posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHEWY:
Zeena-

Romans 7:14-20

I in no way intended that as a quote. That's why there is no verse attached.

[Poor Paul's old man hadn't died either. Rom. 7
Chewy-]

I took this statement from the context of the verses.

Chewy-

---

quote:

---

The Relationship Between the Terms "Old Man" and "Flesh".
By David Needham
May 4, 2005
The Relationship Between the Christian and the Terms "Old Man" and "Flesh"

by David C. Needham

Introduction

The purpose of this appendix [to Birthright, 1979 edition] is to provide some basis for comparison of the perspective of this book with what would appear to be the most common alternate point of view. In brief, this alternate view holds (1) that the terms "old man," "old self," "sin nature," and "flesh" are synonyms. Consequently, since the New Testament clearly teaches that a Christian still has the flesh, he still has the old man. (2) And since this is so, the "crucifixion" of the old man in Romans 6 cannot be accepted as actual, but rather [only] positional or judicial.

[To affirm the more precise understanding of these terms as distinct from one another] We will ... [present] quotations ... [that] are in harmony with this book and then conclude with comments concerning several supporting arguments which are used by some to justify the alternate view.

(1) Are the terms "old man,' "flesh' and "sin nature" essentially synonyms?...

[The alternate view] YES ...

[Birthright] NO

"What then is this 'old man'? First, it does not mean the carnal nature and all its propensities. Paul is not teaching that our carnal nature with all its propensities was crucified together with Christ. Neither does it mean our moral being previous to our rebirth. Neither does it mean the flesh with its affections and lusts. Neither does it mean 'old' simply in the sense of 'former,' whereas now I am something different. Why am I so concerned with these negatives? It is because I want to show that if you will identify the 'old man' with any one of these ideas you will of necessity be in hopeless confusion in the light of other Scriptures which we have to consider. What then does Paul mean by 'old man?' It seems to me to be quite plain if we look at the context of the entire passage which begins in chapter 5 verse 12 [Romans]. The 'old man' is the man I used to be in Adam.... It is the man I once was, but which I am no longer."4

"The Heidelberg Catechism rightly draws a distinction between 'the old man' and 'the flesh.' The old man is crucified and buried with Him, so that the corrupt inclinations of the flesh may no more reign in us.' The 'old man' is not 'the flesh,' he is not the 'corrupt nature;' the old man is the Adamic nature, the old
humanity. The 'flesh' is 'the body of sin,' the body in which sin tends to tyrannize still, the body in which sin yet remains."5

"The term 'old man' does not lend itself to the same kind of usage which we have in the case of 'sin' and 'flesh.' 'Old man' is a designation of the person in his unity, as dominated by the flesh and sin. Though Paul, indeed, identifies himself, his ego, with sin (Romans 7:14, 20a, 25b) and then also with righteousness (Romans 7:17a, 20b, 25a), yet he does not call the former his 'old ego' and the latter his 'new ego.' In like manner he does not call the 'sin' and 'the flesh' in him the 'old man.'"6

"This is an important verse [Romans 6:6], and we must clearly distinguish between 'our old man,' 'the body of sin,' and 'we.' The first of these, 'our old man,' means 'our old self;' what we were as unregenerate sons of Adam. It must not be identified with 'the flesh,' or 'our sinful nature.'"7

(2) Is the crucifixion of the old man in Romans six judicial or positional rather than actual [spiritual]?...

[The alternate view] YES ...

[Birthright] NO:

"The old man is the unregenerate man; the new man is the regenerate man created in Christ Jesus unto good works. It is no more feasible to call a believer a new man and an old man, than it is to call him a regenerate man and an unregenerate. And neither is it warranted to speak of the believer as having in him the old man and the new man. This kind of terminology is without warrant and it is but another method of doing prejudice to the doctrine which Paul was so jealous to establish when he said, 'our old man has been crucified.'"20

"Paul is dealing with the believer's death to sin. 'We died to sin' - this is Paul's thesis. He is dealing with death to sin as an actual and practical fact, shall we not say existential fact? He brings within the scope of this statement not merely the guarantee or the promise of death to sin, but its realization in the life-history of the believer."21

"The contrast between the old man and the new man has frequently been interpreted as the contrast between that which is new in the believer and that which is old, the contrast between that which the believer is as recreated after the image of God and that which he is as not yet perfect. Hence the antithesis which exists in the believer between holiness and sin, between the Holy Spirit and the flesh, is the antithesis between the new man and the old man in him. The believer is both old man and new man; when he does well he is acting in terms of the old man which he also still is. This interpretation does not find support in Paul's teaching; Paul points to something different."22

"The term 'crucified' is that of being crucified with Christ, and therefore indicates that the old man has been put to death just as decisively as Christ died upon the accursed tree. To suppose that the old man has been crucified and still lives or has been raised again from this death is to contradict the obvious force of the import of crucifixion. And to interject the idea that crucifixion is a slow death and therefore to be conceived of as process by which the old man is progressively mortified until he is finally put to death is to go flatly counter to Paul's terms.... Exegetically speaking, it is no easier to think of the old man as in process of crucifixion or mortification than it is to think of the resurrected Lord as being still in process of crucifixion."23

"...the figure which Paul is using, namely, that of having put off and of having put on, does not agree with the idea of being both an old man and a new man at the same time."24

"'Our old man' is the old self or ego, the unregenerate man in his entirety in contrast with the new man as the regenerate man in his entirety. It is a mistake to think of the believer as both an old man and new man or as having in him both the old man and the new man, the latter in view of the regeneration and the former because of remaining corruption."25

"Understand that the 'old man' is not there. The only way to stop living as if he were still there is to realize that he is not there. That is the New Testament method of teaching sanctification. The whole trouble with us, says the New Testament, is that we do not realize what we are, that we still go on thinking we are the old man, and go on trying to do things to the old man. That has been done; the old man was crucified with Christ. He is non-existent, he is no longer there... If we but saw this as we should, we would really begin to live as Christians in this world."26

"We say again, this is ... a real fact; not something real in Christ 'positionally' in the heavenlies, but real actually on earth. When Paul said, 'Then were all dead,''Ye are dead' and 'We that are dead to sin' and 'your old man is crucified with him,' he meant exactly what he said."27

"The 'old man' ceased to exist at our regeneration, when it was 'put off.'"28

(3) An analysis of the arguments used to support the positional or judicial concept of the death of the old man [the alternate view].

Before considering some of the common arguments, I think it would be helpful to illustrate the well meaning double talk that this "judicial death" concept of the old self produces. The following quotations are taken from what I would imagine is the most complete recent book which deals exclusively with describing and supporting the judicial death concept of the old man. "God gave up the old nature and killed it" (p. 58). "Consider that the old nature is dead indeed, and keep it in its coffin" (p. 59). "How can the new nature cope with the old nature? The Lord has not left us without answers. The first step, of course, is to be aware that the old nature is present and eager to take over. We must be vigilant. Then the believer should study the personality and characteristics of his old nature and understand how it operates" (p. 49). "The discerning Christian will recognize the awesome power of the old nature in his daily life" (p. 84). "A Christian either must learn to live with his old nature and control it, or it will dominate him. He must adjust - or self destruct" (p. 121). [NOTE: The entire second chapter of this book deals with the various titles for the old nature. Massey considers "old man," "flesh," "natural man," and "carnal" as synonyms for "the old nature."29

Now we will turn to the arguments.

[Alternate viewpoint's objection] A. The death cannot be considered actual because Paul states that the sin nature-the "body of sin" (synonymous with the old man) has been made "powerless" or "inactive," according to Romans 6:6, and that is something short of the full "death" idea.

This argument is illustrated by the following quotation: "This same truth is presented in Romans 6:6, where Paul says, 'Knowing this, that our old man (you could substitute the words "the sin nature" for "old man" in this verse and do no violence to the text) is (has been) crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed (disannulled).' The sin nature is not destroyed, as the English text suggests. But the sin nature has been rendered inoperative; it has been disannulled."30

[Answer] Lloyd-Jones responds to this view by saying, "There are those who teach in their commentaries that this simply means 'the old man' again [reference to 'body of sin']. They say, 'the body of sin'; in other words 'the old man.' So it amounts to this, that the apostle's teaching is that 'the old man was crucified with Christ in order that the old man might be rendered ineffective, or null and void, or inert.' This exposition is due to one thing only, namely, that the writers have gone astray in their interpretation of the 'old man.'"31

"I trust that the distinction between 'the old man' and 'the body of sin' is clear. It is most important. That is why I have contended so much against the idea that the 'old man' means the 'old nature,' and that the 'old man' and 'the body of sin' are one and the same thing. If you believe that, you will still be in bondage."32

"What then does the term 'the body of sin' mean? It means the body, our physical body, of which sin has "taken possession ... Here is the vital distinction as I see it, the distinction between 'I myself as a personality' and 'my body.'"33

"... sin still remains and is left in our bodies; not in us, but in our bodies. As persons, as souls, we have already finished with it, but not so the body. This body of sin--this body which sin inhabits and tries to use--still remains... sin not only remains in our bodies; but if it is not checked, if it is not kept under, it will even reign in our bodies, and it will dominate our bodies."34

Murray appears to be in full agreement with Lloyd-Jones by stating, "The expression 'the body of sin' would mean the body as conditioned and controlled by sin, the sinful body."35 By this he clearly meant the physical body. "'Body' can well refer in this case to the physical organism. 'Body' is certainly used in this sense in verse 12 in the expression 'your mortal body.' The same is true in 8:10, 11, 13, 23; 12:1 (cf. I Corinthians 6:13, 15, 16, 20; 2 Corinthians 4:10; Philippians 1:20; 3:21; Colossians 2:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:23). These references suffice to show the extent to which the apostle thought of sin and sanctification as associated with the body."36

Commenting on the "deeds of the body" of Romans 8:13, he adds,"The physical entity which we call the body is undoubtedly intended (cf. vv. 10, 11) and implies, therefore, that the apostle is thinking of those sins associated with and registered by the body.... 'The deeds of the body' are those practices characteristic of the body of sin (cf. 6:6), practices which the believer must put to death if he is to live (cf. Colossians 3:5)."37

Lloyd-Jones expresses, "The teaching of verse 6, then, is that my 'old man' was crucified in order that the remaining use of my body by sin might be disannulled, might be rendered ineffective."38

One final comment by Murray should be added in which he equates the "body of sin" with "body of this death" of Romans 7:24. "'Body' in Paul's usage, as was noted at 6:6, refers to the physical body and there is not evidence to support the view that it is used figuratively. Hence we are constrained to think in this instance of the physical body."39

Finally W.H. Griffith Thomas states, "The 'body of sin' does not mean in our modern terminology, 'the mass of sin,' or that sin has its source in the body. It simply means that the body is the seat, or instrument of sin. The 'we' of this verse means our real self as united to Christ."40

At this point you are encouraged to note the degree of emphasis Paul places on the physical body in Romans 6-8, observing especially Romans 6:11-13, 19; 8:10-11, 13, 23. In view of this it would be completely inconsistent of Paul to make Romans 6:6 an exception. Not only is this so, but it would force upon Paul a redundant literary style, quite out of character if the verse were translated, "Knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him that our old self might be made powerless."

Three final quotations quite clearly express what I believe to be a proper view. Lloyd-Jones, in commenting on the phrase, "your members" of Romans 6:13, says, "The various activities of our bodies, our physical bodies as such, come into this category of 'members.' It does not stop at that. The term also includes the mental powers, the power of thought, the power of reason, the power of imagination. It seems to me that in this teaching it is quite clear that the apostle puts all such things under this general heading of 'the mortal body.' The natural man has brains, he has understanding, he has mental powers which he can use, he has imagination. All these belong in a sense to the physical man and are parts, therefore, or members of this mortal body. But the term also included the emotions. In other words, the term 'members' is a way of describing the functioning of man."41

"My old self, that self that was in Adam, was an utter slave to sin. That self has gone; I have a new self, I am a new man. The moment I realize that I am a new man I am in a better position to deal with this old nature that remains in my body, in what Paul calls my 'mortal flesh.' We shall find the apostle saying in chapter 7, 'It is no more I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me' (verse 20). Is not that a marvelous thing to be able to say? I am not doing this or that, it is this sin that remains in my members that does so. Sin is no longer in me, it is in my members only. That is the most liberating thing you have ever heard!"42

"What I am asserting is that sin which formerly governed the whole of my personality is now only governing-or trying to govern-the bodily part of me. I in spirit, I as a soul, I as a personality am delivered; I am dead to sin."43 What a wonderful fact Paul gives to us! Since the old self has died, that is, the person I was in the truest sense, now the members of my body can be presented as instruments of righteousness to God in complete harmony with who I am now as they become the channels through which divine life-dependent life-is flowing!

[Alternate viewpoint's objection] B. The death of the old man cannot be considered actual because to do so would be to contradict I John 1:8.

The reasoning which leads to this conclusion is hardly simple. It goes something like this: When the word "sin" occurs in the singular it commonly can be translated "sin nature" and "sin nature" is a synonym for the "old man."Therefore since John states "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves," he is really saying, "If we say we have no 'old man' we are deceiving ourselves."

A statement of this view follows: "But the word sin also refers to the basic nature which men have as sinful human beings. The sixth chapter of Romans uses this word a number of times to refer to the quality of a man's nature, to the kind of person he is apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ... (in Romans 6:6) he is talking about the essential nature [emphasis mine] that is within us, and he uses the word sin to describe the quality, or kind, of nature we possess.... In 1 John 1:8, the Apostle John says, 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.' John is using the word sin as Paul uses it in the sixth chapter of Romans, to emphasize the fact that we have a sin nature within us that God calls sin, which we can refer to as 'the sin nature.'" (Note: in this particular work the "sin nature" has previously been defined as "the old man." Note also that the old man is referred to as one's "essential nature.")44

[Answer] If this argument can stand, then of course Romans 6 must be interpreted judicially and I must conclude that my essential nature is sinful. Thus, the person I was before I was born again, I still am (of course, with the addition of a new nature).

Perhaps this apparent problem might best be reconciled by observing the unique way in which the writer John uses the phrase "to have sin." The following quotation from Robert Law's comments concerning 1 John 1:8 clarifies a distinctive usage. "The phrase 'to have sin' (echein hamartian) is peculiar to St. John, and has quite a definite sense. Thus in John 15:22 our Lord says, 'If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.' Here, beyond question, 'to have sin' specifically denotes the guiltiness of the agent. In John 9:41, 15:24, 19:11 the sense is equally clear; and those
parallels must be held as decisive for the meaning here."45

For those who are not at rest with this interpretation I suggest that they carefully evaluate what they actually understand by the term "nature." What is really meant when someone says "all Christians have a sin nature"? If those who use this terminology meant by it that in a general way Christians because they have not yet received the "redemption of their bodies" have a tendency to produce fleshly sinful behavior out of harmony with their innermost being, I would find no fault with the terminology.46 But is that the way the term is used? Very pointedly Paul in Ephesians 2:3 considered it to refer to one's essential nature as descriptive of a non-Christian. This usage would appear to be in agreement with at least two of the following dictionary definitions, (1)the intrinsic characteristics and qualities of a person; (2) an individual disposition, "She had a gentle disposition;" (3) the aggregate of a person's instincts, penchants, preferences.47 In other words, the idea of "nature" seems to be the essence which most adequately describes a person. One's "nature" in this sense is then not simply something a person "has," but rather that which a person most deeply "is." Therefore many who use this term would agree that one's sin nature is one's essential nature.

Well then, in view of this, can it be defended that John in his epistle is saying "if we say that our essential nature is not sinful, we are deceiving ourselves?" If that is what he is saying then it is in direct opposition to the overall thrust of 1 John in which the focus is on the righteous nature of the children of God. (See especially 1 John 3:1-9.) In order to get this idea one has to make a major distinction between the "we have no sin" of verse 8 and "we have not sinned" of verse 10, a distinction big enough to make the first passage refer to one's essential nature and the second to individual sins. There is a difference in the same way there is a difference between saying "I have no cough" and "I haven't coughed." But in neither case is one saying anything about his deepest self as a "cougher." (By using this comparison I by no means am minimizing the seriousness of sin, but rather I wish only to underline that to say "I have something" instead of saying "I have done something" does not require the essential nature idea of the former.) Probably the major distinction in these two verses is not seen in the first half of each, but in the second half anyway.48 (For other occurrences of the singular "sin" which would be inappropriate to relate to one's nature, see James 1:15; Hebrews 3:15; 1 Peter 4:1; and certainly Romans 6.) To use the singular noun argument either in 1 John or anywhere else as even secondary support of a "judicial" interpretation of Romans 6 is weak deduction at best and is unworthy of consideration in an issue of such major importance.

The practical result of this "judicial" type of terminology is that it tends to produce a strange double talk. On one hand Christians are encouraged as to the importance of having a proper positive self image. Yet in the same context they are reminded of their essentially sinful nature. That's like describing all the positive qualities of a shark, its skin, sense of a smell, agility, etc., as it dashes around your swimming pool while all the time you are trying to shoot it because of its essential nature. But rather than ridiculing this very popular approach, it is constructive for us to ask why this concept is being pressed upon Christians today. Certainly it is not out of a willful wrong, but rather it is due to the sincere effort of Bible teachers to explain why believers sin without seeing the relationship between sin and the fundamental issue of meaning which grows out of an awareness of identity.

[Alternate viewpoint's objection] C. The death [of the old man], even if considered actual rather than judicial, does not mean extinction or cessation, but only separation.

Therefore, even though the Bible states that one's old self has died, one must adjust to the fact that it has not ceased to exist. That old self is still very much "there," but happily the Christian is "separated from its power." One writer illustrates this by a comparison with physical death. "Physical death is a separation of the immaterial part of man from the material part. It does not mean that the person has become extinct or that he has ceased to function."49

[Answer] At first glance this line of thought sounds reasonable until one asks the question. What died at the point of physical death? The answer, the body dies. Does that which actually dies cease to function? The answer, "Yes." Indeed, the person as a spiritual being continues to live, but that is not what dies in the first place. It seems to me that one may rightly call death "separation," but it doesn't change the/act that death in some sense does involve a cessation of function of whatever dies. What then about the "spiritual death" of the unbeliever? Certainly there is no cessation of activity here is there? There certainly is. Spiritual death involves a separation from the life that is in God; therefore, in the unbeliever there is a total cessation of the one entity that is dead-one's life in relation to God. This is also true of the biblical "second death." By illustration, one may still react to a dead snake with considerable alarm as though that snake were still alive, but the snake is dead and has indeed ceased to function no matter what one's reaction may be; so also the old man. A Christian may still think himself to be the old man, or to have the old man, thus reacting as though this is who he is. This happens even though the old man has ceased to exist. A prince may continue to act like a pauper because this is who he thinks he is even though in no sense is he a pauper, though perhaps he once was.

One additional proof of the cessation of activity is the parallel Paul draws between Christ's death and the death of the old man in Romans 6. There should be no question that there is no continuing activity of sin with Him. Indeed it is correct to say that when a person has passed through the awesome death and resurrection described in Romans 6, the person he used to be has ceased to be and the person he now most deeply is will be forever (even though that person remains housed in unredeemed flesh which may at times provide him with a false and thus sinning identity).

[Alternate view's objection] D. The death cannot be considered actual due to the fact that the time of the departure of the old man awaits either physical death or rapture.

This view is pointedly expressed in the following quotations, "Being an integral part of a human being, this evil nature cannot and will not be dismissed until the body itself in which it functions is redeemed, or until the separation between the body and the immaterial elements of soul and spirit is achieved by death."50

"Like physical death, the Adamic nature, which is the perpetuator of spiritual death, is not now dismissed, but, in the case of the redeemed, it is subject to gracious divine provisions whereby its injuries may be restrained. Salvation from the power of sin for the unsaved, depends upon two factors, namely, the divine provision and the human appropriation."51

"The state of sinless perfection can never be reached until the sin nature is cast out, and this is accomplished only through the death of the physical body or the transformation of the body without death at the rapture."52

[Answer] It seems remarkable indeed with the total omission of any New Testament scriptural reference to such a departure of the old man (and the parallel terms used by the above writers) that theologians can feel free to be so dogmatic. Though it is true that our bodies will yet know a redemption (Romans 8:23), Paul completely avoids any connection between this fact and the deliverance from the old man. Such a view would seem to teach two deaths of the old man: a death in the sense of power being broken, or activity being controlled, and a death in the sense of total separation involving complete cessation of activity. Nowhere is this taught in the Bible.

The redemption of our bodies will be a marvelous moment for every believer for several reasons. First, we will be released from the heavy limitations of our bodies, to enjoy "conformity with the body of His glory" (Philippians 3:21, NASB). The result of this miracle will be that we will be able to "see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). In our present bodies we could not begin to endure the full frontal impact of the glory of God; our senses, our minds and emotions would indeed disintegrate before such inexpressible brilliance. But in that day "we shall see him as he is!" In that day "/ shall know fully, even as I am fully known" (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Secondly, our bodies, "bodies in which sin tends to tyrannize still," (in this sense, "the body of sin") will be redeemed. This is well expressed by Lloyd-Jones in saying, "The old man has gone. I am no longer that man; I am a new man in Christ Jesus. That is what is true about me. But though that is the truth about me, it is not yet the truth about my body, my mortal body. Sin is still in my mortal body, in my members, working as a 'law in my members,' having its effect upon my 'instruments,' 'my members,' the parts of my body."54

Enlarging upon this he adds, "There is a day coming, says the Apostle, when even my body shall have been delivered from the final effects and influences of the reign and the rule of sin. Not yet! But it is coming. Even here and now, as I understand this, the evil effect of sin upon my body should be lessening, but finally I shall have a glorified body. I myself, in Christ, am already glorified-'Whom he hath called, them he hath also justified, and whom he hath justified, them he hath also glorified' (Romans 8:30). I am glorified, and a day is coming when my body shall be glorified."55

Summary
The "old self (man) was who we were. "Flesh" was the stuff out of which life for us was made--fragile, mortal humanness severed from God's life and ultimate meaning. As such we "were by nature children of wrath," living "in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind (literally 'thoughts')" (Ephesians 2:3, NASB).

We are now living spirits--living because Jesus' risen life is our life. Not only have each of us retained all of our unique humanness with its proneness for producing counterfeit life, but we actually value it as the means by which Christ may progressively be seen in this world "in the flesh." Happily some day we will exchange all that remains mortal about us for total immortality. In that day we will at last know fully "the glorious liberty of the sons of God."

Conclusion
By no means should this study be considered to be complete in the sense of considering every passage related to this issue. In view of the almost limitless potential of interpreting verses out of context or from a prior prejudice, I doubt if such a study could ever be considered as complete. My earnest desire is that you might praise God with me as we look together at the broad and bright picture of new covenant Christianity.

The fundamental question simply is: As you read the book of Acts and the epistles, what overall conclusion are you forced to draw as to the essential nature of one who has been born again?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David C. Neeham, Birthright: Christian, Do You Know Who You Are? Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1979. 239-264.

Appendix B, Notes
In writing this section I face what is to me an unavoidable dilemma. Since it will be necessary to include a considerable number of quotations, it is fitting that I identify the source of each statement. This then brings to the front the names of the individuals who produced these statements. But I have no wish whatsoever to do this. The important issue is that these statements have been taught and believed among those in the body of Christ. It is not particularly important who has made the statements. The issue is the ideas, not the individuals. In fact it could well be that some quotations no longer represent the present view of the person quoted. (I would be quite embarrassed to be required to defend some statements I made ten years ago!) It also could be true that they did not mean to say what those who read them thought they meant. Some individuals I quote are respected personal friends of mine with whom I find far more to agree with than to call into question. I am eternally indebted to them for their ministry in my life. Therefore, may I urge you, the reader, to respect my concern and to focus on the statements rather than on the individuals. For the sake of the oneness and love within the body of Christ, I will thank you sincerely.

1-3 deleted in this online edition

4. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans, The New Man: An Exposition of Chapter 6 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), p. 62.

5. Ibid., p. 79.

6. John Murray, Principles of Conduct (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), p. 218.

7. W. H. Griffith Thomas, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), p. 167.

8-19. Deleted in this online edition

20. Murray, Principles of Conduct, p. 218.

21. Ibid., p. 208.

22. Ibid., pp. 211-212.

23. Ibid., pp. 212-213.

24. Ibid., p. 214.

25. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), pp. 219-220.

26. Lloyd-Jones, Romans, The New Man, p. 68.

27. Norman Grubb, Deep Things of God (Ft. Washington, Pa.: Christian Literature Crusade, 1958), p. 31.

28. Thomas, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, p. 168.

29. Craig Massey, Adjust or Self-Destruct, A Study of the Believer's Two Natures (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977).

30. Pentecost, Pattern for Maturity, p. 99.

31. Lloyd-Jones, Romans, The New Man, pp. 68-70.

32. Ibid, p. 78.

33. Ibid., p. 72.

34. Ibid, p. 153. See also pp. 78, 83, 152, 222,

---

quote:

---

The Believer's New Heart
By John Woodward
August 30, 2004
"The Believer's New Heart"

by John Woodward

Dr. M.R.Dehaan tells of a conversation with a neighbor in which he really got to the heart of things: "It was the first time I met my neighbor, who had just moved in a few days before. He told me he had heart trouble and had sold his business on the advice of his doctor. He seemed quite surprised when I said, 'Yes, I know, and I understand you were born with a bad heart.' Emphatically he replied, 'Oh no, I had a heart attack just a year ago! Before that my heart was perfect.' 'But,' I added, 'I read just this morning that you were born with heart disease.' I referred him to what God says about the sinful human heart and the need of a new heart. It was the first time he had heard the real diagnosis of his heart condition. My good neighbor had physical heart trouble, but his spiritual heart condition was a much more serious problem." Dr. Dehaan had an accurate prescription: "There is only one remedy. A 'new heart' must be supplied by the Great Physician, Jesus. He does His work in us as we acknowledge our heart trouble and let Him operate by His grace and give us eternal life."[1]

This leads us to the question, What is the nature of the believer's new heart? This aspect of our life must be important; it is referred to over 750 times in the Scripture. For example, Proverbs advises "Keep your heart with all diligence, For out of it spring the issues of life" (Prov. 4:23). The heart's importance is also indicated in the greatest commandment: "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matt. 22:37).

In his book, Religious Affections, Jonathan Edwards made a strong case for the central role of the heart in Christian life and worship. Here is an excerpt: "That religion which God requires, and will accept, does not consist in weak, dull, and lifeless wishes, raising us but a little above a state of indifference: God, in his word, greatly insists upon it, that we be good in earnest, 'fervent in spirit,' and our hearts vigorously engaged in religion: Rom. 12:11, 'Be ye fervent in spirit, serving the Lord.' Deut. 10:12, 'And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord the God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul?' and chap. 6:4, 6, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy might.' It is such a fervent vigorous engagedness of the heart in religion, that is the fruit of a real circumcision of the heart, or true regeneration, and that has the promises of life; Deut. 30:6, 'And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.(KJV)' [2]

A study of biblical passages mentioning the "heart" indicates that it corresponds to person's innermost being--especially as it relates to affections and love. The heart reflects what is valued and treasured in life.

Hebrews 4:14 indicates that the inner, unseen you is comprised of soul and spirit: "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit..." Is heart identical with either soul or spirit? Not exactly; nor is the"heart" an additional "part" of us. Rather, the heart is the seat of the affections in both soul and spirit. [3]

However, references to the believer's heart are mixed. Some refer to sinful tendencies, other passages describe the new, righteous heart. How do we reconcile these differences? Just as the physical organ of the heart has chambers, consider two chambers of the believer's heart: the "soul chamber" and the "spirit chamber."

The Soul Chamber of the Heart

The soul chamber of the heart is subject to the influence of the flesh, the world, and the devil. References of warning are addressed to soul/heart. When referring to the flesh tendencies in the soul chamber, the prophet declared, "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?"(Jer. 17:9). Similarly, the apostle Paul confessed that in our flesh "dwells nothing good" (Rom. 7:18; Cf. Matt. 15:19).

Other passages are directed at the soul's potential and choice to love and value either what is evil (Deut. 11:16; Psalm 66:18) or what is good (Cf. James 4:8; 1 Peter 1:22; 3:15; Prov. 28:26; Col. 3:15.) Our Lord instructed, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matt. 6:19-21). "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth" (Col. 3:1,2).

The Spirit Chamber of the Heart

The spirit chamber of the heart has been made a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). This is the inner man that "delights in God's law" (Rom. 7:22). The spirit/heart was cleansed by faith at salvation (Acts 15:9). This chamber is referred to in passages such Ezekiel's prophecy of regeneration: "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." (Ezek. 36:25-27) And Jeremiah anticipated this heart change through the New Covenant: "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people" (Jer. 31:33; Cf.John 7:38; Matt. 12:35 KJV).

As the believer knows and reckons true his identification with Christ, he appreciates his new heart, in which he has become a partaker of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4).

This new heart calls us to love God supremely. The Song of Solomon portrays a poetic, middle eastern testimony of potential intimacy in Godly married life. The bride declared, "Set me as a seal upon your heart, As a seal upon your arm; For love is as strong as death, Jealousy as cruel as the grave; Its flames are flames of fire, A most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, Nor can the floods drown it. If a man would give for love All the wealth of his house, It would be utterly despised" (Song 8:6,7). As the Shulamite shared her heart with her groom, so the bride of Christ should reflect the Bridegroom's matchless love.

A United Heart

Therefore, our prayer should be for a united heart--one in which the "soul chamber" is in agreement with the "spirit chamber" in recognizing the worthiness of God. "Teach me Your way, O LORD; I will walk in Your truth; Unite my heart to fear Your name." Psalm 86:11. Cf. Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Matt. 22:37; Prov. 3:5; Deut. 11:13). This united heart will also promote peace and unity in Christian fellowship: "And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful" (Col. 3:15).

Let us pray with David, "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my strength and my Redeemer" (Psalm 19:14).

~~~~~

Grace Notes: August 26, 2004. Copyright © 2004 by John Woodward. Permission is granted to reprint this article for non-commercial use. Scripture quotations (unless indicated otherwise) are from The Holy Bible, New King James Version © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

[1] Dr. M. R. Dehaan, Heart Trouble, Our Daily Bread, May 10, 1996. rbc.org

[2] Jonathan Edwards, Religious Affections, part 1, chapter 2. Available online at www.CCEL.org. [1703-1758, pastor, educator, philosopher-theologian; a leader in the Great Awakening]

[3] The parts of man are identified in 1 Thess. 5:23: "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." For further study, see the online book at http://www.GraceNotebook.com/theological_papers_index.htm

For further study on the believer's new heart, visit http://frankallnutt.com/NH.Home.htm (books) http://www.NewHeartExpressions.com (applied to addiction counseling) and See Grace Note: "Renewing Your Affections"

---

Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHEWY:
Poor Paul's old man hadn't died either. Rom. 7
Chewy-

---

Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                

quote:

---

(And nobody whatsoever has a problem in being mean with me. I have grown accustomed to it.)

---

quote:

---

How about cornfedEd? East of cornfed! (East of eden counds better.) Feast of cornfed? I'm going to bed. Cherio, pip, pip, and all that rot!

---

IP: Logged | 

posted                

quote:

---

Edxactly! ... (I still like EdCornfed)

---

IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
So, have you ever read Norman Grubb who has coined the phrase in these latter days, "Christ as me," in order to sum up his view? In particular, have you personally read, "The Key to Everything?" (There are two others that I wish I could re-read, "Who AM I," and "The Spontaneous You," if anybody would like to send me a copy).

All in all that was a good description in the above post. If this publication is what you are following when you make some of the statements that you make, then I understand where they are coming from and why they are so reasoned. However, keeping in mind that all in all, it was a pretty difinitive article, I will still assert that his clarification needs some clarification. Some of that is what I have been writing, and you have been reading, and this rock doesn't budge. But there is a dangerous delimma in store for the truth of Victory, when some of those who hold these truths as put forth above, are not correctly informed on every point, and they set out to proselytize those who believe in the 'independant self'. It could mess it up for all of us, which would not be good.

---

Posts: 85 | From: pa | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                

Dear Mich! ( ), you said

quote:

---

Ed! ( ) Exactly! That is the case for almost every believer, which is why they miss the blessing of God. And why is two sets of footprints 'comforting'? Bluntly - not to be mean: because they love the darkness more than the light. Simply! All want the blessing of God, but we want to keep Him at arm's length. That is a kind of 'safe' Christianity. That is entirely problematic. We simply don't want Him to 'see' inside so that we can keep our thoughts to ourselves.

---

IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Actually, two sets of footprints is very comforting to me.

---

Ed! ( ) Exactly! That is the case for almost every believer, which is why they miss the blessing of God. And why is two sets of footprints 'comforting'? Bluntly - not to be mean: because they love the darkness more than the light. Simply! All want the blessing of God, but we want to keep Him at arms length. That is a kind of 'safe' Christianity. That is entirely problematic. We simply don't want Him to 'see' inside so that we can keep our thoughts to ourselves.

Two things occur to me on reading this comment: No, three! One is the verse, "All things are revealed to Him to whom we have to do," meaning that we do not evan have a single thought that He doesn't know of. (See Heb 4:13)

Two: If you take all of scripture into account, you will discover that one set of footprints is entirely correct if we are in the relationship He designed for us. You have produced only one verse. It does not tell the whole story, to the extent that (and you will remember that we had this discussion) the Holy Spirit is like the airwaves. And Jesus is the program that we 'see' (or hear, or which is being played in us) 'if' (or when) the radio is on (of which faith is the switch). If the radio is on, then Jesus is on the tuner, not standing, or sitting beside it. Jesus must come out of the speaker, not the air beside it. That places Him much closer to the insides.

Infact the sap in the vine is an identical illustration. Identical. They just didn't have radio, yet, in Jesus' day, or He no doubt would have used it!

Three: I forgot! But it will come to me. But to keep it simple for the 'fans', lemme stop here and go eat! Chow. Anyway, if two sets of footprints are good to go for you, then you do not want to take up your Cross. For if and when you do, that is when only one set of footprints will appear: and if you see two, then you know you you are in rebellion. In short, what is apparent in being ok with two footprints is that you "love your life." And we know that whosoever "loves his life" loses it. So that we know, if you 'lose' your life, then you find it. It is in the footprints. Jesus, the second Adam, restores you by becoming one with you, if you accept the work of the Cross.

That is why Paul said, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ." Literally, Christ Is your life (and your light). It is because Christ IS your life. And the life that you live on earth (in the flesh) you live by "the 'faith' of the Son of God, who loved you and gave His life for you." You are not alone. You are not separate from Him, or you have not life in you.

Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by ANM:
I think I may be a God.

---

Posts: 3276 | From: Charlestown, IN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
Then zeena has given Him control, hands off, and surrendered her will to His?

---

Yes. Jesus is my Life and I come to Him in need of His Life moment by moment! I've surrendered my will to His. And I daily take up my cross and follow Him wherever He goes [in Christ]

I have at ONCE given Him Lordship over my Life years ago and I daily I chose to surrendor my will [in Christ]!

When I do not seek Him, I shrink back!

But as I surrendor my will to His in all things, moment by moment, He fills my SOUL with HIS SPIRIT, PRAISE GOD!

He can do with me as He choses. I am a vessel both for the Lord and of the Lord, a daughter of God in Christ Jesus, and your sister.

quote:

---

No Independent Self

"An Attempt at Clarification"

The phrase "no independent self" has been used in some Christian circles.
This study attempts to consider legitimate and illegitimate usages of the phrase.


©2005 by James A. Fowler. All rights reserved.

You are free to download this article provided it remains intact without alteration.
You are also free to transmit this article and quote this article provided that proper citation of authorship is included.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For years (almost thirty years now) I have heard certain Christians using the phrase, "no independent self." For the most part these Christians have been in a rather small and obscure circle loosely identified as the "union life movement." The founding father of that movement was the missionary-statesman, Norman P. Grubb (1895-1993), who in his last commercially published book, Yes I Am, entitled one of the chapters, "No Independent Self." There are still several ad hoc groups of Christians who trace their distinctive thought back to the teachings and writings of Norman Grubb, and it is among these groups that I have heard the phrase, "no independent self," commonly used.

Over the process of time such phrases often acquire multiple meanings in the minds of those employing such. This seems to be the case among those referring to "no independent self." The meaning of the phrase has become mired in the muddy waters of multiple and mixed applications, creating an ambiguous mumbo-jumbo of terminology. Careful examination of the issue seems to reveal that there was an ambiguity of meaning even in the writings of Norman Grubb.

It is my intent in this article to attempt to clarify how this phrase might be employed in a legitimate biblical and theological context. In order to do so, we must recognize that there is a legitimate assertion of "independent self" in reference to God, and there is a legitimate denial of "independent self" when we understand the function of the human creature. The diabolic deceiver, however, seeks to provoke falsification in both the assertion and denial of how "independent self" applies to mankind in general and to Christians in particular.

Before we commence to consider these, however, it should first be noted that the way in which "self" is being used in this phrase has a relatively modern origin in the English language. Only in recent English usage, influenced by the discipline of psychology, has "self" stood alone as a separate word and as a synonym for "being" or "person." Reference to "independent self" utilizes this modern psychologized meaning of the word, but this does not forestall its use in the valid explanation of biblical and theological Christian concepts.

God is the only "Independent Self"

It is inaccurate to categorically affirm that there is "no independent self." The One who was "in the beginning" (Gen. 1:1) and is the Creator of all things is an "independent self." God is THE only Independent Self. He is the only One who is completely independent and autonomous - influenced by, and contingent upon, no other. He is Self-existent, Self-determinative, and Self-generating.

What God is, only God is! He is singularly and solely the God of the universe. Jehovah-God is totally Self-sufficient - not contingent or reliant on any other. He is complete in Himself, and lacks nothing.

By affirming that God is the Independent Self, there is no implication that He is solitarily individuated. "Independent," in this case, does not mean detached or unrelational. The divine Independent Self functions in Trinitarian relationalism as the three Persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit interact in Love. God is a personal, relational God, Who always seeks union-relationship with others. He is not a standoffish dictatorial authority. He is not a "black-hole" that pulls everything in and absorbs all things in Himself.

God, the Independent Self, has an absolute character that is intrinsic, inherent, and self-existent within Himself. He never acts "out of character," contrary to Who He is. He always acts out of Who He is, consistent with His own character.

God does what He does, because He is Who He is! Everything He does is ek Theos or ek eautos, "out of Himself." Every action of God has its origin in, and is derived from, Himself. God is Self-generating, Self-operative, Self-empowering, and Self-productive.

The character of this all-powerful, divine Independent Self is LOVE. The apostle John twice stated, "God is love" (I John 4:8,16). This is not to say that God has love to give or distribute, but God is essentially, intrinsically, inherently LOVE. He always seeks the highest good of the other. Agape love is always other-oriented.

As the Independent Self, God is a Self-for-others. These "others" are the other persons of the Triune Godhead, and all of the created order who exist to participate in His interrelational Love.

God is fixed in His character of Love. He is not, and cannot be, a self-for-self. He is complete in Himself, and has no needs. He cannot be a selfish God.

Given the aforementioned premises, that God, the only Independent Self, is a loving Self-for-others, we can conclude that there cannot be an "independent self" who manifests the character of "self-for-self." Such is an impossible and incompatible combination.

God always acts from His character of Love. He has Self-determinative "free-will" (only the Independent Self has such) to act as Who He is in Himself. He has the Self-empowering omnipotence to enact whatever He determines in the context of His own character and in accord with His Self-limiting creation of choosing relational beings.

God is the only Independent Self in the universe.

Creatures cannot be an "independent self"

So, when we use the phrase "no independent self," we are not referring to God, the Creator. It is only a valid phrase in reference to created beings, both angelic and human.

Lucifer (Isa. 14:12), the Light-bearer, who was the head of the hosts of the angelic creatures, was not an independent self. He was dependent on God, and derived from God to manifest God's authority, light, and love. Where the self-for-self character came from that prompted his announcement, "I will be like the Most High God" (Isa. 14:14), is the inexplicable unknown of theodicy (the area of study that seeks to explain evil in reference to the righteous character of God). The origin of evil is an enigma to human thought. God is the essential cause of all things, but He is not the culpable or blameworthy cause of evil, which is contrary to His character.

As a dependent and derivative angelic creature, Lucifer was a choosing creature. Apparently God ordained that in Lucifer's choice, he would become the opposite character of God, the fixed source of evil and sin by contorting, distorting, and aborting God's goodness. By his choice Lucifer became Satan, the adversarial devil, the negative of God's positive, the "god of this world" (II Cor. 4:4), the "prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2:2), the tempter of mankind, and the source of all self-for-self character.

Humans were also created as choosing dependent creatures. Since "what God is, only God is," the corollary is "what God is, man is not." God is the only Independent Self - unconditioned, uncontingent, and unconstrained - with the absolute and intrinsic character of Love. Man, on the other hand, is not independent, autonomous and auto-generative. The creature, man, is dependent, contingent, derivative and receptive. It is imperative that we understand these essential functional differences between God and man. Legitimate Christian teaching always maintains the distinction of being and function between the Creator and the creature, between God and man, and never allows the human creature to become or be identified as the Creator, or to claim to function as God. The relationship between God and man is always relational, and never that of equivalence. Man is not God, or a god, or a co-god, and never becomes such. The Creator God functions as the autonomous Independent Self, doing what He does out of Himself (ek eautos), autogeneratively. Man was created by God as a derivative creature, a dependent self, and a receptive person.

Man cannot autogenerate character as an "independent self." He can only derive and receive character from one spirit-source or the other, from God or Satan. The dependent human self can receive either the character of "Self-for-others" love from God, or he can receive the character of "self-for-self" selfishness from Satan. The result will be either godliness or sinfulness. These are the only character options for man.

Human beings are incapable of creating their own good or righteousness, because they are not God. They are also incapable of creating their own evil or unrighteousness, because they are not the devil. Man is not God or devil - he is always man. His created condition as a derivative being forever disallows his being or becoming an "independent self" with any sense of human autonomy or capability for self-generation or self-empowerment. This understanding of "derivative man" is the distinctive of Christian anthropology that has often been misunderstood even by Christian theologians and teachers.

Man was initially created with the presence of God within the man (Gen. 2:7). With the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God in the spirit of the man, man could choose to respond in faithful reliance upon God's provision in order to manifest the divine character of His Self-for-others Love. This was illustrated by the option to "eat freely" (Gen. 2:16) of the "tree of life" (Gen. 2:9), representing the choice to receive the divine outworking of the divinely inbreathed (Gen. 2:7) life of God.

When man responded to the tempter and chose against the faithful reception of God's character, fallen man did not become "independent," as much Christian teaching has suggested. Always a "dependent self," sinful man was dependent on the wrong spirit, the diabolic spirit of the "father of lies" (John 8:44) who "blinds the minds of unbelieving men" (II Cor. 4:4) to deceive and delude them of their dependence on him. Unregenerate persons have "the spirit of the prince of the power of the air working in them, the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2).

All of the analogies God uses in scripture to portray the function of man are images of dependency and derivation. Man is a vessel (II Cor. 4:7) that receives its contents. Man is a house (II Cor. 5:1) or a temple (I Cor. 6:19) that contains a spirit occupant. Man is a branch (John 15:5) that draws all of its life from the vine. Man is a slave (Rom. 6:16-18) who responds to a master. The human person is like a wife (Rom. 7:1-6) who depends on her husband. These images do not denigrate or depreciate man in any way, but simply exhibit how the human functions.

The function of the human dependent-self is always that of derivation. Man does not have an independent "human nature," but always has a derived nature determined by the nature of the spiritual personage who indwells him (cf. Eph. 2:3; II Peter 1:4). The identity of man is not in his independent abilities, possessions, or association, but a derived spiritual identity constituting the individual either as a "son of God" or a "son of the devil" (I John 3:10). Spiritual life and death are derived from either the One who is Life (John 11:25; 14:6), or "the one having the power of death, that is the devil" (Heb. 2:14). Sinful self-for-self character is derived from the devil (I John 3:8), whereas the righteous Self-for-others character is derived only from the Righteous One (I John 2:1) as a "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal. 5:22,23), thereby facilitating a derived spiritual image or visaging of one spirit or the other. Even immortality is not independently inherent in man, but is derived from the One "who alone possesses immortality" (I Tim. 6:16).

Man is a dependent self who functions derivatively. He is not self-operative, but a receiver designed to be receptive to the activity of God by faith.

The foregoing premises are simply the objective realities of Who God is, and how God created all creatures to function. God is the only Independent Self, Self-generating His own character and action. Man is not an independent self, but a dependent self, deriving character from spirit-source.

Now, we must proceed to consider how Satan, the "father of lies" (John 8:44), attempts the falsification of the function of God and man. Willing to push any truth to its extreme falsity, the deceiver will use every fallacious argument to oppose God and His ways. Diabolos will try to deny that God is the only Independent Self, and deny that man is a dependent self, by alleging that man can function as an "independent self" (the lie of humanism). Conversely, the devil will tempt man to deny that man is a dependent self, and affirm that man is not an independent self, by alleging that man is absorbed and coalesced into an equivalence of oneness with God wherein man can operate as the Independent Self of Godness (the lie of pantheism).

Denial of the objective realities of the function of the Creator God and the human creature is introduced through subjective misinformation. We will herewith consider three (3) forms of false thinking propagated by the "father of lies" (John 8:44).

The False Thinking of Human Potential

In the Garden of Eden the serpent introduced the humanistic lie to the original man and woman, "You, too, can be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5). How does God know good and evil? From His absolute Independent Self, He knows His inherent and exclusive character of goodness, and knows that all that is not consistent with Himself and not from Himself (ek theos) is evil.

The subtlety of the satanic suggestion was the false implication that man could be an "independent self" who could self-determine and self-generate his own goodness, thereby considering all that was not consistent with his own thoughts, opinions, and attitudes to be "evil." It was the fallacious suggestion that man could be his own center of reference and determination, the lie of human self-deification.

All of mankind has partaken of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:9,17) in Adam's act of responding to the tempter. Humanity, as a whole, was deceived (Rev. 12:9) by the diabolic deceiver, and has henceforth engaged in the self-centered "good and evil" game that allows every man, and every group of men, to set themselves up as self-determinative gods.

Although man cannot be "like God" in being or function, the lie of the tempter was that man could be an "independent self" manifesting a self-generated self-for-self character. We have already noted the impossibility and incompatibility of such a combination, but this is the fallacious thesis of humanism.

Satan, himself a dependent creature, knew full well that man could not be an "independent self," and was surely cognizant that the usurpation of control would cause man to be dependent on the evil satanic source to manifest self-for-self character. The power-play worked in conjunction with the freely chosen disobedience of man, and Satan, the "I" specialist, the ego-promoter, the death-dealer, began to "work in the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2), manifesting his character of selfishness in fallen, unregenerate humanity, now constituted and identified as "sinners" (Rom. 5:19).

Every subsequent generation of unregenerate mankind has operated under this humanistic delusion of man's function as an "independent self." This is the mind-set of the world-system. The indwelling Satan-spirit (Eph. 2:2) feeds the mind of man the false information of his being an "independent self." Fallen men falsely believe and falsely think that they are functioning as separate, stand-alone persons. They are convinced that they are "independent selves" who function as the cause of their own effects and the source of their own sufficiency, able to chart their own course and solve their own problems by self-help techniques. Their mantra is, "Be all you can be." The premise of being an "independent self" with unlimited potential to achieve all they desire is so entrenched in the mind-set of the world, that a comedian like Flip Wilson could caricature his misdeeds with the flippant explanation, "The devil made me do it," and it was only viewed as a joke, for no one believed it to have any validity.

In the midst of a people who falsely thought they were "independent selves" and were operating by the derivation of the self-for-self character, God introduced the Law through Moses. What was the purpose of this Law? God had no illusions that satanically dependent persons could self-generate righteous character and behavior. The purpose of the Mosaic Law was to reveal that the Israelite people were not "independent selves" who could produce what God desired. The Law served to expose the inability of men to manifest godliness apart from God, and righteousness apart from the Righteous One, Jesus Christ. "By the works of the Law no man shall be made righteous" (Gal. 5:16). God used the Law to demonstrate that no man can be "like God," self-generating godly character. The Law forced the people of Israel to recognize their inability to live up to God's expectations, and to admit their selfish sinfulness.

Man can only be man as God intended man to be when he admits the fallacy of "independent self," repents of his derivation of the self-for-self character of Satan, receives the very life of God in the Person of the living Lord Jesus, and derives the godly character of God's Self-for-others by the receptivity of faith.

The False Thinking of Christian Ability

When the spiritual exchange of regeneration transpires in a receptive individual, and a person has been "turned from the dominion of Satan to God" (Acts 26:18), the Christian is a "new creature, wherein old things have passed away, and all has become new" (II Cor. 5:17). Spiritually, that is! The psychological mind of a new Christian is still polluted with old residual attitudes of the false humanistic perspective of an "independent self," however. So, the new "child of God" (John 1:12; I John 3:1,2) inevitably slides into the subjective perspective of false thinking that they must try to live the Christian life. The humanistic premise of human potential transitions into a form of "evangelical humanism" that falsely believes that the Christian should have the ability to "be like Christ."

It is in this context that the "union life" brethren often speak of the necessity of a subjective realization that we are not separated "independent selves" who are required to do what only the living Christ can do. Even when Christians properly understand that they "were by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3) in conjoined union with the Satan-spirit, and now, by the spiritual exchange of conversion they are "partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter 1:4), "joined to the Lord, one spirit with Him" (I Cor. 6:17), they can still retain the false premise in their minds of a responsibility to perform in accord with God's expectations. Despite knowing that Christ lives in them (Col. 1:27; Gal. 2:20; II Cor. 13:5), and that "the grace of God is sufficient for every good deed" (II Cor. 9:8), Christians unknowingly lapse into the separated thinking that they have to live "like Christ." Accepting such popular mottoes as "What Would Jesus Do?" they try to do what only Christ can do - be Himself and live His life, manifesting His divine character in our human behavior to the glory of God the Father.

Since most Christians do not understand their "union with Christ" (I Cor. 6:17) and their new identity "in Christ" as "new men" (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), "made righteous" (Rom. 5:21; II Cor. 5:21) as "saints" (Eph. 1:18), they retain the old mind-set of a "separated concept" of a Christian here on earth attempting to relate to a transcendent God up in heaven, where Christ is seated at His right hand. Their perception is that their prayers and their praises must ascend through the vastness of space up to a far-away God. Many Christians believe that their past is forgiven, their future is assured, but the present occupation of the Christian life is to do everything one can to "present oneself acceptable to God," when in reality they are "acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (I Pet. 2:5; Rom. 15:7).

The apostle John advises us that as Christians, "Greater is He who is in you, than he who is in the world" (I John 4:4). Though Satan has been expelled from his indwelling presence, he continues to assault Christians as the "accuser of the brethren" (Rev. 12:10). Christians are not exempt from temptation, and should not expect to be. The tempter constantly introduces thoughts designed to cause us to doubt our identity "in Christ," and to reinforce the false attitude that we are "independent selves" who must perform the Christian life. This is as it should be, as God deigned it to be, for the falsity of our thinking that we are "independent selves" must be exposed, and the inability of any alleged self-sufficiency in living the Christian life must be demonstrated.

Ironically, the deceptive suggestions that we are self-operating "independent Christian selves" are conveniently delivered by much of fundamentalist and evangelical religious teaching today. We are told that we must discover and accomplish God's will for our lives, when the truth of the matter is that God's will is only and always Jesus - His life and character lived out in every situation of our lives. We are told that we can be what God wants us to be "with God's help." "Do your best, and God will do the rest," for "God helps those who help themselves," are oft-repeated incentives. God's grace is viewed as a "booster-shot," or something akin to "Hamburger Helper," but it's the "Holy Spirit Helper" instead; or a form of "spiritual Viagra" that gives a Christian what he needs to "do it." This is essentially the same as the Roman Catholic teaching of "infused grace" that allegedly provides the boost for Christian performance, which the Protestant reformers reacted to as "works" righteousness. Now, the Protestant churches are promoting the same "works" of the alleged "independent Christian self" in such schemes as WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) and "the purpose-driven life." We must rediscover that God's grace is the divine dynamic whereby He does what He wants to do in manifesting His character via the Christ-life in and through the Christian.

When the onus of Christian living is placed on the performance of behavioral "shoulds," and "oughts" and "musts" - on legalistic "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" - then the fallacious foundations of a performing "independent self" underlie such teaching. In sermon after sermon they advocate more commitment, dedication, and consecration, more independent resolve to "be the Christian God wants you to be," and the result is the effectiveness of most New Year's resolutions - failure. Obedience is inculcated, perceived in the old covenant, law-based concept of rule-keeping, rather than in the new covenant awareness of "listening under" (Greek word hupakouo) God to ascertain the next opportunity for receptivity to His activity. Calls for "more faith" and loyal faithfulness are also used to rouse dilatory Christians to more diligent performance, even by such techniques as "positive thinking" or "possibility thinking," with no understanding that faith is simply how we operate as "dependent selves" deriving from spirit-source. Faith is "our receptivity of His activity" - our availability to His ability to express His character in our behavior.

Overemphasis on identifying and overcoming sin in one's life is another capitulation to the fallacious mind-set of "independent self." The adversarial "accuser of the brethren" (Rev. 12:10) must take nefarious delight in the interior archaeological expeditions that Christian religion advocates to sniff-out sin and ferret-out fleshliness. Such navel-gazing sin-consciousness leads to the repetitive confessionalism of the "altar-athletes" who run forward each week, thinking that they must identify and overcome their sin. When our mental focus is on Christ (cf. Heb. 12:2), rather than on sin, God will reveal our false attitudes (Phil. 3:15), and the positive power of His grace will swallow up any negative misrepresentations of sinfulness (cf. Rom. 12:2; Gal. 5:16; Eph. 5:18). Preoccupation with sin, moral weaknesses, carnal patterns, and addictions, however, often causes the Christian to become self-deprecatory, thinking that something is wrong with him, that a "dirty old man" still lives in him, apparently cohabitating with Christ. Such a schizophrenic "two natures" mind-set self-justifies the fallacious idea of an "independent Christian self" who is responsible to repress the evil side of himself in self-denial, and suppress the sin expressions of his behavior in self-improvement and self-reformation. Those who encourage the "application of the cross" in order to "die to self" in self-crucifixion can also fall into the fallacy of urging an "independent self" to commit spiritual suicide.

So, where does this lead that Christian (every Christian) who has been deceived with the false thinking of being an "independent self?" Though we decry the misdirected emphasis of Christian religion on the Christian's ability to live the Christian life, it is the required door through which we all pass to the understanding of the illegitimacy of self-righteousness. We have to know what does not work, to appreciate the only One who can work in our Christian lives.

The entire process of satanic misinformation about being an "independent self" serves God's purpose (Rom. 8:28) to bring us to the confusing morass of the "Romans Seven Syndrome." We experience the frustration of admitting that "the good that I would, I do not; and the evil that I would not, that I do" (Rom. 7:19), and the consequent peace of recognizing that as a dependent creature I am not capable of doing either good or evil. We fall before God with the cry of desperation, "Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me" (Rom. 7:24) from the incessant striving to be an "independent Christian self?" The desperate man is ready to function as a dependent self.

The performance principle of the "law" serves its final purpose to reveal that we are incapable of keeping the rules and regulations, including the Christian standards of behavior. We are brought to the end of our deceived understanding of an "independent Christian self," in the recognition that we cannot live the Christian life. We are forced to admit that we cannot manifest godliness apart from God, or righteousness apart from the Righteous One, Jesus Christ. The Christian life is Christ's life lived out in us, as us, and through us, while we as dependent creatures derive from Him in the receptivity of His activity of manifesting His character in our behavior.

Romans 7 brings us to a "renewal of the mind" (cf. Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:23), from the false thinking of being an "independent self," to the "attitude that was in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 2:5) when He humbled Himself in functional dependency on God for human life as God intended. Romans 7 facilitates the genuine repentance of "a change of mind that leads to a change of action." The change of mind is the admission, "I can't; only He can." The change of action is the willingness to be the dependent human creature that is receptive to the activity of Jesus Christ by deriving all from Him. Thereby we have "no condemnation" (Rom. 8:1) for the inability to live the Christian life, for "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and of death" (Rom. 8:2), as all the performance is His performance. The "straw-man," the "silly-Sally," of an "independent Christian self" evaporates, as every mirage eventually does.

The False Thinking of Human Annihilation and/or Deification

Ever the extremist, willing to take any truth and transform it into a lie, the deceiving tempter has another falsity up his sleeve. If he cannot enslave people with the humanistic thought of human potential or Christian ability, he will push in the other direction toward pantheistic thought.

There are some in the "union life movement" who affirmed the "no independent self" of human potential and the "no independent self" of Christian ability, but proceeded to claim there is "no independent self" because "union with Christ" constitutes such a oneness with the divine that the human "self" is annihilated by absorption into God. Relational union with Christ is falsely equated with essential oneness with Christ, and that to the point of monistic merging into equivalence with Christ.

When the idea of "no independent self" is pushed to the extreme of advocating "no independent personhood" because there is "only one Person in the universe," the distinction between God and man, Creator and creature, that is intrinsic to Christian thought (as noted previously) is denied. Claiming to be so "one with Christ" that they are "no longer human," some have accepted this false thinking of human annihilation as the ultimate expression of "union life." Humanity is depersonalized or dehumanized by the alleged obliteration of one's independent human self, as it is replaced by Himself as myself. "I am He, and He is me," in the consubstantial equivalence of essential oneness, is the claim of these deceived monists. They try to hide their monistic pantheism behind the curtain of "panentheism," but their false colors are exposed.

Claiming to have the "single eye" that sees "God only," some have blasphemously declared, "When I see me, I see God. I see Christ. I am the third person of the Trinity." Should anyone "see" otherwise, they are regarded as not having the advanced spiritual sight to "see through" to God. To "see" them and what they do as anything other than a manifestation of God is identified as "seeing an illusion." Those who are not regarded as spiritual "knowers" and "see-ers" are seeing only the "illusion of humanness," "the illusion of carnality," or "the illusion of sin."

Enamored with their alleged essential oneness with God's Being, these spiritualists have little concern for the consistency of divine character in their behavior. Despising the word "sin," they often deny all possibility of expressing "self-for-self" character. "What I do is what He does. All I do is Christ in action as me, despite how it might appear." Even blatantly selfish and sinful behavior is regarded to be "God's expression as me" - another blasphemous indictment of God's character, that appears to be the apostasy of calling evil "good." Such a view of the mechanical inevitability of divine expression, claiming, "I am Christ, and Christ does not sin," is a form of perfectionism that presumes an integration into oneness with the Independent Self of the universe, to the extent that they function as God.

Whereas "law" served a purpose for revealing the fallacies of "human potential" and "Christian ability," it serves no purpose in this fallacy of equivalence with God. Convinced that they can do all things "as God," they are a "law unto themselves," flaunting their carnality and lawlessness with no regard for the character of God.

Though they use the phraseology of "no independent self," they have invested it with an entirely different meaning, believing they have progressed beyond being a dependent human self to operate as the Independent Self of the Godhead. This thesis entails a subtle denial of the distinctive objective realities of God and man - that God is the only Independent Self, and man always functions as a dependent self. Denying their human creatureliness, they claim to be co-creators and co-gods with God, impinging on the singularity of God's functioning only as Himself - What God is, only God is! At the same time they reject man's function as a "dependent self," having an intense disdain for the concept of "derivative man" wherein man always derives character from one spirit-source or the other, God or Satan. "God does not mean for man to have faith," they assert, for they seek to deny the necessity of the human choice of dependence in "receptivity of His activity." Satan's original lie that man could be "like God" in human potential has now become the delusion that "you are God" in the essentialism of divinization.

Conclusion

The terminology we use in expressing biblical and spiritual realities must be clarified over and over again. As language tends to evolve, variant connotations develop as different people use phrases in differing contexts and applications. This paper has been an attempt to note variant meanings, and to clarify legitimate and illegitimate usages, of the phrase "no independent self." As this phrase has been used as common vocabulary by a relatively small segment of the Christian community, those in the "union life movement" who have benefited from the teaching of Norman Grubb, the discussion of the phrase in this article may introduce concepts never before considered by those in the larger Christian community.

There are important biblical, theological and spiritual truths to be learned, however, in the awareness that God is the only Independent Self, autonomously and self-generatively expressing His loving character of Self-for-others. It is also important to recognize that man, unlike God, is a dependent and derivative creature who receives character from a spirit-source, either God or Satan. Clarity of theological and anthropological understanding will be a deterrence to the errors of false thinking that have been noted:

(1) The humanistic false thinking of human potential.
(2) The religious false thinking of Christian ability.
(3) The pantheistic false thinking of human annihilation.

The lack of clarity on these issues has led to confusion, and some have been led astray to their own spiritual detriment.

---

Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                

quote:

---

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. There should only be one set of footprints in the sand. For He doesn't walk beside you. If He does, it is because you are keeping Him at a distance.

---

quote:

---

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. There should only be one set of footprints in the sand. For He doesn't walk beside you. If He does, it is because you are keeping Him at a distance.

---

IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Harrison:

quote:

---

:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
The old man is 'not' automatically dead! The old man is dead through 'faith' only; and faith without works is dead. In other words, unexercised faith equals nothing. Therefore, if the work of the old man being under the Cross ( dead), is not manifest, faith, in reality, is dead! That would equal unbelief, (or either to believe a lie about the meaning of scripture) which means that the old man resultingly, 'lives'. This is not acceptable as many would have everybody to believe.

Faith without works [evidence] is dead. That is what that word 'works' means - evidence. The fruit of the old man's abiding still, will be evident. The 'fruit' of the old man is the works of the flesh, 'sin'. Sin separates. Therefore, sin is a 'departure' from Jesus. Departure is not abiding in Him. Not abiding in Him is to be 'stoned'. That means to be dead, because you are not experiencing His abundant life, which you cannot, while in sin. And for you to live (Not Christ), is to do blatant detriment to the testimony of Christ, of whom so many say they want to demonstrate to unbelievers. How do you abide in sin and deomnstrate the Love and Power of Christ? A city set on a hill is not hid. No one lighteth a candel and covers it up with bushel of sin, and lusts of the flesh.

I mean, do not people go to church service to be 'lifted up'? That is because they spend the rest of the time during the week, in sin. Defeated! That is not the prescription of God for us. That is not the way of life. It is not the abundant life.

The old man is dead based on the Cross as one believes unto being baptized into His death, for Jesus did it for us. He died 'to replace' us; or replaced us in dying. Therefore if we are dead through faith, He replaces us in living.

You have to die through faith, in order to live. And if you are dead through faith, it is no longer 'you' who live. If He lives, you don't sin, for He doesn't sin!!!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bible says if I do the thing I don't want to do, its not I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That can only happen if the old man lives, whom some say, without reservation as though it is a no brainer, is dead. But the old man sins; not the new. Therefore, for him to actually sin, he has to live. He cannot coexist with Christ. He lives through unbelief in the finished work of the Cross, separating himself from Christ (trough unbelief), in the process. One or the other lives, depending upon one's faith. For the old man to live is of unbelief, and out of unbelief comes sin. To accept this as 'license' or justification for sin is not as though you cannot help it is against the grain of every other remaining chapter in the New Testament. And it is an ugly, in the face of Christ denial of what He died for. For Christ saves us from sin.

Rom 6:6 "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. [The old man produces sin.]


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the old man likes to try to keep the law to obtain righteousness and in so doing the fruit of the law is manifest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed! By trying to keep the law to obtain rigteousness, the old man lives, trying to justify himself, or to 'earn' the respect of God. For sure! The fruit of disobeying the law is manifest whenever one does this. That is why scripture says that righteousness is by 'faith'. However, righteousness is a lived out thing. To abide in righteousness is to be free from sin, and sinning, 'not' to be justified even though one is plainly in sin, which is the common accepted belief. (This is the very reason Paul labored and wrote all of those epistles.)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new man believes he is righteous by faith in each area of his life one day at a time and one thought at a time, bringing every though into obedience of Jeus Christ which is "RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be works, flat out, i.e. trying to keep the law. And you don't bring every thought into captivity to Christ. That was something that Paul did with the sword of the Lord to some who opposed the grace of God by doing their own thing without the understanding of Christ. In other words, they, as stubborn sheep, were grazing in another pasture, and were off of the trail. But rather, righteousness by faith: you 'have' it, when you let Jesus do it all! That keeps your old man from 'trying' thereby failing. The net result of this is that you 'live unto God', unto righteousness, not unto the old man, unto sin.

Or have you never heard:

"Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh." To walk in the Spirit is to live. To fulfill the lusts of the flesh is for the old, unbelieving man to live unto his lusts. You insult, defy, deny Christ when you do this. You 'undo' the work He did on the Cross.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you serious or do really don't have a clue?

This knitting and weaving does not fool the typical base ball fan.


The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness.

--------------------
That is all.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1282 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004 | IP: Logged |


Yours or mine?

---

Posts: 85 | From: pa | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
The old man is 'not' automatically dead! The old man is dead through 'faith' only; and faith without works is dead. In other words, unexercised faith equals nothing. Therefore, if the work of the old man being under the Cross ( dead), is not manifest, faith, in reality, is dead! That would equal unbelief, (or either to believe a lie about the meaning of scripture) which means that the old man resultingly, 'lives'. This is not acceptable as many would have everybody to believe.

Faith without works [evidence] is dead. That is what that word 'works' means - evidence. The fruit of the old man's abiding still, will be evident. The 'fruit' of the old man is the works of the flesh, 'sin'. Sin separates. Therefore, sin is a 'departure' from Jesus. Departure is not abiding in Him. Not abiding in Him is to be 'stoned'. That means to be dead, because you are not experiencing His abundant life, which you cannot, while in sin. And for you to live (Not Christ), is to do blatant detriment to the testimony of Christ, of whom so many say they want to demonstrate to unbelievers. How do you abide in sin and deomnstrate the Love and Power of Christ? A city set on a hill is not hid. No one lighteth a candel and covers it up with bushel of sin, and lusts of the flesh.

I mean, do not people go to church service to be 'lifted up'? That is because they spend the rest of the time during the week, in sin. Defeated! That is not the prescription of God for us. That is not the way of life. It is not the abundant life.

The old man is dead based on the Cross as one believes unto being baptized into His death, for Jesus did it for us. He died 'to replace' us; or replaced us in dying. Therefore if we are dead through faith, He replaces us in living.

You have to die through faith, in order to live. And if you are dead through faith, it is no longer 'you' who live. If He lives, you don't sin, for He doesn't sin!!!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bible says if I do the thing I don't want to do, its not I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That can only happen if the old man lives, whom some say, without reservation as though it is a no brainer, is dead. But the old man sins; not the new. Therefore, for him to actually sin, he has to live. He cannot coexist with Christ. He lives through unbelief in the finished work of the Cross, separating himself from Christ (trough unbelief), in the process. One or the other lives, depending upon one's faith. For the old man to live is of unbelief, and out of unbelief comes sin. To accept this as 'license' or justification for sin is not as though you cannot help it is against the grain of every other remaining chapter in the New Testament. And it is an ugly, in the face of Christ denial of what He died for. For Christ saves us from sin.

Rom 6:6 "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. [The old man produces sin.]


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the old man likes to try to keep the law to obtain righteousness and in so doing the fruit of the law is manifest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed! By trying to keep the law to obtain rigteousness, the old man lives, trying to justify himself, or to 'earn' the respect of God. For sure! The fruit of disobeying the law is manifest whenever one does this. That is why scripture says that righteousness is by 'faith'. However, righteousness is a lived out thing. To abide in righteousness is to be free from sin, and sinning, 'not' to be justified even though one is plainly in sin, which is the common accepted belief. (This is the very reason Paul labored and wrote all of those epistles.)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new man believes he is righteous by faith in each area of his life one day at a time and one thought at a time, bringing every though into obedience of Jeus Christ which is "RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be works, flat out, i.e. trying to keep the law. And you don't bring every thought into captivity to Christ. That was something that Paul did with the sword of the Lord to some who opposed the grace of God by doing their own thing without the understanding of Christ. In other words, they, as stubborn sheep, were grazing in another pasture, and were off of the trail. But rather, righteousness by faith: you 'have' it, when you let Jesus do it all! That keeps your old man from 'trying' thereby failing. The net result of this is that you 'live unto God', unto righteousness, not unto the old man, unto sin.

Or have you never heard:

"Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh." To walk in the Spirit is to live. To fulfill the lusts of the flesh is for the old, unbelieving man to live unto his lusts. You insult, defy, deny Christ when you do this. You 'undo' the work He did on the Cross.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you serious or do really don't have a clue?

This knitting and weaving does not fool the typical base ball fan.


The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness.

--------------------
That is all.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1282 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004 | IP: Logged |


Yours or mine?

Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

The bible says if I do the thing I don't want to do, its not I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, the old man likes to try to keep the law to obtain righteousness and in so doing the fruit of the law is manifest.

---

quote:

---

The new man believes he is righteous by faith in each area of his life one day at a time and one thought at a time, bringing every though into obedience of Jeus Christ which is "RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH".

---

That would be works, flat out, i.e. trying to keep the law. And you don't bring every thought into captivity to Christ. That was something that Paul did with the sword of the Lord to some who opposed the grace of God by doing their own thing without the understanding of Christ. In other words, they, as stubborn sheep, were grazing in another pasture, and were off of the trail. But rather, righteousness by faith: you 'have' it, when you let Jesus do it all! That keeps your old man from 'trying' thereby failing. The net result of this is that you 'live unto God', unto righteousness, not unto the old man, unto sin.

Or have you never heard:

"Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh." To walk in the Spirit is to live. To fulfill the lusts of the flesh is for the old, unbelieving man to live unto his lusts. You insult, defy, deny Christ when you do this. You 'undo' the work He did on the Cross. Jesus died in vain if you have to give into sin. If the old man is slain, then sin is slain, not disregarded.

Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by ANM:
I don't know, is'nt the old man dead already?

---

Yes he is, PRAISE GOD! He did what we couldn't do because we were too self centred, He died for us, and not only that but we have4 been crucified with Him on the cross!

quote:

---

The bible says if I do the thing I don't want to do, its not I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me.

---

That's correct, and moreso, we now have the Life of God in Christ indwelling us in order to reveal the Life of Christ in us! As we submit to Jesus, He will [as only He can, by His Holy Spirit] put to death the sin in our bodies which vie's for control over our soul, by His Spirit!

quote:

---

On the other hand, the old man likes to try to keep the law to obtain righteousness and in so doing the fruit of the law is manifest. The new man believes he is righteous by faith in each area of his life one day at a time and one thought at a time, bringing every though into obedience of Jeus Christ which is "RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH" Oh the glory of it.

---

quote:

---

Emancipation from Sin's Penalty
By Robert Jones
April 10, 2008
"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope. Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us" (Rom. 5:1-5, NKJV).

... Peace and hope are the immediate fruits, not justification only, but reconciliation, peace with God, [being] brought into His presence, accounted just and righteous, a work within. We have no conscience of guilt, for we have peace. Instead of wrath it is life, and "access into this grace wherein we stand." There is a new position, a new relation to God, a new standing before Him, a new heart, a new prospect, a new hope, a new future.

Three times we have the word rejoice -- we rejoice in hope of the glory of God, we rejoice in tribulations, and we rejoice in God. In Romans 3: 23 we are told that all have sinned and come short of the "glory of God." What is this "glory of God"? It can be nothing but the definite ideal God had for the life and character of the human being. The glory of God represents all that which belongs to man in God's purpose in creating him. We have come short of it by sin; but now, standing in grace, we rejoice in hope of that glory. Where creation failed [through the Fall], redemption succeeds. God's creative purpose shall be accomplished. Christ has covenanted with God that it shall be accomplished.

Man can never be truly man unless he is a vessel for the Divine. God never meant him to live his life apart from Himself. God must be his life -- God in Christ. The glory of man is really the glory of God, for it is the life, the wisdom, the power of God, that is to be his life, his wisdom, and his power. Grace plus glory

Justification is only a beginning. The end is glory. The path is grace, but is grace plus glory. He gives grace that He may give glory. That is the hope -- is it realizable? No doubt about it. There are difficulties, tribulations, yet we rejoice in hope in spite of them! No, not inspite of them but because of them. They nourish our hope; God must permit them because of our need of discipline. Character cannot come without discipline, and glory never comes without character. These are the steps -- tribulations, discipline, character, glory -- and hope rejoices in the midst of them all [v.2].

The vindication of that hope is certain. "Hope makes not ashamed" [v.5]. Why? Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. God loves us; we have the heart experience of it, it suffuses our being, and we are persuaded that no created thing can separate us from that love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord [8:39].

Though we were enemies, yet God loved us [v.10]. When it was a question of sinners, it was the Messiah Who died for sinners, but when He died for His enemies, it was as the Son. Why the contrast? That we might feel more and more the love of God. Thus and so are we brought into His family, where our Lord's Father becomes our Father. By the death He died He saves us to the uttermost; by the life He now lives, He saves us to the uttermost; and so sure are we of the hope that we rejoice as though it were already realized, because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. Our present is grace, peace and hope; our future is glory. We rejoice "in God," through Whom we have now received the reconcilation [v.11].

~~~~~~~~~~~

This is an excerpt from The Gospel for the Believer by R.B. Jones. This full chapter (1) is online at http://gracenotebook.com/pub/13

---

Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
A & M. Every single little misstep, or slip of the tongue, or disobediene is the work of the old man. It is because one lets him live. For none of these abborations are Jesus. They are the unbeliever still abiding in you.


WeldB. You don't have a clue as to the meaning of the cross. Discover it, and know life.

That is all (for now)!

---

Posts: 85 | From: pa | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged |