The Counteraction Theory (FOBB Discussion)

[Robert Wurtz IIModerator]

Ron Bailey wrote, “He (F.B. Meyer) believed and taught ‘the counteraction theory’ (two natures) in opposition to ‘the eradication theory’ of early Methodism. Keswick moved away from ‘higher life’ teaching under the influence Grahame Scroggie and John Stott.”

Robert W basically asked if we could discuss this topic again. Some may not know what the various views are in regards to full salvation (Sanctification).

Ron Bailey wrote:

“(…) if you feel it would be useful I’m willing to raise the issue again but I’m uncomfortable that the discussion will just hit the same obstacles. Basically, there are many issues where there are settled views and when we hit one of those points the topic just goes in circles, could we divide the topic into separate questions and try to keep the relevant discussions in compartments that are relatively water-tight.”

Shall we make a start?

[JonahParticipant]

I make no apology for the length of this comment in response to Robert’s introduction above to this new discussion forum thread on the “counteraction theory”.  As Ron discovered when teaching on Galatians 5, it is not possible to jump in to such a topic without doing the ground work first – in his case over an extra five or six half hour broadcasts beforehand!

THE QUESTION

Robert wrote in the Facebook forum, “We can’t have two natures at once so how are we to understand this biblically?”  This is such a key question and gets right to the heart of the issue!  But it cannot be answered in a phrase, a sentence or even a paragraph!

ERADICATION
Proponents of Wesleyan “Entire Sanctification” or “Christian Perfection”, and dare I say G W North’s holiness through the New Covenant teaching, can probably best be summarised for our purposes as holding to “eradication” of the “sinful nature” inherited from Adam (of the “original sin” with which we are born, though there are some modern evangelical streams that now modify or deny the traditional view of this); and that this eradication is a consequence of an experience of ‘entire sanctification’ subsequent to new birth (Wesley) or as a consequence of new birth itself (G W North). In the latter case new birth is understood to be far more than believing a gospel message of the sacrifice of Christ for the forgiveness of our sins.  For me this view is also the heart of the New Covenant, since the Old Covenant already made atonement for sins, but did not put away the sin which still prevented forgiven sinners from entering into the intimate presence of a holy God (Heb 9:8, 26b, 10:19).

COUNTERACTION
I am less thoroughly informed on the “counteraction [suppression?] theory” but I am confident that its basic principle is obvious from what I have picked up from comments I have read, and from the background of reformed (Calvinist) evangelical teaching under which my first Christian commitment as a teenager was taken, which I am sure must have strongly influenced it.  If nothing else the very name “counteraction theory” is pretty self-explanatory!

Hence my understanding of the counteraction theory is that the original sin nature is not eradicated but can be overcome.

TWO NATURES?
Now in order to teach that “we can’t have two natures” it is essential to be clear what we mean by our “nature”, because scripture clearly teaches that “the flesh lusts against the Spirit”, and advocates of two natures no doubt point to such verses as evidence of an abiding presence of “the flesh” affecting the Spirit-filled believer and identify this as the sin nature: for, “in me”, said Paul, “that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing”.  But advocates of “eradication” will point to Gal 5:24, “they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts”.

POTENTIAL DANGERS OF ERADICATION TEACHING
1. Self deception
But I believe it is very dangerous to teach an “eradication” doctrine of holiness which fails to take proper account of Gal 5:17, “For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that you cannot do the things that you would.”  To do so is to ignore teaching and exhortations throughout the New Testament (see Rom 6:12-19 for just one of many good examples) in which sin through “the flesh, with its affections and lusts” wants to reign in our “mortal body” (verses 12, 13).  It is dangerous, because it lulls the believer into a false security by failing to teach the need for vigilance to prevent the entry into his life of “sin which lies at the door”, in the form of temptation which is part of everyday human experience (as it was also for Jesus) and which must be daily denied (“but if you through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live” – Rom 8:13).  The alternative, even for the believer apparently, is to “live after the flesh”: and the believer who is not properly taught and warned about this possibility is much more liable to do so.

2. False expectations
Alternatively, an eradication doctrine of holiness can lead to despair in sincere believers who, in the absence of an equal emphasis on the rest of the whole counsel of God in the New Testament (the relevant aspects of which I have briefly referred to above) can easily fall prey to Satan deceiving them into thinking that the temptations which they have not been adequately taught to expect must therefore be because they are not yet sanctified, or born again.  This then reinforces a sense of failure and again, can lead to a falling into sin – since neither can the believer have been taught that they have a personal responsibility to actively resist something that they were hardly taught to expect in the first place!

THE IMPORTANCE OF USING CORRECT SPIRITUAL TERMINOLOGY

The irony is, that even proponents of eradication of some form sometimes fall into the trap of referring to two natures in one way or another  – none less so than the pre-eminent member of this parish, who in his superb mini-series within a series on Galatians 5 specifically chose the NLT translation to quote from towards the end of the series, as follows: “So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves”!

So you see, it is important not to get too hung up on the forms of words used to describe different spiritual conditions, but to rightly divide the New Testament truth.  Nevertheless confusion does occur when this is not done “in words which…the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor 2:12, 13).

THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE FLESH
One of the difficulties, in my view, is in understanding the interaction and relationship of body and soul, or spirit.  “The flesh” is a synergy between good, God given appetites and desires of body and mind, and the corrupting influence of the Satanic “spirit of disobedience” which inflames and misdirects them for sinful self-indulgence and his rebellious and evil purposes (Eph 2:1-3).   Our spirits have been united and infused by this Satanic spirit as a consequence of Adam submitting himself and all of mankind to the devil, fusing us together with it to create “our old man” – the old Adamic nature with which we are all born and by which we are “in Adam”, just as his nature is in the unregenerate (those not yet ‘born again’- i.e. those who yet being unrepentant are still in him).  The unregenerate are “in the flesh” (Rom 7:5, 8:9).

THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT
But if we are baptised into Christ through the baptism in the Holy Spirit, we receive a new cleansed spirit free from this Satanic corruption, now joined to the Holy Spirit instead (1 Cor 6:17)!  This is what regeneration, or being born again, is – see also Ezekiel 36:25-27, Titus 3:5,6.  We are delivered from our sinful state in Adam and placed instead into Christ.

THE CROSS

1. The once for all finished work of CHRIST: putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by baptism into His death (Col 2:10-13). Deliverance from bondage to the flesh.

But bear in mind that we ourselves were party to the corruption of Satan – we were joined to him.  When “our old man” is “crucified with Christ” (Rom 6:6) to put an end to Satan’s controlling influence in our lives, part of us is crucified with him!  Paul said “I am crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20) and WE “were baptised into His death” (Rom 6:3) – I, we – there is a personal element here because we are culpable, which puts us under the sentence of death – not just some spiritual power exerting its control over us!  Until the time of our awakening and repentance, we had been as a wife, under the control of, yet willingly submitting to her husband’s – old Adam’s – will.  This gave us access to the enjoyment of the pleasures of sin: we were metaphorically in a “two becomes one” marriage bond of unity with our first husband;  See Romans 7:1-8.

And now coming full circle back to near the beginning of my response, this is how we explain the apparent contradiction between a) Gal 5:17 and many other references, in which the flesh is described as actively seeking to control us – giving rise to the idea of a surviving old nature – and b) verse 24, which categorically states that, “those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”! The crucifixion here described is that of Romans 6:6, for although that work was accomplished solely by Christ at Calvary, it requires our submission to Him in faith and obedience to receive its benefits, by which we are renewed in spirit and raised up together with Him.  We are thus united with Him as our new husband now, in place of “our old man” (a questionably apposite term given its common idiomatic use)!  From now on it is His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, Who is the dominant power in our lives.  Having been “delivered from that wherein we were held” we are released from the bondage of our former corrupting “marriage union” – a union which by marriage law could only be dissolved by the death of our former husband, by which, in fact, we also die a death – to ourselves (just as, any bereaved marriage partner also feels the loss of a “part of them”)!

Such submission to Christ requires the surrender of all that we have and are, the laying down of every fleshly desire and lust that we have loved to indulge and held dear – the submission of our souls, and of all that they enjoyed contrary to the will of God, to the end of ourselves, to an end of how we once lived in sin; in short, submission to our death with Christ that we might be raised up anew in Him!  This is how “they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its affections and desires”, through the cross of Christ in which we must elect to share.

1. 2. The day by day bearing of MY cross: freed from the controlling power of the flesh, using that freedom to “walk in the Spirit” instead (Gal 5:16).

But the big difference between our old man and Christ, our old husband and our new one, is that our old husband held us in bondage to sin against our will when we had been awakened and wanted to escape his enslavement, as described in the rest of Romans 7; but our new husband does not force us to obey Him!  Nevertheless along with the new spirit comes a new heart filled with the Holy Spirit, and the new desires that cause us to want to serve and please Him (Ez 36:26, 27, Heb 8:10, 11)!  It does not however remove the temptations of the flesh, but what it has done is to separate us from that spiritual power which compelled us to live in and and indulge them.

Having chosen to turn our backs on “life in the flesh”, they that are Christ’s having thus made a once and for all decision to “crucify” it, it is now our nature to “live in the Spirit” – i.e. conscious of, and alive and inclined towards the will of God – instead.  But Satan is still active, and though no longer as a controlling power within us, he does have access to our minds from without.  This is how he tempted Eve in the first place, by speaking lies to her, and exploiting her natural desires for good food and wisdom.  This is also how he tempted Christ in the wilderness (Whom, Hebrews tells us, “was tempted in all points like us yet without sin”).  And this is why, for the life free from sin, the continuous renewal of our minds is crucial (Rom 8:6), as clearly taught throughout scripture and especially in relation to living holy lives in the New Testament (e.g. Rom 12:1, 2, Eph 4:22-24).  Renewal of our minds and sound teaching give us the understanding needed not only to be crucified with Christ on His cross in that all important once for all surrender of ourselves to Him, but to die DAILY, on OUR cross as well (Luke 9:23).  To “mortify the deeds of the body” (Rom 8:13); to “abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1 Pet 2:11); that there should not be “among you envying, and strife, and divisions” such that we are not “yet carnal, and walk as men” (1 Cor 3:3): and many other such examples of our need to “walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh”.

SO, OLD SINFUL NATURE, OR FLESH?
Let no-one doubt that the Spirit-baptised believer is subject to these temptations and the need to deny himself daily so as not to indulge them.  Let us not reject James as an epistle of straw, because as with Corinthians, and Galatians, and in many other places in the New Testament believers are also seen to be “yet carnal” – apparently with their “sinful nature” having the upper hand!  But this is none other than a manifestation of the flesh, which they have not learnt to deny, or which they have deliberately allowed themselves to turn back to pending their damnation for “crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh”.  But it is out of keeping with the new nature of the regenerate spiritual man – see 2 Cor 5:17, 1 John 3:9, Rom 8:9.

THE NEW COVENANT LIFE IS A NEW ONE AND ONLY BY THE SPIRIT

But for those who refer to the flesh as the old nature, it may only be their terminology which as at fault.  Either they have received the Holy Spirit, and have understood that He indeed empowers them to overcome it, or they have not or perhaps are untaught, and are struggling under legal constraints to overcome what can only be mortified when they have been filled with the Spirit.

And while it is important to acknowledge the significant role of “the flesh” and the possibility of the Spirit-baptised Christian walking “after it” if they are untaught, deceived or unfaithful, this should not be accepted as being the “normal Christian life”.  The problem with referring to an old nature instead of, or as well as, the flesh is that nature implies a normal state and thus gives credibility to persistence in sin from which the believer should be walking free.  To suggest it can be counteracted by a new nature allows for either state to be normal – old and new if both co-exist – and implies the normal Christian life is a battle between the two which is never won.  But because “our old man” who enslaved us to the flesh has been crucified with Christ, and we have crucified the flesh by surrendering to that baptism into Christ’s death, it should by no means any longer master us, but the Spirit-filled believer is able and willing, and is expected to, master it instead.

 

 

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by Jonah.

[Robert Wurtz IIModerator]

“But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if

indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.” (Romans 8:9 NKJV)

“Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if

by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (Romans 8:12–13 NKJV)

“And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit.” (Ephesians 5:18 NKJV)

What relationship does the ongoing filling of the Holy Spirit have to do with maintaining victory over the flesh (putting to death the deeds of the body)? Could the struggle that people experience stem from the failure to go on being filled to the full with the Holy Spirit?

[JonahParticipant]

The danger of “eradication theory” is the deceit that if I am no longer sinful, any passions or desires I experience must be part of my sanctified nature, with obvious implications if these are in fact manifestations of the “the lust of the flesh”.

The danger of “counteraction theory” is if the view that the lust of the flesh is part of my nature – or one of two competing natures – is used as grounds to excuse its indulgence.

Perhaps ironically but not surprisingly given the nature of the deceiver behind both errors, the upshot of both is carnality in the believer’s life (but at least in the second case he recognises it for what it is).

The Wesleyan view of “entire sanctification”, which allows for purity of heart motive in a spirit of love as its key characteristic rather that the faultless life of a “legal perfection”, is in my view a very important guiding principle; and teaching on the need for a new clean heart as the fundamental characteristic of new birth and the nature of the love of God, were also hallmarks of the ministry of G W North.

It does the believer well to search his or her heart under the illuminating influence of the Spirit operating in a cleansed conscience for evidence of sinful motives, rather than picking through his every word, action and demeanour looking for faults which mar or obscure the glory of God in his life.  For while none of us can say “we have no sin” (I John 1:8), all those who have agreed with God about His verdict on their old lives in the flesh, and have “crucified” it “with the affections and desires” by surrendering themselves wholly to Him, should be able to rejoice that the blood of Jesus keeps them clean from ongoing defilement of their flesh in which “dwells no good thing” (Romans 7:18) as they faithfully continue to “walk in the Spirit”.

It is very significant in relation to our “nature” being defined according to our state of heart, that when Paul says “in me dwells no good thing” (Romans 7:18) he is very careful to point out that he is only referring to “my flesh”.   Hence he thanks God that because he is living in the Spirit (Rom 7:5, 6; 8:9) he has been delivered from “the body of this death” – the body and mind which were dominated by the old Adamic nature, and which was the vehicle for the flesh’s activity but which he is now free to offer to God instead (Rom7:24, 25; 12:1; 6:19).

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by Jonah.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by Jonah.

[ronbaileyModerator]

My own views on this matter can be found in a series of studies in Galatians to be found here..

Studies in Galatians

personally I never use the language of ‘eradication’ in this topic. My view is closest those who do use the term but it is a problem for me in that the term is not biblical. Wesley wrote a book entitled ‘A Plain Account of Christian Perfection’ but the ‘methodists’ were still fine-tuning their expression of this truth long after the book was published, John Wesley himself being part of that discussion. ‘eradication’ comes from the latin word we use in our word ‘radical’ meaning from the root. It is a metaphor for something that does not ‘tinker’ with external details but ‘gets to the root’ of a matter. Its use in Christian Theology is used to illustrate the concept that there is a root or centre to a person which can be ‘removed’ . This is not really a Biblical concept. I prefer to speak of whether or not a person is ‘in Adam’ or ‘in Christ’. These two states are mutually exclusive and we do not oscillate to and from one to the other.

The classic centre for this truth is Romans.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by ronbailey.

[JonahParticipant]

Quoting Ron…The ‘root’ concept in “Christian Theology is used to illustrate the concept that there is a root or centre to a person which can be ‘removed’. This is not really a Biblical concept. I prefer to speak of whether or not a person is ‘in Adam’ or ‘in Christ’. These two states are mutually exclusive and we do not oscillate to and from one to the other.”

We have Math 3, “And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire” in the clear context of John’s message of a greater baptism than his which would accomplish this.

We also have the concept of “the circumcision of the heart” in the New Testament and the heart requiring cleansing because it is the fountain of sin.  Circumcision, like axing, also has the concept of cutting off and separation from the sin, especially its root source – the “good tree” brings forth “good fruit” because its root is good.  “Circumcision of the heart” is suggestive of something being removed from our heart, but that is not to imply that the “rest” of our heart does not need to be cleansed as well.

Although I was not party to it at the time, I did read part of a thread elsewhere some years ago, discussing the idea of inherited sin – is sin a genetic disposition directly inherited from our own parents, passed down generation by generation?  Ron proposed the term “congenital sin” and Wikipedia defines congenital as “a condition present at birth regardless of its cause”.  Present from birth it certainly is and “regardless of cause” allows alternative explanations to the passing of a condition down through the generations since Adam.

Rather, the truth that we are all born “in Adam” allows for the sin condition to be directly inherited from him (Romans 5).  I believe we need to see unregenerate man’s moral state as a direct consequence of the alignment of Adam’s will and spirit with Satan, caused by Adam submitting himself and the whole human race in him to Satan.  This would suggest that the root cause of sin is outside of man.  Nevertheless this congenital alignment has corrupted man inwardly too in his heart, where his spirit is, and through which Satan exerts his influence and control (Eph 2:1-3).

So it is that “our old man” of Romans 6 is “old Adam” in whom the unregenerate are born, but whose nature of unbelief and disobedience is also in them, and which has thus become their nature too: for the sinner is inseparably identified with this nature to the extent that it is like a marriage union in which two become one (as further explained below).

Contrast all this with the regenerate, who have a new spirit (Ezek 36:26) which is aligned with the Holy Spirit.  They are “one spirit” with the Lord (1 Cor 6:17), “in Christ”, and Christ is in them.  Their old Adamic union has been dissolved by his death (Rom 6:6) that they should be married to Christ instead (Rom 7:1-4).

Is “our old man” who was crucified with Christ the “old me”?  Well the plural possessive pronoun “our” suggests a corporate identity – we were all as a race born in him.  We can therefore think of him as a power ruling from without but into which mankind has been subsumed.  But the language of the New Testament makes it plain that the regenerate believers themselves die by baptism into Christ too (Rom 6, Gal 2:20, Col 3:3).  When “our old man” is crucified with Christ (Rom 6:6) there is a personal death involved, not just the death of the ruling power of sin into which we were born.  And that is because our old life as sinners was so identified with the old man that his values and goals were ours too (primarily values of independent self-rule permitting the indulgence of our fleshly appetites however we pleased without any consideration by faith of the will of God – Eph 2:1-3) until we were awakened and repented.

So my conclusion is that we must be cut off from the primary root of sin – Satan and his ruling spirit in the world – by baptism into Christ.  But that baptism also involves an inward cutting out, or death of my own sinful disposition too – the laying down of my deep seated love for the self-rule and self-indulgence which were the fruits of my marriage to old Adam: a love rooted deep within my heart, emanating from a corrupted and sinful spirit.

Being born again means not just being cut off from the primary root of sin – the Satanic mother plant – but having the corrupting baby plant which it birthed within us cut out too.  This is the inward circumcision of the heart by which we receive a new (restored pure) spirit joined to the Holy Spirit.  With the source of sin removed, and the whole inward man having also been washed clean, the born again saint can now live by the fountain of clean living water rooted within him instead of the filthy fountain which was the source of his sin.

Note: moral circumcision is also described in Colossians 2 as the “putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh”.  In keeping with other New Testament references to the body – of sin, of this death, our mortal body, our members (which term is also used of the inward man in Col 3:5) – I believe this is an important recognition that our life in the body is inseparably linked to our inner spiritual state.  Hence inner circumcision of the heart cuts us off from the power of sin that seeks to indulge and misdirect the God given desires of body and mind (Rom 6:19-21) and releases our bodies to be free to serve Christ instead (Rom 6:12, 13; 12:1).  The synergy between a corrupt spiritual state and our bodies in which it exists is what Paul means by “the flesh” when he uses the term in this context.  Hence “the body of the sins of the flesh” is just a reference to the outworking of this synergy (Rom 7:5).  It is from this life in the flesh that the cross frees us when our inner spiritual nature is transformed.  The repercussions of this new inward state are then outworked in the life of the “outward man” too – in our bodies.

(N.b. the idea that the “body of sin” in Rom 6:6 is a spiritual entity, in direct contrast to the body of Christ – rather than the sinner’s corporeal vehicle for his sin – falls down not just because of the interpretation consistent with other scripture given above, but because Satan is not omnipresent like Christ, and cannot therefore personally indwell all sinners as a single entity simultaneously.)

• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Jonah.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Jonah.

[ronbaileyModerator]

Hi Jonah,

I am late to the party as usual but I wanted to pick up on this phrase…

We have Math 3, “And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire” in the clear context of John’s message of a greater baptism than his which would accomplish this.

I’m not sure that this passage has this topic in mind. John Baptist was sent to bear witness to the King whose kingdom had now ‘drawn near’. At the beginning of Matthew (and elsewhere) we see the antagonism between John Baptist who ‘came to restore all things’ but also so witness the passing of one era and the beginning of another. That, of course, is what all the biblical baptisms really were. ( we could explore this at some other time, but all baptisms mark a necessary end that prepares the way for a new beginning.)

I think this is more in line with the pictures of the new wine skin and the new patch. It is the statement that the new cannot be added to the old. One of Paul’s favourite words seems to be the word translated as ‘destroyed’ in the original King James version…

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. (Romans 6:6 KJV)

The NKJV improves that translation at this point but, in my view’ doesn’t go nearly far enough.

knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. (Romans 6:6 NKJV)

This is the word ‘katargeō’ is a combination of 3 Greek words;

1. ergeō – in that form would simply mean ‘I work’
2. an ‘a’ is added and transforms the word as in ‘a’gnostic, someone who is ignorant it does not know. So we would then have the opposite of ‘ergeō’ ie ‘argeō’ which would mean ” do ‘not’ work”
3. the prefix ‘kata’ in this kind of context means ‘thoroughly’ (right down to the bottom of it). ie pinō means ‘I drink’ but katapinō means I swallow.

I’ll end this post with a list of the usage of ‘katargeō and the various ways that the word is used. We need to get a sense of the meaning of this word. It is never eradication/annihilation but the sense in which something no longer functions as previously ie neutralised, incapacitated…

Luke 13:7; Rom 3:3, 31; 4:14; 6:6; 7:2, 6; 1 Cor 1:28; 2:6; 6:13; 13:8, 10–11; 15:24, 26; 2 Cor 3:7, 11, 13–14; Gal 3:17; 5:4, 11; Eph 2:15; 2 Thess 2:8; 2 Tim 1:10; Heb 2:14 NKJV

13:7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, “Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’

3:3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect?

3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

4:14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,

6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

7:2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.

7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

1:28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,

2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

6:13 Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

13:8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.

13:10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

15:24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

15:26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,

3:11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

3:13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. 3:14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.

3:17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.

5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

5:11 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased.

2:15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,

2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

1:10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

It’s really a great word and we need to be familiar with it. I can’t think of an English word which carried all the nuances of katargeō. So, in short, I don’t believe in ‘eradication’, I believe in ‘katargeō-ing. 😉

 

[JonahParticipant]

Again I missed an email alert to your recent post Ron (thank you) until reviewing my “junk mail” – I thought I had reclassified these alerts last time…

In short, I believe in heart eradication (our hearts are purified by faith)  which cuts us off from the domination of the flesh in which the unregenerate live.   This is not eradication of the potential influence of the flesh (the “flesh lusts against the Spirit” even in the regenerate) but it is a katargeoing of its mastery over us.  There is a reversal in the life principle of the born again believer by which he obtains mastery over it (the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus now operates releasing him from the law of sin and death).

How then has the flesh been “crucified, with its affections and lusts”?  By its mastery over us being broken.  By the spiritual root in us which lived according to the flesh (our old man) being crucified with Christ.  This was contingent upon our willingness to lay down our love for him and the life of indulging the flesh which he gave us.  By thus agreeing with God’s verdict on our old life we countersigned its death warrant and the crucifixion of our old man became effective in us as we were baptised into Christ.

Consequently, no longer shall sin “have dominion over you”.  Rather the regenerate man has dominion over it through the uniting of his spirit with the Holy Spirit instead of the Satanic spirit of disobedience that worked the old Adamic nature in him.

N.b. this does not negate the corporate nature of “our old man”.  “The spiritual root in us” is his nature at work in us through the spirit of disobedience having infused the human spirit, making us all a part of him.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by Jonah.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by Jonah.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by Jonah.

[Allan HaltonParticipant]

Well, look what I found! A discussion taking place in the Discussion Room! Is there provision to notified of such goings on, apart from contributing to the discussion and ticking “notify me of follow-up replies” ?

As to the present discussion, I hold with Jesus on this matter. He didn’t teach that a thorn bush gradually becomes a grape vine, or a thistle a fig tree. He taught it’s either/or. “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Mt. 7:17,18).

• This reply was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by ronbailey.

[JonahParticipant]

Hi Allan.  What do you make of Jesus coming “in the likeness of sinful flesh” and in Paul’s flesh there “dwelling no good thing”?  It seems as though there is a difference between the nature of the man Christ Jesus and the regenerate man, notwithstanding his new spirit and new pure heart.  For example, would it ever be conceivable to imagine Jesus having to “put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication” and to be “renewed in the spirit of His mind” like we are exhorted to do and to be?

For the avoidance of doubt that does not negate Jesus’s complete identification with humanity including suffering temptation (which was the cause of original sin even before “sinful flesh” existed).  But His identification is not with the sinfulness of man during His lifetime (though it was with the experience of our temptation to sin): that was reserved for the cross; however it was fully with man in the weakness and vulnerability of the flesh – yet without sin.  His life was therefore a pattern for redeemed man – for regenerate  man.  Yet even for regenerate man his body is yet unredeemed, which may explain why He is prone to stumble…🤔?

 

• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Jonah.

[Allan HaltonParticipant]

Hi Jonah, sorry to be so long in replying. I’ve been thinking about this for a good while, but that’s a poser that I still don’t have clear understanding on.

[ronbaileyModerator]

Slow to speak… is a model I sometimes fulfil too literally. This is really a separate topic and one that has caused issues among believers for almost 2000 years. It was the original cause of the disastrous split in the early Christian Brethren, between JN Darby and B Newton. It has to do with the mystery of the incarnation. Newton later came to see that his view was mistaken and made a full recantation, but it was too late, the damage was done and so far as I know Darby and Newton were never reconciled.

The usual evangelical explanation has been to look carefully at the wording of the statement “in the likeness of sinful flesh”. This does not state that he ‘came in sinful flesh’ but that he came in the ‘likeness’ of ‘sinful flesh’.

Adam Clarke: He, in whom dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily, took upon him the likeness of sinful flesh, that is, a human body like ours, but not sinful as ours;

John Wesley: But God sending his own Son, in the likeness of that flesh, though pure from sin, condemned sin in the flesh…

I have not studied this recently but I think part of the problem lies in the fact that ‘sinful’ is really a very poor translation. It is a noun, not an adjective. The scriptures do not really speak of ‘sinful flesh’ in the sense of total depravity ie that our flesh is ‘full’ of sin but rather that the flesh is ‘sin-nish’, of course, we have no such word. But the point is that ‘flesh’ in our race and in our individual person has become subject to our nature and is thereby characterised as ‘sin-nish’. Christ’s incarnation did not include a congenital ‘Sin’ condition and his flesh was never ‘sin-nish’.

In mankind generally, the flesh is completely dominated by Sin and is, consequently, sin-nish. In the regenerate the flesh is vulnerable and can become the ‘beachhead’ (occasion) of the Tempter’s attack. The attack will almost always come through the gates of our senses and is inevitable. But yielding to the attempt to establish a beachhead is not inevitable. “we can’t stop the birds from flying over our heads, but we can stop them building nests in our beard”. – an old Puritan saying.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by ronbailey.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by ronbailey.

[JonahParticipant]

Thank you Ron I agree with your very  helpful comment.  I’m glad I spotted the alert to it in my junk email box as I don’t come here these days otherwise!  Obviously I have (hopefully) unjunked such notifications now.

I very much like your comment, “The flesh is vulnerable and can become a beachhead of the Tempter’s attack”.  I would place emphasis on the mind more than the senses as the focus of vulnerability (Romans 8:5-9 illustrating the significance of the spirit of the mind) – hence the New Testament, especially the Pauline emphasis, on the need for ongoing “renewing” in the “spirit of your mind” (Rom 12:1,2, Eph 4:22-24) as the pivotal factor enabling us to continue to deny the flesh by being led by the Spirit (Rom 8:13, 14).

However I also think it is a mistake to separate the inner man from his body of flesh and its natural desires and senses which you refer to as the gateway of temptation.  His bodily senses are a key context of his thoughts – his mental activity and bodily life are inseparable.  See Col 3:5 where “mortifying members” (of the body – of sin 😉 – cf Rom 6:12) is expressed in terms of evil desires and sinful lusts of the heart.  Compare also Romans 7:5 where the “sinful passions” operated in the “members” of “the body [of this death – v 23]”, with Romans 7:7, 8 where they are all subsumed under inner heart covetousness.

Hence my view that “the flesh”, in Pauline usage where it takes on its immoral sense, is referring to the synergy between the old Adamic nature with its spirit of disobedience and the natural human desires of body (and mind) which were initially part of God’s “very good” creation; before man in his depravity began to indulge them for purposes which are alien to God’s.

Hence Christ’s flesh and blood was no different to ours (Heb 2:14, 17a).  But Paul knew that our flesh and blood is inseparable from our inner spiritual/heart nature, and it is that which makes fallen human “flesh” sinful.  Christ the Second Man uniquely did not have that sinful inner nature from the First Man Adam by natural birth, but He fully came in flesh and blood common to all men nevertheless.  But He was only in the “likeness” of the human “flesh” as it had become universally sinful in the first Adam through its synergistic union with the old Adamic nature (“our old man”).  The new man Christ’s flesh was in synergy with His divine nature instead.

(And this is the nature of which those in the Spirit and no longer in the “flesh” now partake – through regeneration – too: Rom 8:9, 2Peter 1:4!

The New Covenant truly is the only lens through which such apparent conundrums as raised from Romans 8:3 can be unlocked!)

• This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by Jonah.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by Jonah.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by Jonah.

[JonahParticipant]

Now how about this…

“Sin is the transgression of the law”.  “By the law [of Moses, in context] is the knowledge of sin”.   Rom 6:14: “…sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace.”

As we are not under law how can we transgress it?  Do we need to view freedom from sin in a wholly different light of freedom from condemnation – i.e. “having no more conscience of sins” (Heb 10:1-3)?

This is not antinomianism as we are still “under law to Christ” and to be obedient to the leading of the Spirit by which we “mortify the deeds of the body”. But the blood of Jesus Christ continually cleanses us from all sin so we do not need to be looking into ourselves in self-assessment against a measure of legal perfection.

We may not be (are not) perfect in our outward life, but this does not mean that we are not free from sin.  We need have “no more conscience” thereof, if we do not deliberately disobey God.

 

 

 

[Author]

Posts