some of those who believe in the instantaneous eradication of sin in this life use the term suppression in relation to the post-sanctified life. They connect it with that passage where Paul declares that he keeps his body under. No doubt Paul is here referring to the natural appetites of the psychical self, and means that they must be controlled, even after one has been sanctified wholly.

Those who thus employ the word believe in both eradication and suppression -eradication for the carnal mind or the "old man" and suppression for the natural appetites of man. Such use of suppression is confusing, since it has already come to be definitely associated with another situation. Further, there is a more exact way to describe this post-sanctified condition. Why not say that the natural appetites must be directed or guided after one has been entirely sanctified? This is actually what has to be done.

Next we shall elaborate two theories as to man's nature which make no room for either eradication or suppression. First, someone has set forth the thesis that man is naturally good. This means, of course, that he is free from the sin nature and the acts of sin. This is explained by the claim that every man has God within him. This divinity which is immanent in man's personality is described as disinterested will or the will to universal good.

Such a view of man could at best believe only in the direction of the natural and acquired traits of human beings. Salvation could be no more than this, whether it is looked upon as dependent upon grace or finite reason. Thus there would be no place in such a scheme for either the eradication or the suppression of sin, since there is really no such thing as sin.

Second, there are some today who would, no doubt, declare that there is sin in act but no condition within human nature which might be described as sinful. People in this class would be following largely in the footsteps of Zinzendorf, who limited sin to the will.

As has been said more than once, any view like this is not only unscriptural and contrary to experience -- as was the case with the view that finds a positive trend toward good in man -- but it is also illogical. How can there be sinning as a habit or life without sin in the nature? Or better, how can there be the fruit without the tree, or the branches without the root, or the constantly flowing water without the spring or source?

This brings us to the view of man which practically all Christians and Christian churches hold. This, at least, is the position which is stated in their creeds, though for a time many scholars rejected it because of their inability to harmonize it with the theory of evolution. This position is the belief that men are naturally sinful now, and that sinning is the outcome of such a state. This truth has been so strongly forced upon us by experience, within recent years, that even religious thinkers who are evolutionists are fitting it into their systems of philosophy.

If man is a sinner by nature, then the question arises as to how and when he can rid himself of this condition. None, so far as I know, hold that this sin nature is eliminated when one is saved. It must always come after regeneration.

The first view which we shall mention is that of the Church of the Nazarene. It is the Wesleyan position, which declares that man is freed from sin by the instantaneous eradication of the carnal mind, here and now, by the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Thus the "old man" is expelled, and Christ takes over the rule in our hearts. The freedom from conscious sinning which had already characterized the regenerated life is now made much easier. However, we must remember that it takes the same consecration and faith to keep this second blessing that it did to get it. From this viewpoint, it is a moment-by-moment affair. We should also remember that it is not something that we bring to pass, but is rather the work of God. We should ever look to Him in great thankfulness for this achievement. No glory can ever come to us because of this experience of life. All the praise and honor belong to God.

The second view which we shall mention is represented by Mudge's Growth in Holiness. It defends the gradual eradication of sin and sinning after justification by the constant help of the Holy Spirit. This process may culminate at some point in this life; and thus the individual is completely freed from sin and sinning. It is hazy, as such claims usually are, so far as to just when the sin nature and sin will be annihilated. It seems to be always approaching the goal but never arriving at it. However, in all fairness, one must admit that the objective is at least theoretically attainable by this gradual movement, sometime before death.

We are not taking the time to answer this view specifically, because it does not come under the head of suppressionists' theories in the technical meaning of this term. It is an eradication rather than a suppressionist theory, although the eradication is gradual and not instantaneous. Daniel Steele wrote a little book which specifically answers the teaching of Mudge's book. Anyone who reads the latter should, out of all fairness, read the former also.

We might pause long enough here to assert that all theories which make sin natural to man's present existence believe in final eradication. We shall discover later in this discussion that even the suppressionists believe that all sin must be eradicated before a man can get to heaven. Suppressionism will not meet the test of the next world.

The third view to which we would call your attention teaches a gradual eradication of sin and sinning by the help of grace as administered by the Holy Spirit which will never be finally achieved until the hour and article of death. This is the general Reformed view; and such men as Warfield and Hodge give excellent presentations of it. They do not hesitate to use the term eradicate; and they believe that, as the sin nature is little by little done away with, our sinning will become less. However, they so overemphasize the fact that we do not completely get rid of sin and sinning in this life that they blind one to the idea that any real progress is made in this life. This makes death take on a more important place in the scheme of eradication than they seem at times to desire.

Anyway, their view, like the growth theory, from one viewpoint is an eradicationist claim. Please do not misunderstand us in thus describing their contention. It does not bar the tendency in their writings along this line to fall back on some form of imputation, which is often mixed up with the strictly suppressionist arguments. It should also be said here that all of the suppressionist theories stem from Calvinism and the general Reform position rather than from Arminianism. Wesleyanism, on the other hand, rests on an Arminian foundation.

The fourth theory is committed to the instantaneous suppression of sin with the consequent instantaneous eradication of sinning which is momentary, continuous, and permanent. By permanent we do not mean that grace cannot be lost; but it need not be lost, and is not merely temporary. It does, nevertheless, require continuous surrender and faith in order for it to be perpetuated in one's experience. Further, of course, this instantaneous experience is a second blessing.

We must also always bear in mind that the suppressed sin nature is not reduced in the least during this life. It must await death before it can be eradicated in any degree. It is along this line that Warfield criticizes this view. He thinks that his claim that sin and sinning are both gradually eliminated -- the one with the other -- is much more logical than to hold that all sinning is destroyed while the sin nature is untouched, so far as being lessened is concerned. For him, the destruction of each is completed at death.

Those who are in this fourth group constitute the suppressionists, if one is speaking exactly. There are other organizations which are related to them; but they alone, in the technical sense, belong in this category. The Keswick associates in England have been, for something like seventy years, the leaders in this thought. The Victorious Life movement in America -- a later development -- holds the same position theologically. Neither of these movements is denominational in character.

Rev. W. E. Boardman joined Rev. R. Pearsall Smith in 1873 in London, where the latter was beginning a "Higher Life" campaign. This activity took on great proportions, not only in England but also on the continent. The Keswick movement was one of the results of this work. It has maintained itself down to the present time with more zeal and influence than the Victorious Life movement has in America. Mr. Smith, as well as Mr. Boardman, was an American; and both men received their start as they came in touch with the regular or Wesleyan holiness movement in America. However, from the very first, they deviated somewhat from the Wesleyan teaching as to eradication.

There is a Keswick Week held each year in England, when messages are given which emphasize the deeper life in accordance with Keswick teaching. The messages of each convention are published in a book. The 1947 volume defines the Keswick message as "victory over sin through submission to the sovereignty of Christ and the infilling of the Holy Spirit." It is fair to say also that there are many deeply spiritual people who are loyal to the message of Keswick and make a real contribution to the kingdom of God.

The filth doctrinal position which we would define is related to the Keswick and Victorious Life groups but cannot be classed as true suppressionism in the technical sense of this term. Nevertheless, it has a Calvinistic slant which relates it to suppressionism. It is the two-nature theory, and may be stated thus: With conversion, the Holy Spirit comes in and makes possible an intermittent counteraction or domination of the sin nature, with the consequent intermittent prevention of sinning. When the Holy Spirit is given in conversion, man becomes a two-nature creature -- possessor of a carnal mind and of the mind of Christ.

This view, of course, makes no place for a second blessing. Neither does it provide in any way for the eradication of the "old man of sin." This can take place only in the next world, after the physical body has been disposed of. In this teaching, however, there is the possibility that at times the Adamic nature can be counteracted and sinning be excluded. The Christ nature rises up and dominates the old nature temporarily, and the outward life thereby manifests righteous living.

This movement, although it has connections with the past, is having quite a revival today. Its only value seems to be that it emphasizes sinlessness as a theoretical possibility for the Christian occasionally. We say theoretical because those who champion this notion have so much to say about the saved sinning that they almost hide or cover up their claim that it is possible to reach temporary or intermittent sinlessness.

It is difficult to describe this two-nature theory, because it is quite a hodgepodge or conglomeration of Calvinistic attempts to solve the problem of salvation. We have aimed to give only its chief characteristics.

The sixth tenet, which is foundational for some, is that both our justification and our sanctification are positional only. Through Christ we have a holy standing. His holiness is imputed to us or we are reckoned as free from sin through Him. This is ours through faith. The Plymouth Brethren might be thought of as best representing this type of belief. There is no emphasis with them on the second blessing. Holiness comes when we are regenerated, that is, the kind of holiness which they believe in -- holiness that is imputed only. This group came into existence during the earlier part of the nineteenth century. They depended wholly upon the fact that Christ's righteousness stood between them and all judgment or danger if they only believed on Him or accepted that which He had done for them.

The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth views, which we have just outlined, are interrelated. They overlap at several points and, because of this fact, cannot be clearly and fully differentiated.

What is wrong with the theories of salvation which deny the eradication of the sin principle in this life? In the first place, they are unscriptural. They deviate from the truth as laid down in the Bible. This fact is all-important. It is not what any man says or believes; it is what God's final Word declares that determines the matter. This consideration will require too much space for the limits of the present chapter. Besides, we are interested now in giving only a general survey of the shortcomings of these views. In the next chapter they will be discussed in detail.

This type of unscriptural teachings is also unpsychological. Suppression, as many of its proponents declare, is a form of repression. Since the coming of Freudianism into the psychological picture, repression has had a questionable standing with almost all psychologists. It is dangerous to hold down or keep under this sinful nature. To do so will cause it to carry on a traitorous or treacherous life in the subconscious realm. This will result in several types of unhealthy personality states. A recognition of this much truth in Freudianism does not mean that it is swallowed whole.

The two-natures theory may get away partly from the repression scheme; but, insofar as it does this, it jumps from the frying pan into the fire. It escapes from suppression or repression only by bringing into the foreground a terrible struggle between the sinful nature and the Christ nature. Thus we are faced with a divided self -- a self that lacks any kind of integration, good or bad. This is another psychological situation which tends to lead to various mental maladies. Thus these doctrines which deny eradication in this life, for the most part, alternate between repression on the one hand and a divided self on the other. Both results are psychologically bad.

There is another very grave difficulty with these contentions. It is their emphasis upon the body as sinful. Such a procedure is both unscriptural -- as we hope to show later -- and unpsychological. Sin is a psychical-ethical something and does not reside in the body itself. There is no way by means of which such a conclusion can be established. The Biblical exegetes, the moralists, or the psychologists will not support such a position. This will be dealt with in detail in the next discussion.

These suppressionists and semi-suppressionists place the chief emphasis upon power and service. These are essential to the Christian life, but they are by-products and not primary. Purity or holiness is inner and causative -- has to do with character in and of itself, while power and service are effects. To center on the latter and ignore the former is to put the cart before the horse, and ultimately means that all three -- purity, power, and service -- are eliminated.

Consecration cannot take the place of sanctification. There is no possible means whereby the term sanctification can be reduced merely to consecration if a fair exegesis of God's Word is presented. Only a few days ago we had occasion to read a B.D. thesis written by one who was graduating from a school with Calvinistic leanings. The subject of this monograph was "The Holiness of God in the Old Testament." He was dealing with the subject exegetically and not theologically. He definitely and openly stated that the holiness of God had an ethical element in it, and that God, even in the Old Testament, required more than consecration of those men who were declared holy.

The last wrong conception which is involved in all of these suppressionist schools of thought is that which hinges on such terms as imputation, reckoning, potential, positional, and standing. It leads to an overemphasis upon grace and faith and to a neglect of right living. Such a course inevitably results in antinomianism in some form. It is only fair to say, in concluding this discussion, that many of the adherents of these views live above their theology.