That this is the true meaning of the word, no one who is informed can doubt. In the first chapter, the main objection to the use of the term eradication was addressed.
Four Objections to the Term Eradication
It had to do with the etymological or physical connotation of the word - the fact that, in terms of origin, it refers to that which is uprooted. A further statement along these lines will be made before we take up the other objections to the use of the term eradication.
Four More Objections to the Term Eradication
This chapter will examine some other objections to the use of the term eradication. There are those who object to the use of the term eradication on the grounds that it is too radical.
The Reach of Indwelling Sin
Wesley believed in two types of sin - sin as an act, and sin as an indwelling or nature. When a sinner is converted, he is freed from the guilt of his sinful actions and from the power of indwelling sin.
The Essence of This Sinful Nature
The Sinful Nature Destroyed in Entire Sanctification
Wesley Belonged to the "Extinction School"
Original sin is a condition in which all the faculties of man, the understanding, the will and the affections, are perverted. The main manifestations of this root, disease or leaven are atheism and idolatry, pride, unbelief, self-will and love of the world. Etymologically, extirpation is one of the most powerful terms ever used in connection with the sinful nature.
I use the word 'destroyed' because after St. Wesley, the term eradication soon came into use and was appropriated by the leaders of the holiness movement in America. It appears in Steele's writings and occasionally in most books written by early leaders of the holiness movement. To compensate for this, they then adopted the use of uprooting, which so strikingly denotes the totality or completeness of the destruction of sin in the second blessing.
In this chapter we discuss the most important phase of the whole issue of eradication - its relation to oppression.
Minor Uses of the Term Suppression
This being the case, in this chapter we will deal only with some general or preliminary matters, while in chapter five we will have to deal more with the details of the arguments involved.
Both Eradication and Suppression Excluded
Eradication and Suppression Theories
Then there is the growth theory, which teaches that the old man of sin is gradually cast out after justification with the continued help of the Holy Spirit. Anti-eradication views include any of the teachings that say the sinful nature cannot be eradicated or is not eradicated in this life. He is saved, not by presence, but by the power of the carnal mind.
The first view we will mention is the view of the Church of the Nazarene. This is Wesley's view, which declares that man is freed from sin by the immediate eradication of the carnal mind, here and now, by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It advocates the gradual eradication of sin and sin after justification with the constant help of the Holy Spirit.
What is wrong with the salvation theories that deny the eradication of the sin principle in this life.
Hollenback's Claim as to the Sinfulness of the Body
The Body Is Not Inherently Sinful
The suppressionist view and almost all other anti-eradicationist theories emphasize the idea that the body is sinful. Such a claim logically prohibits extermination until death, or the destruction of the present body. Thayer's Greek Lexicon tells us that sarx, when contrary to the spirit, has an ethical sense and embraces everything in the soul that is weak, base, debased, and tends to impiety and vice.
This statement certainly does not support the claim that the flesh, or sarx, always refers to the body. William Sanday, in his great commentary on Romans, disputes those who say that Paul taught that the body is inherently sinful. In his New Testament Theology, Sheldon concludes his long discussion of this problem by giving seven reasons why he prefers the interpretation that the body is not inherently sinful.
Thus we have given the conclusions of seven excellent authorities in regard to the sinfulness of the body; and they all agree that it is not Paul's teaching or the New Testament as a whole.
First John 1:8
Christ's Summary of the law
One of the most important problems related to the debate between suppression and eradication is the relationship of the body to sin. Hollenback, in his book True Holiness, writes about sin and the body: "Among the several gross errors in the established doctrine of the holiness people, there is one which we believe is fundamental and older than many others. 34; If we look at Paul 's doctrine of the body (soma), we shall find that he in no way regards it as essentially sinful, and this conception of it is not equivalent to the idea signified by sarx."
The former, although Calvinistic in its general theological attitude, denies the sinfulness of the body. On page 213 of his New Testament Theology, Sheldon gives us his view of the concept of flesh. First, Paul includes sins which are not connected with the physical members or sensual life in his catalog of the works of the flesh.
Fourth, the body can be the temple of the Holy Spirit – this could hardly be the case if it were inherently sinful.
Integration Defined
The human mind is easily captivated by the novel, the spectacular or anything that seems miraculous. That which is old in terminology, or in any other field, should not be discarded unless we are sure that we are truly benefiting from it. There are those who, in their search for that which is new or different, think they have found an excellent replacement for the expression complete sanctification in the term integration.
If we really want to present something unusual in connection with this experience of complete sanctification, let us really live it.
Integration a Dangerous Substitute for Entire Sanctification
Again, full sanctification is a supernatural crisis, while integration as understood in psychology does not rise above the level of the natural or the gradual. Further, in whole sanctification we have integration by subtraction, or by the eradication of sin, rather than integration by addition or development, which is surely the usual connotation of integration. A further argument against using integration for whole sanctification is found in the fact that the former is a psychological, scientific, descriptive, quantitative, or behavioral word, while whole sanctification is a philosophical, theological, normative, value, qualitative, or behavioral term.
Integration May Be Either Good or Bad
It is difficult to understand the death of Christ in the light of such a view, the place which the Bible gives to the horror of sin, and the blackness of the human heart as shown in the actions of men between the two world wars. All these differences between integration and full sanctification show that the former would hardly replace the latter. George, "The Relation of Total Sanctification to Character Development"; thesis submitted to the faculty of the Nazarene Theological Seminary in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Divinity degree.
George also gives another quote that is even more significant as proof of the non-qualitative character of integration. She was on the verge of a nervous breakdown due to a conflict between her old-fashioned religious education at home and the liberal teaching of the university. However, whole sanctification and integration should never be identified; because there can be integration at the level of the lowest values.
So it seems foolish to try to exclude the use of the word extinction.
What Is Not Eradicated?
Both the Bible and John Wesley teach that something radical takes place in man when he is fully sanctified. Let us also remember that a man may be tempted without an inclination to sin; for an inclination to sin is a will to sin, as well as a suggestion to gratify a legitimate desire in an unlawful manner. Here is the way in which sin arises: there must be some suggestion of the act; the possible action must be considered desirable or satisfying in some way; it needs to be thought about, or paid attention to; there must be the decision or will to act; and finally performing the action.
A person becomes a sinner when he wants to act in the direction of what is wrong, even though he may never actually do the act. When we are fully sanctified, our free will is not destroyed, nor are our legitimate appetites eradicated.
What Is Eradicated?
The cause of the complete change is God, or the supernatural; and the effect is produced immediately. We can go even further and declare that complete sanctification does not eradicate the effects of the Fall on the human body and mind. Complete sanctification does not free us from the effects of the Fall on the spirit.
Sins must be repented of, and the Blood must be trusted for the removal of the condemnation that entails. Wesley and the leaders of the holiness movement emphasized and re-emphasized the fact that all sanctification does not free us from temptation. Here we are told that it is original sin, depravity, that corruption of the nature of all the offspring of Adam which inclines us all to evil, and which is continually destroyed when we are sanctified.
Let us then list as many names as possible of that something which is eradicated when we are fully sanctified.