That Christians may reach in this life a state in which they cannot
sin, or where they are not subject to temptation,――
These are some of the contradictions of God’s revealed truth which
result in keeping Christians from having complete liberty in Christ and
freedom from sinning.
Back of the question, how far may we be free from sin is the further
problem, “What is sin?” and it is in answering this question that we
may fall into a fundamental misconception which leaves us confused when
reading the plain statements of Scripture. Many a supposed difference
among Christians regarding freedom from sinning rests back in a
difference in their definition of “sinning.” But this is far more
serious than a mere difference in the definition of a word, which might
be passed over as unimportant. For, as we shall see, if our use of the
word “sinning” differs from that which God means by sin, there is sure
to result a confusion which will affect our experience in the matter of
deliverance from sin.
There is substantial agreement that Christians should be, and may be,
free from dishonesty, lying, stealing, jealousy, strife, bitterness,
evil speaking, fornication, covetousness, and a thousand other sins
that might be named. Also it is agreed that it is not for Christians
to grow out of such sins, nor to get rid of them gradually, but to put
them off as wholly inconsistent with the Christian walk. How complete
is the list of such sins that a Christian may be free from just now? Or
to put the question in another form, how much sin is it necessary for a
Christian to have?
“But,” some one asks, “is not everything that falls short of God’s
absolute standard of perfection sin?” Our purpose in this study is
intensely practical, and so it is not the intention to enter into a
full discussion of theological terms. It may be suggested in passing
that many who use such an expression as “God’s absolute standard of
perfection,” would find great difficulty in explaining just what they
mean. But we may here get at the problem as it presents itself in
experience. All are agreed that there is no possibility of perfection
of attainment in this body, meaning by such perfection an absence of
all error or mistake in everything that is done. We may go further
and say that by this standard of “perfection” every act falls short,
and every moment of life is compassed with infirmity. If this kind of
“falling short” is sin, then there can be full agreement that there
is no such thing as freedom from sinning in this body. (It would
not be entirely accurate to say, “if this imperfection is sin,” for
“perfection,” like all words――and everything else human――is imperfect
and relative and takes its meaning from the thought in the mind of the
user.)
Is such falling short sinning? Or to reduce the question to practical
everyday experience, “Is every act of the Christian sinful, as well as
every word and thought?”
Three Bible teachers met together on one occasion to discuss the sin
question; before they began their conference one of them suggested
that they have prayer, and he led in petition for their guidance and
blessing. This brother, a theological professor and a Christian noted
for his holy living, contended that everything a Christian did was of
necessity tainted with sin because it fell short of “perfection.”
“Doctor,” one of the others asked, “is there not a difference between
the sin we committed when we prayed together at the beginning of our
conference and the sin I should commit if I were critical or bitter
against you?”
“Yes, there is a difference,” he replied (answering according to
Scripture and his common sense), “but” (answering according to his
theory) “it is a very dangerous thing to make distinctions between
sins.”
It is a disastrous thing _not_ to make distinction between these two
things. With one stroke we would blot out the difference between light
and darkness if we class together the act of a Christian who with
a heart full of love pours out his petition in imperfect words for
some needy one, and the act of a man who with his heart full of hate
runs a dagger through the heart of that same needy one. There is the
same infinity of difference between this “imperfect” prayer and the
critical or unloving attitude that the praying Christian might later
fall into.
Turning from men’s reasonings regarding sin to the Word of God, we find
these plain statements:
“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye may not
sin” (1 John 2:1).
Something had been written, then, which revealed the secret of keeping
from sin as a present, practical experience for the child of God.
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may
abound?” (Rom. 6:1.)
“What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under
grace?” (Rom. 6:15.)
God’s answer to both these questions, which is just one question put in
two ways, is the same: a strong, emphatic negative――“God forbid.”
There can be little question in the minds of any that what John means
by sinning in this first letter of his, and what Paul means by sinning
in Romans six, is something that a Christian should not and need not
do. He may be kept from sinning, in this meaning of the word.
It may well be asked, what other meaning of the word is there? If
we start out with the conception of sinning that makes every act of
a Christian to be tainted with sin, do not the Scriptures become a
real puzzle in their positive statements about keeping from sin? This
supposed difficulty has given rise to an attempted distinction between
“conscious” and “unconscious” sinning. Those who use these terms
do not always have the same distinction in mind, but some refer to
this falling short of “perfection” as “unconscious sinning,” adding
that such sin needs cleansing but involves no guilt.
But _all sin involves guilt_. God cannot do other than condemn sin,
whether in the Christian or in the unbeliever. Moreover, neither in
First John, nor in Romans six, nor anywhere in the New Testament is
there distinction made between “conscious” and “unconscious” sinning,
or “known” and “unknown” sins. These distinctions between sins are made
by men with the implication that we may be kept free from one kind of
sinning but not from the other. Does not this make void the word of God
by our traditions? For God says, through John, “My little children,
these things write I unto you, _that ye may not sin_.”
We shall avoid all such difficulties if we rid ourselves of the notion
that the sinfulness or the righteousness of a man’s act is to be judged
by some outside standard. God’s measure is an inside standard. Sin can
never be discovered in the act, but in the motive of the heart of the
man who performs the act. Two men go into a restaurant and hang up
their overcoats. Two other men in the restaurant take these overcoats
with them when they go out. One man has stolen an overcoat. The other
man has taken it by mistake, thinking he had brought his own overcoat
with him, and is much distressed when he finds he has another man’s
coat. But meanwhile both men have lost their coats. Nothing can be
determined as to whether sin is involved until you get to the heart
of the men who took the coats. One man sinned. The other man surely
came short of that perfect outward standard of action, and he should
not have been so thoughtless as to take the coat. The experience
will doubtless make him more careful in the future in avoiding such
a mistake. But he did not sin. And if our theory makes it necessary
for us to say that he sinned, then we have blotted out all moral
distinctions, and there is an end of urging men to come out of darkness
into light.
Since sin is in the motive of the heart, it becomes clear why a man
who is out of Christ is sinning all the time, in thought, word and
deed. He may do many moral things and live on a high plane judged by
man’s standard, but he is incapable of God’s righteousness. Only the
love of God shed abroad in the heart through the Holy Spirit can make
righteousness possible. A natural, unsaved man cannot please God in
anything that he does. That is why he must be born again before he is
capable of goodness. When he is saved he may love God with his whole
heart, and then he can and does please God. And let us remember that no
man can please God with sinning, whatever adjective is prefixed.
Another fruitful source of confusion in studying the Scripture
teachings regarding sin is the taking of Bible statements concerning
man in his natural state and applying them to the new creature in
Christ Jesus.
“There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10).
“There is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one” (Rom. 3:12).
“All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).
“In thy sight no man living is righteous” (Ps. 143:2).
These statements are used in Scripture to describe the condition of
all men outside of Jesus Christ the Saviour. To wrest these words from
their connection and apply them to saved men to prove that they are
not righteous and that they continually are coming short of the glory
of God, is to take all meaning and significance out of the language
of Scripture. It is because this is our natural state that we need a
Saviour. When He saves us, are we left in the same state? Some have
carried this strange use of the words of Scripture to the extent of
believing (or thinking that they believe) that Paul considered himself
still the chief of sinners after he was saved. He speaks of himself as
the chief of sinners for the very purpose of showing the greatness of
the grace of the Saviour which availed to save the chief of sinners,
and that grace was not found vain. But what would we say of a Saviour
whose grace abounded in such a way as still to leave Saul the chief of
sinners? That is not Paul’s Saviour, and that is not the way Christ’s
grace operates even in the lives of those true Christians who think
they believe themselves still to be unrighteous sinners.
Perhaps the Scripture that has suffered most from this method of
lifting it out from its environment is First John, one, eight: “If we
say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
us.” A passage which was written for the express purpose of giving the
children of God the glad tidings that they need not sin, and pointing
out God’s provision for keeping them walking in the light, has somehow
become for many a stumbling block which keeps them in darkness.
Now whatever John, one, eight means it must be in accord with the later
word that these things he was writing that we may not sin. “And if any
man sin, we have an Advocate.” “_If any sin._” That means there is a
possibility of _not sinning_, as well as the admitted possibility of
sinning. He does not say “_When_ a Christian sins,” which would make
sin inevitable. Now if a Christian were sinning all the time, this
word of assurance against sinning, and also the word of comfort and
assurance for the Christian who has been overtaken in a fault would
be robbed of all meaning. First John, one, eight, therefore, cannot
mean that Christians are sinning continually, or if they are, the next
verses urge them to get out of that condition.
The literal rendering of this verse is, “If we say that we have not
sin,” or “If we say that we do not have sin.” The negative is an
adverb, not an adjective. The ordinary renderings, “If we say that we
have _no_ sin,” might encourage the assumption that the Apostle was
speaking of degrees of sin and warning against the thought of being
free from all sin. But sin is not something that can be divided; if
there is sin, there is sin, and it is not here a question of more or
less sin.
It will help also to remember that there is no independent First John,
one, eight in the Word. This sentence is part of a closely woven
argument running from the fifth verse of the first chapter to the sixth
verse of the second chapter. He is talking of fellowship with God,
which is an absolute thing in the sense that we either have perfect
fellowship or we do not have perfect fellowship, just as a man wants
perfect fellowship with his wife though the fellowship deepens and
becomes richer as the days go on. There is but one thing that can break
this fellowship with God, John says, and that is sin. For God is light
and in Him is no darkness, and the man that has fellowship must walk
in the light. Therefore man needs to be cleansed from sin so that he
may walk in the light, having fellowship. There were some in his day,
as in ours, who were saying that they had fellowship, though they were
walking in darkness. If we say that, we lie. But if we admit that we
cannot have fellowship and be in darkness, and are cleansed from sin in
the blood of Christ, then we may walk in the light. If we say that we
do not have sin, and therefore do not need this cleansing, we deceive
ourselves. But if we are not deceived in this way and confess our sins,
he is faithful and righteous to forgive us and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness, so that we may walk in the light. If we say, as they
were saying in his day, that we have not sinned, we make God a liar,
for he has said that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of
God, and therefore need a Saviour. John is writing all of this for the
purpose of keeping these Christians from sinning, not for the purpose
of explaining to them that they must be sinning continually while they
are walking in the light. Sin breaks the fellowship, and before a man
sins he must step out of that light. This is the message of the whole
of First John. He may confess and be cleansed and restored to the
fellowship, walking in the light.
* * * * *
But was not John referring to Christians when he said “we”? Let us ask
if John meant that he and other Christians would say that they had
fellowship with God when they were walking in the darkness; or would
he and others say that they had not sinned, and thus make God a liar?
The “we,” of course, is used in the same sense as, “If _any one_ says
that he has fellowship with him.” It is the use of the first personal
pronoun that we ourselves continually make in stating universal truths.
Some have even brought consternation to rescue mission workers by
telling them never to use First John, one, nine for sinners, because
the “we” refers to Christians, and God is “faithful and just” to
forgive Christians, because they are under the covenant, while it is
of his mercy that he forgives sinners. But “he is the propitiation
for our sins; and not for ours only, but _also for the whole world_,”
and since God has given Christ to die for the world, it is of his
righteousness and justice to forgive every sinner the instant he turns
to the Saviour. This is not to say that it is not also of his mercy,
but as one has suggested it is mercy from start to finish, for the
Christian as well as the sinner. The rescue mission workers and other
soul winners may go on using this verse with a clear conscience, for
God will honor it both for sinners, and for Christians when they act
like sinners, and need to confess and be forgiven.
In _The Sunday School Times_ there was published recently a remarkable
testimony of one who was saved from Christian Science, and the verse
that brought conviction was First John, one, eight. “Why, that is just
what I have been doing,” this woman said in amazement to herself one
time when she read this verse. “I have been saying that I have no sin,
and I am deceived. I need a Saviour.” This is the Spirit’s use of that
passage; if it refers to Christians who have confessed their sins and
have accepted the Saviour and been cleansed from sin, there can remain
in it no convicting power for the one who has not confessed.
These brief suggestions upon this passage are given with the thought
of provoking further study, and the reader may still feel strongly
that First John, one, eight refers to Christians, whatever their
spiritual state may be. Let us grant that it does, and the Christian
then is confessing to God and to men, “I have sin.” Putting aside the
difficulty of understanding how it is possible for me to be without
condemnation for the sin, or how it is possible for me to walk in the
light in fellowship with God while I have this sin, let us face this
simple question, “When am I going to get rid of this sin?”
There are at least seven theories that have been suggested to answer
this question, and to get rid of the “root of sin” which it is supposed
John is dealing with when he says, “If we say that we have not sin, we
deceive ourselves.” All are agreed that without holiness no man shall
see God, and that this means actual holiness; and therefore all who
hold these different theories are agreed that this root of sin referred
to by John must be gotten out, or eradicated.
The first theory is _gradual eradication after death_, or gradual
purification, for which a place called purgatory is provided (by the
theology, not by the Lord). This theory of course is a matter of works
from start to finish, and perhaps no reader of these pages would
entertain it.
The second is _gradual eradication during life, with the completion of
the process at death_. In this theory the process during life makes no
real progress toward the consummation at death since all equally need
the work at death, whatever the degree of eradication during life.
The third is _increasing counteraction during life, with eradication at
death_. That is, the evil is not eradicated gradually during life but
is counteracted increasingly by the power of God, while remaining till
its removal at death.
The fourth is _eradication at death_. That is, the evil is unaffected
during life, and awaits death for its removal.
The fifth is _eradication at the coming of Christ_. But if we die we
enter into the presence of His holiness and need purity before this
event.
Few maintain this theory, except those who go the length of identifying
the root of sin with the physical body or with the blood, thus making
sin inhere in matter. This assumption is also needed to give support to
the second, third and fourth theories, for the only change that, takes
place at death is the separation of the spirit from the body.
The sixth is _eradication before death_, requiring a second work of
grace, subsequent to regeneration.
The seventh is _eradication at the moment of regeneration_, which
perhaps few in our day hold, though it has been earnestly contended for
in other days.
All of these eradication theories, with the exception of the last, make
necessary a second work of grace subsequent to regeneration. They mean
that God has to do something else to free a man from sin after he is
cleansed, by faith, in the blood of Christ, and made a new creature by
the operation of the Holy Spirit. For manifestly, if a Christian must
say, “I have sin,” he must get rid of that sin, and it must be done at
one of three times: before death, at death, or after death. Is there a
line of Scripture that gives support to any one of these six theories
of a second work of grace, or of the theory of eradication at the first
work of grace?
All of these theories rest upon the assumption that there is a “root of
sin” _in_ a man, in a mechanical, material sense, and that from this
root sin springs.
The Scripture testimony is that _the man himself is the root of sin_.
Sin springs from _him_. Our Lord said that out of the heart proceed
evil thoughts and deeds that defile the man. He was not speaking of the
heart as a physical or spiritual entity _in the man_, but showing the
Pharisees that righteousness or evil did not consist in the outward
acts or observances, but proceeded _from the man himself_. For the
heart is the man.
This natural man, who is himself the root of his sin, must be born
again. It is the man himself who is born again, made a new creature
in Christ Jesus. The heart, that is, the man himself, is purified by
faith, through the miracle work of the Holy Spirit. This new man, who
in the moment of regeneration has the fruit of the Spirit, his heart
filled with love, continues to have victory in Christ as he continues
to abide in Christ. “As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, so
walk in him” (Col. 2:6). This is God’s plan. It is because Christians
have not continued so walking, or perhaps because they have not known
clearly and fully the normal New Testament experience that should
result from “receiving” Christ Jesus, that there is need of a crisis
in the life, a decision to get back where we belong in the place of
abiding.
* * * * *
But why is it possible for this new creature to sin after he has so
received Christ? It has been assumed that there must be some root of
sin in the Christian that makes it possible for him to sin. It is
strange that this should be thought a necessity when we know that
Satan sinned, and Adam sinned, when they were sinless and had never
been tainted with any impurity. If it were _not_ possible for this new
creature to sin, he would be a machine; his very humanity would need to
be destroyed. If we accept as the alternative of this kind of Christian
a Christian who is provided with something in him which causes the sin,
we arrive at exactly the same conclusion with this difference: we have
a machine which cannot do anything except sin. Let it be understood
clearly that if a man in this body and in this life in the midst of
temptation is not able to sin then he is not able to be good. He can
sin for the same reason that he can be good, because he is a free moral
agent. That is the way God made him, and it is of the essence of his
humanity. Everywhere in Scripture the Christian is appealed to as one
who is responsible to choose. The reason that a Christian can sin is
because he still has his free will. And when he sins, it is not a root
of sin in him that sins. It is he who sins.
That first sin (which need not occur) after a man is made a new
creature in Christ, or after he has understood and taken Christ as his
Victory, is always a tragedy. Sin should always be a tragedy. It is not
an accident nor an incident. But if the man is not responsible, but has
something in him that makes sin necessary, then he cannot regard sin as
a preventable tragedy.
But it is not possible for God to sin, and yet he can be good. Here we
come to the heart of our confusion regarding a Christian’s goodness.
God not only can be good, He himself _is goodness_. He is holy in a
way that no man ever was or ever can be. For man’s holiness is never
absolute in this sense, but always relative. Not relative in the sense
that sin must be present, but relative because of the moment by moment
relationship with God, the Holy One. Therefore for the Christian to be
kept from sinning he must abide in Christ, and he cannot do other than
sin if left to himself. At the root of all these eradication theories
lies the assumption that man is to be made independently holy. But man
is a dependent creature. This is of the essence of humanity, altogether
apart from sin. Utter dependence on his creator and his Saviour (and
the Saviour is the creator of the new life) is the only safety for the
child of God. There is indeed no room for boasting nor for looking to
self when we learn God’s wondrous plan of salvation by grace.
Two Christian workers were talking together at the lunch table about
the question of what happened to a man when he is saved. One of the
brethren pointed to the granulated sugar in the bowl as representing
him as a lost man. He then took a spoon as representing the divine
life imparted in conversion, stuck it into the sugar, and said: “This
represents my new nature, and the sugar is still the same corrupt
nature. But I am in Christ as the sugar is in the bowl.” In other
words Christ is enclosing a mass of corruption with a righteous spark
injected into it.
Another Christian worker, representing what Christ did in saving him,
drew his coat about him so as to cover up his white vest, and said that
in just this way God clothes us with Christ’s righteousness, while we
remain a mass of corruption beneath.
Still another, putting these illustrations into theological terms,
said: “God imputes the righteousness of Christ to me in exactly the
same way as he imputes my sin to Christ. So that when God looks at me
he sees the righteousness of Christ, just as when he looks at Jesus he
sees my sin.” The implication is that righteousness touches me in just
the way that sin touches Christ, namely, it is as far from me as the
east is from the west.
These brethren are all true children of God, washed in the precious
blood of Christ. Fortunately they were not telling the truth about
themselves; more seriously they were maligning the Saviour, and while
the intellectual confusion may not keep them from victory in their
own lives it serves to entangle many an earnest seeker. And this sort
of handling of God’s word is what has furnished the enemies of the
Gospel of grace their chief weapons in attack. These statements, if
they are taken at their face value, constitute as complete a denial of
the God and Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as Mrs. Eddy’s
philosophy of the denial of sin and the Saviour.
As Luther roused the Church by the battle cry of “Justification by
Faith,” let the complete truth of the complete Gospel be sounded to-day
in the cry of “Salvation by Faith.” For “it is of faith, that it may be
according to Grace” (Rom. 4:16). God never justifies a sinner without
saving him. That is, he does not call a man righteous without making
him righteous. If he did, God would be in the place of the man whom
James condemns, who says to the brother or sister naked and in need
of daily food: “Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled,” yet gives them
not the things needful to the body. “What doth it profit?” James asks.
“Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself” (Jas. 2:15-17).
Even so would the calling a man righteous without making him righteous
be useless for the soul that is naked and destitute of righteousness.
Justification, in the sense of “declaring righteous,” is dead apart
from the miracle of cleansing and regeneration which _makes righteous_.
And we need righteousness, just as the naked and hungry man needs
clothing and food, _now in this life_. There is no hope held out for
any future provision of freeing from sin. There is still a part of our
redemption from sin and its results that is future, but very distinctly
are we told that this concerns the redemption of our body, not the
purifying of the soul. (Using purifying in its negative meaning of
cleansing from impurity. For we must remember that there is a positive,
progressive, and increasing work in conforming us to the likeness of
Christ which is quite distinct from this matter of cleansing, which is
always absolute; we are either cleansed or we are not cleansed from
sin.)
The works that James insists on as a proof that the faith is real
faith, are possible only for the new creature in Christ, who is
producing the fruit of the Spirit as he abides in Christ, the fruit
which is the righteousness of Christ made real in experience, and
abounding more and more as we grow in grace (not into grace), and the
knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Not a half salvation of “justification by faith” to take care of the
past only of our sins, but let our watchword be a complete salvation
of “CHRIST BY FAITH.” For it is Christ that saves from sin, who makes
a new creation with old things put away, and who provides a way of
abiding in that freedom, walking in joy and peace and victory, just as
we received Him in freedom.
“If, therefore, the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”
“Being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.”
“Now being made free from sin and become servants of God, ye have your
fruit unto sanctification.”
“For freedom did Christ set us free: Stand fast therefore, and be not
entangled again in a yoke of bondage.”