There Is Therefore Now No Condemnation

Some people see Romans 7 as a regenerate man trying to live under the law, while others see it as an unregenerate man trying to please God by the Law and the only thing he knows, "in the flesh".

Here is the key as I see it:

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

"As long as he liveth". As long as a man lives the law has dominion over him.

In other words, the law will never die and the only way to be free of it is for us to die.

Here is the next part of the puzzle. How do we die and keep on living? Well, Jesus brought that provision for us. We can be free from the law by identifying with Christ in death, and raised to life by His resurrection life, too.

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

We become dead to the law by the body of Christ.

Rom_6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

And we walk in newness of life after we have died with Christ.

Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

And that is how we are delivered from the law. By the death and resurrection of Christ.

The final key is that we must be IN CHRIST to be freed from the law and the condemnation of it. That is what Romans 6:4 is all about.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are IN CHRIST Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom 8:3-4 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

I would be careful about using non-Biblical terms. Sin Nature is not a Biblical term as it was introduced in the NIV.

Let's look at a couple of verses in the NIV.
1. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, (Col 2:11)

Sinful nature seems to be in the past.

2. So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. (Rm 7:25b)

Sinful nature seems to be present.

3. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. (Gal 5:24)

Sinful nature seems to be in the past again.

4. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature. (Rm 13:14)

Sinful nature is present, again.

5. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. (Rm 7:5)

Sinful nature is in the past, again.

6. Hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. (1 Co 5:5)

What's the problem with the NIV?

Paul is actually talking about our flesh (sarx). The word "flesh” refers to our physical bodies or our sensual nature. It’s that part of us that we would describe as natural as opposed to spiritual. Our bodies and our natural senses were given to us by God; we need them to live and to function. Theologians who say that our flesh is inherently evil actually are in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church. Of course we stop short of saying that Jesus was evil (as he had "put on" flesh, too). Yes, the body has appetites but that does not make it sinful. Unnatural appetites (lust, gluttony) are sinful, but being thirsty, or wanting to eat is not sinful. Desiring to lay with your wife and love her is also a God-given desire and there is nothing wrong with that.

Everything God made is good and that includes the flesh. Our bodies express the righteousness of God as He said in the garden, "...it is good". The problems come when we walk after the flesh, when we choose to live in the lower realm of the natural/flesh rather than the higher realm of the spirit. As a sinner, I had no choice in this matter, but as a child of God, born of the spirit, I can choose.

I can walk "after the flesh" or "after the Spirit". Even Jesus had to walk after the Spirit and not give into "walking after the urges, appetites, dictates of the flesh"

This is one of the biggest indications for me how the Roman Catholic Church has made inroads into the Protestant translations of Bibles. Of course, it is in their best interests (in bringing us all back to Rome) to align our doctrines with theirs.

Romans 6, 7, and 8 does not necessarily have to be a chronological biography of Paul's walk. It could easily be 7,6,8. I see Paul in 7 actually flashing back to what it was like being in the flesh, everyday with no hope of getting free of the law.

The false Catholic doctrine of the sinful nature has brought a lot of confusion, hopelessness and defeat into the church.

The Lusts of the Flesh versus the Law of Sin and Death

I recall whilst fasting with Martin my former partner in the gospel one time.

Having finished the fast, Martin was momentarily so overwhelmed by the demand from his stomach, that he was literally shaking as he tried to prepare some food. Whilst we were in the Spirit, in a mind to fast and pray, we had absolutely no difficulty with fasting. The moment we ended the fast, the demand from the body was really amazing. I recall standing their in near fits of laughter as I watched Martin setting fire to the frying pan in his uncontrolled efforts to fry an egg. The serious point of course, is to recognise that once he had decided to eat, his body went mad for food. Think Esau!

At the heart of all sin there is a choosing to sin, but there is also a power of sin as well.

This is essentially what Paul is saying in Romans when he speaks about keeping the law of God. He agrees in his inner man that the law of God is good, and he wants to keep the law in agreement with the knowledge that the law of God is good. Then Paul explains that in experience he finds that instead of doing the thing he wants to do, he ends up doing the very thing he doesn’t want to do. In the end Paul says "I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.” Romans 7:23”“25

Eating after a fast cannot be sinful, anymore than desiring to obey the law of God and agreeing with it, is sinful. Just as Martin, by agreeing to break his fast, led to a seeming independent action from his enteric nervous system telling his brain to get on with the food preparation quick sharp, resulting in his near inability to actually accomplish the task, so Paul speaks of a power working in the members of the body, which serves to defeat the knowledge of what is a good thing according to the law of God, in experience.

The simple meaning is that if we do desire to do something sinful, we will find that the body will go along with it, without complaint. Likewise when we try to serve God with the mind, we will find that the members of the body will defeat us. The natural mind cannot serve God. It must be a renewed mind, amounting to a renewing of the spirit of the mind. Only then will we know the meaning of the life of Christ working through our minds and bodies, arising from the renewed spirit. What is this law working in the body?

The scripture calls this the law of sin, and it’s outworking is death. This power of sin and death is such that the body itself will always yield to it’s power. In fact there is no possibility that the body will not yield to the law of sin and death as long as we are in our natural minds. Paul tells us in Romans that God gave the Law of commandments precisely to teach us this. Otherwise men would themselves strive to fulfil the Law of God, in the strength of their own will, resulting in no benefit at all. We tend to think about this revelation from Romans 8:1 in the context of our receiving eternal life, or in the context of eternal life itself. We reason that the only purpose in this startling revelation in Romans, concerning the law of sin and death, is so that we can know about the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Once we have believed, we imagine that thereafter we will automatically walk in the Spirit and life of Christ Jesus. Such an attitude is perfectly reasonable, but experience will quickly teach us that reality is not thus. If we then go on to reject the teaching that there is no such thing as the law of sin and death working in our members we will have thrown out the one thing which experience does teach us plainly and blame the Roman Catholic Church for a doctrine which we insist was their invention.

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Romans 8:2”“4

There is no doubt that the fuller meaning of this passage from Roman 8:1-3 is to teach us something about the accomplishment of Christ concerning eternal life. Yet the Scripture shows that the underlying reality spoken in the words "law of sin and of death” are also central to its meaning. We cannot throw away the part we find difficult to understand.

For the purposes of this study it is this matter of the law of sin and of death working in the members of the body, which I want to lay hold off.

"knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.” Romans 6:6”“7,

A Difference of Meaning

In this passage of Scripture, Paul identifies two distinct entities. The first is the "old man” and the second is the "body of sin”. It is the body of sin which I want to draw attention to. Some brethren say that the body of sin is the same in meaning as the old man. I have to say however that this cannot be precisely true. It is true, that the old man, is all that which is inherited, and therefore which was true of our forefather Adam. It is not true to say that when we were born ourselves physically, we were somehow born with a crucified benefit in our lives, which is the other side of it’s meaning when speaking of this Scripture. Therefore if the old man is crucified in Christ, we would have to ask, what to answer, to the problem of the law of sin and death working in our members.

The "old man”, Paul says, is crucified in Christ. As this must be true, then we must ask, in what way does this benefit of inclusion in Christ’s death on the cross, become ours? It could only be after we were born of our father and mother. It could not be prior to this time because until we are physically born we cannot benefit experientially from anything at all. The answer to this question relies on a proper identification of the meaning of the second part of Romans 6:6 where we read about the "body of sin”. This Body” is the sarx or flesh which is the same word, flesh or fleshy, used in all of the scriptures under the header "The Testimony of Scripture” (above) in the body of the article. In simplicity the body of sin is the physical body itself.

There is another thought or revelation which we need to consider in this as well. When we speak about the "old man” we are definitely speaking about our physical inheritance, our very DNA which we received from Adam. We are however, not speaking about being Adam personally. Adam was an individual. We are ourselves individuals. We share the same physical substance that Adam had in his own body. What we cannot be is Adam himself. Adam was an individual, he was a man with his own personality and his own life. It is also correct to speak about the soul itself (volition, cognition and emotion), as the same soul in substance of image and likeness, which Adam had. What we cannot say, is that we are ourselves, Adam. We are not Adam, we are ourselves. And whilst we share the very same nature as Adam, both morally, physically, psychically and spiritually, we are in our essential beings unique. This is incredibly important to realise. It may seem somewhat obvious a thing to say, or else we may disagree in some way. Regardless of this, the significance of saying it, is not so obvious at all.

When Paul speaks of the "old man” and the "body of sin” he is making this distinction; albeit indirectly. The practical meaning of this is that Paul is pointing to the fact that whilst the "old man” is crucified in Christ, we have our very own bodies. Adam is not represented in us, we ourselves were represented in him when he sinned. Similarly Christ was not represented in us when he died, it is we who are represented in Christ. In just the same way that to benefit from this representation in Christ after we are born of water and Spirit, so must we see that in our own bodes (not Adam’s body) we are born in sin by representation. The evidence of this according to Paul is the power of sin working in our members. The instant we put this to the test and seek to obey the law of God, sin has its dominion over us and we die.

It is therefore absolutely necessary to comprehend and fully, that in reality of experience, the power of sin works through the members of our bodies and not simply in our soul’s directly, as though it were the soul itself which supplies the natural body with its lusts and passions. Although our souls are implicated in sin, through the heart, it is by consenting to sin, or agreeing to sin, or having a mind or heart to sin, that facilities the power of sin working in the members of our body to produce its inevitable consequence of sinning. In this arrangement our very soul itself, mind, emotions and the will, are taken prisoner to the body of sin, by consent. The body of sin can be freed from the power of sin and death through experiential identification with the cross unto death, and the soul can be freed from the restraints of the body itself, not by "self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body” but by resting in the finished work of the cross, by faith.

The basis for this liberation in the first instance, is the cross, and our inclusion in Christ, as the inclusion of the old man of Adam. The outworking of this liberty, is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which we receive into ourselves when we first received Christ Himself by faith, and were born again.

From an article published on the internet

TrueWitness: so simply yielding each decision to the holy Spirit solves the problem with the flesh?

I would be remiss if I did not let people know that Zondervan did update their 2011 version. Most occurrences of "sinful nature" have become "flesh". They decided to use the same English word for sarx found in the KJV and nearly every other English Bible. I applaud the change as it is a good one.

If you look at Romans 13:14 on the latest version of the NIV at Bible Gateway, you will notice that it now says this:

"Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.”

Unfortunately, old habits are hard to change. In the footnote the verse is qualified by the following:

"In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as a power in opposition to the Spirit.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:14&version=NIV

They have improved just a bit (we have gone from having a sinful nature to living in a sinful state).

If the flesh is inherently sinful then the Lord Jesus was sinful, but He wasn't or it (flesh) wasn't. If you review the verse again, the problem is not the flesh but gratifying it's desires outside of the boundaries of your relationship with the Holy Spirit. Most of our problems that beset us are from an un-renewed thinking/mind, not our corruptible flesh. Our bodies left alone with no mind or will is amoral. Just a container. It is an unrenewed mind that engages its will to direct the body to fulfill the desires of the flesh. We are not trapped in a sinful state. We are new creations. Jesus had all the same desires of the flesh that you and I have, yet He never sinned. Now Christ is our life (Col 3:4). We occupy the same sort of flesh that Jesus had. We can live the overcoming, victorious life, the same as Jesus, but not by trying harder in the flesh. The life we now live, we live by the faith of the Son of God. Christ lives in us and as we walk after the Spirit and renew our mind (we are called to do that), we will go from faith to faith and glory to glory in our walk. Always dependent on Him and never thinking we have arrived. There is no condemnation and guilt to those who are IN CHRIST JESUS, and are now walking after the Spirit and not the flesh, anymore.

Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit……………………………..

Listen to what brother Matthew Henry has to say about Romans 8:1……….

"I. The apostle here begins with one signal privilege of true Christians, and describes the character of those to whom it belongs: There is therefore now no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus, Rom_8:1. This is his triumph after that melancholy complaint and conflict in the foregoing chapter ”“ sin remaining, disturbing, vexing, but, blessed be God, not ruining. The complaint he takes to himself, but humbly transfers the comfort with himself to all true believers, who are all interested in it. 1. It is the unspeakable privilege and comfort of all those that are in Christ Jesus that there is therefore now no condemnation to them. He does not say, "There is no accusation against them,” for this there is; but the accusation is thrown out, and the indictment quashed. He does not say, "There is nothing in them that deserves condemnation,” for this there is, and they see it, and own it, and mourn over it, and condemn themselves for it; but it shall not be their ruin. He does not say, "There is no cross, no affliction to them or no displeasure in the affliction,” for this there may be; but no condemnation. They may be chastened of the Lord, but not condemned with the world. Now this arises from their being in Christ Jesus; by virtue of their union with him through faith they are thus secured. They are in Christ Jesus, as in their city of refuge, and so are protected from the avenger of blood. He is their advocate, and brings them off. There is therefore no condemnation, because they are interested in the satisfaction that Christ by dying , made to the law. In Christ, God does not only not condemn them, but is well pleased with them, Mat_17:5. 2. It is the undoubted character of all those who are so in Christ Jesus as to be freed from condemnation that they walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Observe, The character is given from their walk, not from any one particular act, but from their course and way. And the great question is this, What is the principle of the walk, the flesh or the spirit, the old or the new nature, corruption or grace? Which of these do we mind, for which of these do we make provision, by which of these are we governed, which of these do we take part with? "…………(Matthew Henry)

So brothers and sisters, by which of these are we governed? By which of these do we walk in? Do we walk in the path of grace? Or do we continue to walk in the path of condemnation? We are free men indeed. This army of prayer warriors that Christ is raising up is not an army of slaves to sin, but an army of freed slaves. Freed from the power of sin. Freed from the destruction of corruption. We are free to sing the glories of the Living God in a world that is dying.

Just as the slaves that threw of their shackles and followed Spartacus and struck terror into the heart of the Roman Empire, we are so much more than them, for we did not throw of our own shackles, they were taken from us. And by no mere man, but the man Christ Jesus. He delivered us by the bloody battle field of Calvary.

Yes brothers and sisters, we must stand before the cross and look up. Up there is the victory, up there is the triumph up there my God and yours blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.Having stripped rulers and authorities, He made a show of them publicly, triumphing over them in it. (col 2:14-15)

As we look up there, we turn from our own sin, we do not run from it. We look up and see our sin upon the cross in the form of Jesus. And as we gaze up, we see our sin defeated as our Saviour cries out "Father , Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And as we look up, we hear the final death blow and destruction of our sin "It is finished.”

If we will be warriors and march in that glorious army of the redeemed ,then brothers and sisters, come away from "Oh wretched man that I am.” Come away and walk in the glorious light of Calvary, of freedom. We look at our sin and in our audacity we struggle to overcome it and this becomes the thrust of our lives. And amazingly we are often proud of this, proud to be missing in action. Proud to be absent without official leave. Proud that we live in an eternal struggle against sin, proud that we are not like the wicked world. Proud that we have a conscience and do not sleep well at night.

We choose to dwell under condemnation, we choose to allow the enemy to control our lives , we choose to remain silent because the accuser of the brethren whispers in our ears "you are nothing but a wretched man, look at yourself, look in the mirror, cast your eyes upon your sin and see that you are worthless in this battle.” No brothers and sisters, look to Jesus, not to yourself. Look up, look up, look up and see your freedom. If we listen to the enemy of our souls, the accuser , the condemner, then we nullify Calvary in our lives and take ourselves out of the battle.

The Lord says "Look to me, I am the author and the finisher of your faith.” Shall we begin in the Spirit and attempt to finish this journey in the flesh? Brothers and sisters, if you would join this ancient army, this army that was and is and is to come, if you would march in lockstep with Gideon and with David and with Joshua, if you would run towards Goliath, if you would take on ten thousand and slay them all, if you would kneel down in the arena of life as the lions approach, if you would take your place with the heroes of faith then it is high time that we take our eyes of of ourselves and look up.

God in heaven, our Heavenly Father has said "Yea, I have set my King on My holy hill, on Zion. I will declare the decree of Jehovah. He has said to me you are my Son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me and I shall give the nations for your inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession.” The work is the Lord’s brothers and sisters, we are His army and we have been called to fight. Joshua was commissioned to take the land. David declares "I am not afraid of ten thousands of people who have set themselves against me all around.”

And the Prophet Micah says "Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of Rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil. Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul. He has shown you oh man, what is good. And what does Jehovah require of you but to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Brothers and sisters, when I look up I see humility. I see my Lord humbled and naked for the whole world to see. Nothing hidden. When I look up I see justice. I see sin condemned. Oh brothers and sisters when I look up I see mercy . Mercy for me, mercy for me, mercy for me. I do not see my own condemnation, I see my Jesus. Yes, I see Jesus. There is therefore, now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

Oh what a glorious freedom. Free indeed, free indeed , free indeed. Free indeed to stand and fight. To battle even unto death, with my fellow freed men. I pray today that those whom the Son has set free will push the doors of their captivity of wretchedness, that they would realize their freedom, that they would reckon their freedom and walk out of their cells into the glorious sunlight of no condemnation and join the Lord’s army in these the final days of the battle, one more battle in the war that is already won.

Why would we chose to stay in our cells after being freed? Why would we not choose to walk in the power of the Spirit, the power of the Spirit that Peter and Stephen walked in? Is it because we are afraid of the confrontation? Directly after Pentecost Peter confronts the crowd. By the power of the Spirit of God he now speaks. He is not denying Jesus, He is confessing Jesus with great boldness and his words cause them to be "stabbed in the heart.” This phrase, in the Greek means to penetrate, to violently agitate, to pierce. You see brothers and sisters, if we walk in the Spirit like Peter did, like Stephen did, we will be used in the front lines of the battle . Yet many of us have no desire to be in the front line of the battle. It is much safer to remain in our cells of wretchedness and introspection. On the front lines there is no neutral place.

It is victory or it is death. Do we really want to live that kind of life. Can we stand before the living God , right now , and say, yes Lord we are willing? It was victory for Peter as he saw 3000 added that day, it was victory for Stephen as he spoke and in Acts 7 we are told that his audience were "cut to the heart.” The time , brothers and sisters, has come for us to arise and stab men in the heart and see men saved or to cut to the heart and be stoned. We have no time left for neutrality. Do we really want this power? Do we really want this power? Let us look and see what brother Stephen did…..

Act 7:55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, looking up intently into Heaven, he saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
Act 7:56 And he said, Behold, I see Heaven opened and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.
Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, who was calling on God and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60 And kneeling down, he cried with a loud voice, Lord, do not lay this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Brothers and sisters, it is time for us to look up. Let us gaze upon Jesus and let our gaze be uninterrupted. Let us look intently into heaven and we will see the Glory of God come down. Oh Lord let your glory fall upon the sleeping church.

If the flesh is inherently sinful then the Lord Jesus was sinful, but He wasn't or it (flesh) wasn't. If you review the verse again, the problem is not the flesh but gratifying it's desires outside of the boundaries of your relationship with the Holy Spirit. Most of our problems that beset us are from an un-renewed thinking/mind, not our corruptible flesh. Our bodies left alone with no mind or will is amoral. Just a container. It is an unrenewed mind that engages its will to direct the body to fulfill the desires of the flesh. We are not trapped in a sinful state. We are new creations. Jesus had all the same desires of the flesh that you and I have, yet He never sinned. Now Christ is our life (Col 3:4). We occupy the same sort of flesh that Jesus had. We can live the overcoming, victorious life, the same as Jesus, but not by trying harder in the flesh. The life we now live, we live by the faith of the Son of God. Christ lives in us and as we walk after the Spirit and renew our mind (we are called to do that), we will go from faith to faith and glory to glory in our walk. Always dependent on Him and never thinking we have arrived. There is no condemnation and guilt to those who are IN CHRIST JESUS, and are now walking after the Spirit and not the flesh, anymore.

Is this not the age old issue for those who believe into Christ Jesus? When I read that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh I do not assume that this is sinful flesh or that this speaks of all flesh being sinless.

Likeness

1. homoioma (ὁμοίωμα, 3667) denotes "that which is made like something, a resemblance,” (a) in the concrete sense, Rev. 9:7, "shapes” (RV, marg., "likenesses”); (b) in the abstract sense, Rom. 1:23, RV, "(for) the likeness (of an image)”; the KJV translates it as a verb, "(into an image) made like to”; the association here of the two words homoioma and eikon (see IMAGE) serves to enhance the contrast between the idol and "the glory of the incorruptible God,” and is expressive of contempt; in 5:14, "(the) likeness of Adam’s transgression” (KJV, "similitude”); in 6:5, "(the) likeness (of His death); in 8:3, "(the) likeness (of sinful flesh); in Phil. 2:7, "the likeness of men.” "The expression ‘likeness of men’ does not of itself imply, still less does it exclude or diminish, the reality of the nature which Christ assumed. That … is declared in the words ‘form of a servant.’ ‘Paul justly says in the likeness of men, because, in fact, Christ, although certainly perfect Man (Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5), was, by reason of the Divine nature present in Him, not simply and merely man … but the Incarnate Son of God’” (Gifford, quoting Meyer). See SHAPE.¶ Cf. LIKE, B, (b).

Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. (1996). Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson.

God forbid I should endeavour to persuade anyone of anything at any time. That would be utter foolishness.

That is a really good way to describe the difference between the old man and the flesh. It's wonderful in fact. God bless Zac Poonen for that.

When all is said and done however we have to come back to reality. It is this body of ours which is ruined and if we cannot see it I truly wonder how we will walk confidently. Speaking personally it was a simple matter for me to realise that I am a dog, because in short I am a dog. On that basis you have no choice but to cry out for deliverance. The hour that Christ became my garment was the hour I realised that being a dog is just fine with God. He had his answer for it. For that we should all be eternally thankful to Christ Who died for us. Returning to the vomit though is by far a worse thing than being a dog and that is where an understanding of the flesh is helpful. It is of course necessary for all of us even if we smell of roses.

Yes, Sidewalk and this doctrine keeps many from believing they can overcome sin.

Jesus also had freedom of choice. He always had the option to give in to the desires (lusts and affections) of His flesh. Did He have desires? We are told that "He hungered". He could have manifested a gluttonous choice to satisfy the desires of His flesh. He could have become slothful and slept in everyday. He could have given in to those who wanted to make Him a political King.

He was "tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).

The Bible says, "that God cannot be tempted by evil", (James 1:13), and some say that since Jesus was God, He could not be tempted. But, they forget that though Jesus was indeed God, He was also functioning as a man (He emptied Himself of the divine right to act as God and took the form of a man and chose to act behaviorally as a man, dependent on His Father. He was not tempted as God but was tempted as man.

Heb_4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

"yet without sin", indicates that Jesus could have sinned had He not resisted.

Jesus was willing to become clothed in a fleshly body and He was willing to become subject to temptation in that body of flesh. As long as we are in this body of flesh, this corruptible container that is earthly and natural and seeks earthly and natural relief for it's desires, we will be subject to temptation, through the lusts of the flesh, too. But, we can resist and overcome through Christ.

Actually there are 2 heresies that I know of that stated there is only Christ and no Jesus, meaning Christ was purely divine and not a man.

Sabellianism (modalist monarchianism)

and

Docetism from Greek word dokesis meaning "to seem"
Jesus only "seemed" to be human to us but did not have a real human body.

Of course both of them pretty much imply that Jesus could not have really suffered and died for man.

But, yes, he was really human. He felt emotion (wept), He was a hungered, He grew weary and tired, and He was tempted and bled real blood.

I remember hearing a practical devotion by Charles Stanley as he spoke on 1 John 1:9. He said the "blood" of Jesus cleanses us from the "penalty" of sin. But the "Person" of Jesus living inside of us helps us overcome the "power" of sin.

I thought, can it really be that simple?

Blaine

Jesus was willing to become clothed in a fleshly body and He was willing to become subject to temptation in that body of flesh. As long as we are in this body of flesh, this corruptible container that is earthly and natural and seeks earthly and natural relief for it's desires, we will be subject to temptation, through the lusts of the flesh, too. But, we can resist and overcome through Christ.

Is this not the same as saying that there is something wrong with the body? If not then it is the same as saying that God made the physical body with desires which when met produce sin. The action which Adam entered into was no more than eating of a piece of fruit. Can that be either an action of sin or can it be evidence of a physical desire which of itself when entered into produced immediate spiritual death and eventual physical death?

I notice that you use the term 'this corruptible container' which I take to be a philosophical way of avoiding the fact that this container is not corruptible, but corrupt. Were it not so we would none of us face physical death at all. Can you confirm that you believe that the physical body of every living human being on earth at this time is only corrupt at the point a man sins, but is otherwise unaffected by sin. In other words does sin produce physical death or not, regardless as to whether the sin is a response to a natural physical desire or is an issue of rebellion of the heart?

Can you please state plainly that you believe that the physical body which Christ was given by the Father was in all parts neurophysical and physical the precise same in substance and power as the body you are now clothed in.

Can you please tell me what the power of sin and death is?

Please no silly answers. You make some very profound claims amounting to saying that the whole church universal has been deceived by a doctrine from hell and that this has directly led to countless millions being kept in the bondage of sin because it has led believers of every generation to miss that God's answer to the problem of sin, is Christ become sin for our sakes. Though you yourself say that the answer is rather, that the body itself is precisely the same in all its substance and power as that of Messiah. Or to put this in reverse, your claim is that the physical body which the Father prepared for His Son was precisely the same in substance and power as the body which you inherited from your father.

Please do not feel any compulsion to answer these questions but I would simply ask you to really answer them and not simply repeat sayings which amount to no answer at all.

Edit: Added more at the bottom.

Well, there is nothing wrong with the body in the sense that it was created by God and is a righteous and good creation and the members of our body can be and are to be yielded to God (by our soul and spirit) to righteousness now instead of unrighteousness. But the body is corruptible and will perish and it does not like to fast or be denied anything. It desires comfort and satisfaction and it will take more and more, as much as you can give it if possible. We live in a body and we can feel and experience fleshly gratification and are tempted to increase the gratification. If you don't put limits on your body/flesh, you will be ruled by it's desires. The other thing is that those of us who have lived in deep sin and used our body in very sinful ways, have the memory of these sins and the memory of fleshly feelings of gratification and in some cases ecstasy that were experienced with yielding our members to unrighteousness. So, we must renew our mind and set boundaries where the Holy Spirit leads. Excess is lust. Jesus satisfied his body's desires, but kept it under subjection like Paul did. Or vice-versa, Paul kept his body under subjection as Jesus did. We need to make sure we rule the body and not let the desires of our flesh, rule us.

Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

We are not to let sin reign in our mortal body. It does not have to be there. We don't have to obey its earthly, natural lusts. We are led by the Spirit not our body's desires. We could not say that or fulfill that command as an Unbeliever.

Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

God would be mocking us and toying with us if He knew we really could not yield our members unto Him as instruments of righteousness.

I am trying to stick to Biblical language. I used corruptible for a reason. Our flesh is corruptible and mortal and will perish. But for now, it is not the flesh that is holy or unholy, it is your soul and spirit that is. You are to yield your members as instruments of righteousness.

Your body can be directed to be used for holy or unholy acts. But, it is not your body's fault, it is your fault (your mind, will. You, your soul. Who you are inside that body).

1Co_15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co_15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

The difference between our bodies and the body of Jesus, is that His body was never yielded to sin. His body was never used to commit a sin. The members of His body were always yielded as members of righteousness. Yes, the Father did prepare a body for Him.

Heb_10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Because, victory over sin must come in the body, for Jesus to be a pure, undefiled, sinless sacrifice on our behalf.

Another tangent for discussion:

Krima, not katakrima, is used in James 4:1

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment*(Krima).
(James 3:1 NASB)

The rest of the verses below also use KRIMA*. There are several more verses that use it that aren't listed here:

and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation* incurred by the devil.
(1 Timothy 3:6 NASB)

thus incurring condemnation*, because they have set aside their previous pledge.
(1 Timothy 5:12 NASB)

of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment*.
(Hebrews 6:2 NASB)

For it is time for judgment* to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? AND IF IT IS WITH DIFFICULTY THAT THE RIGHTEOUS IS SAVED, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE GODLESS MAN AND THE SINNER?
(1 Peter 4:17-18 NASB)

For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation*, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
(Jude 1:4 NASB)

Any thoughts?

katakrima is only used 3 times, in Romans 5:16,18 and 8:1.

In the course of seeking to understand these questions regarding what Adam's sin was specifically, or whether the Lord's physical body was precisely, genetically, physically, pathologically and neurologically the same as all men including Adam, both before and after his fall into sin, I have looked primarily in two places. The first has been the scriptures themselves. The second has been medical science. There are for example some truly remarkable scriptures which speak about the Lord prophetically and which clearly express some things which are truly unique to Him as a person in the context of His experience of life.

Take for example the following passage:

""Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.” (Isaiah 7:14”“16, NASB95)

The first time I read this passage consciously was in the context of having a conversation with a brother who was insisting that Jesus was tempted in precisely the same way all men are tempted. So I pointed out that when I went to visit prostitutes as an unbeliever, upon first setting eyes on them I was already in the full throws of sin. So in seeing them it was a matter of peculiar choice rather than the question of whether I was going to sin or not. Then I said to this brother yet the Lord Jesus set about to fellowship with prostitutes and visited them in their homes and ate meals with them. I asked how was it possible for the Lord to look upon them and have no physical desire for them, yet at the same time He was in every way a natural man even as we are?

No sooner had I finished saying this than I came upon this passage from Isaiah. At once I was struck by the arrangement of the words and the implication of the words. I had always believed that Jesus could not possibly have been tempted as we are if that means desiring to do that which is sinful. Otherwise how could the Lord have spoken of the desires of the heart as being the well spring or fountain from which sin first has its conception. It would be hypocrisy to have spoken about the desires of men's hearts as the source of the conception of sin if The Lord Himself had such desires. The Lord clearly taught that sin is first conceived in the heart and then when it is full conceived it is manifest in the outer man by sinful actions. In other words it is not the outer action which necessarily proves sin, for the act of sleeping with your lawful wife, is no different an action than sleeping with a prostitute. The physical action of eating a fruit, even of a forbidden Tree, is not different to eating a piece of fruit from any tree from which it is lawful to eat.

When I read this passage from Isaiah to this brother and asked the question 'what does it mean when the prophet speaks 'He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good....etc' I had no idea really what I was asking at the time,but there was a momentary silence and the brother suddenly said to me that he had seen something and had to go. I tried to press the question but was unable to do so. Now in the last few days in being provoked by your comments about the doctrine of the 'sin nature' or 'depravity' as it is also called, being a doctrine of hell, to which you agree with another, I have repeatedly asked myself why is this claim (that the physical body of the Lord Jesus is the same in substance and power as that of any man), wrong?

This prophecy concerning the Lord Jesus was given in order to satisfy God's demand for a sign. The man to whom this prophecy is spoken is Ahaz by the mouth of Isaiah and it follows the Lord telling Ahaz to ask for a sign. Ahaz refuses and says that he will not 'test the Lord' but the Lord Himself says that He is offended by Ahaz's attitude and regards his refusal to ask for a sign to be disobedience. Then the Lord gives Ahaz this prophecy and the meaning of the prophecy is the sign which the Lord wanted to give by commanding Ahaz to ask for a sign. The sign itself is the incarnate Son.

The sign states three things.

It is the conception of Immanuel of a virgin.

The keeping of Immanuel by means of curds and honey from the moment he is old enough to choose between good and evil.

It is the recognition that before this keeping by curds and Honey the 'boy' knew not 'enough to refuse evil and choose good'

If you can point me to that which demonstrates that any other human being has been kept in this way I will point to a perfect man.

You may well be asking in what way does this speak of physical reality? To me at least this passage shows in simplicity that the Lord Jesus was kept from sin precisely at the point when He had sufficient knowledge of that which is good and that which is evil to choose to do the good thing. The Father has kept no other man in this way, not even Adam. In his childish innocence the 'boy' of Isaiah's prophecy is at no risk of sin, even when there is division and sin around Him. The 'child' is conceived of the Father by the Holy Spirit and therefore he is spotless both in conception and in upbringing. When He is sufficiently knowledgeable of good and evil, He is given curds and honey to keep Him. The when He is come of full age to begin His ministry He is baptised in water, anointed with the power of the Holy Spirit and then and only then does the Lord begin to suffer temptation and then and only then does the Lord overcome the evil one by obedience to the Father. Physical reality and temptations are those things which follow on from the wilderness and they primarily consist of those things which are common to all men.

At the foundation to resist those temptations lays in 30 years of being kept by the Father by means of curds and honey. The baptism of the Holy Spirit expressly has the effect of making it possible to be tempted by the devil in the first instance. If the Lord had not been taken into the wilderness by the power of the Holy Spirit to be tempted, He could not have been tempted at all.

Make of that what you will. Myself I find no basis for claiming that the body which was prepared for Christ was other than spotless without blemish. I equally cannot see how the reality of sin in my own life even from that of a child could have had any other effect that to ruin and corrupt my physical body by the law of sin and death working in the members of my body. Christ was kept from such a reality until He entered into His full obedience as the Messiah and Christ of Israel. Then all of His actions, being fully His own in obedience to the Father, serve to prepare Him for the cross as a sacrifice for sin.

Edit: More added at the end on why Jesus' body was different than any other man's.

Another major difference which people often overlook is Ephesians 2:2. We are in a spiritual battle held captive by the Devil before we are saved.

Eph_2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

We come into the world with a full set of god-given desires (I did not say godly desires), and there is nothing wrong with them, but they are soon corrupted by the prince of the power of the air. We are open channels. Many liken a baby to a blank hard disk and hardware that just needs to be programmed. But, who will do the "programming"?

The Prince of the power of the air, the spirit that works IN all men (except Jesus, he just wanted to kill Jesus because he could not impose his character on him and get Jesus to "eat" of him), exerts and presses his character of selfishness, sinfulness and pride onto every child, leading them into selfishness and sinfulness to become just like him. He influences our soul (mind, will, emotions) with his character (just like he did with Adam and Eve). His character of selfishness and sinfulness and pride flows through our desires developing unique and personal patterns of sinfulness in our personalities.

He seeks to warp and twist our God-given desires into deep-seated patterns of sin and destructiveness in our lives. Everyone develops their own unique and different patterns of selfishness and sin. Some of us developed very deep”seated, desires that the Bible identifies as "besetting sins”Â (Heb. 12:1), or "strongholds of sin". They easily entangle us. We often observe that what so easily entangles me has no effect on someone else. Before Christ, we were like our father the Devil as his spirit was working in us. God "hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" Col 1:13

These patterns of sin that our flesh (and mind) participate wholly in, the Devil is able to plug into and manifest his selfish and prideful character in us. Before Christ, Satan could plug into our fleshly patterns of sin (including our soul) and turn us any which way he wills.

Jesus wants to work His character in us but we must first be delivered from the kingdom of darkness. We must be born-again, delivered from the spirit that works in the sons of disobedience and begin to walk with God.

The patterns of sin we developed in our lives was not something intrinsic. You are not intrinsically "bad" and have to beat yourself into submission through self-flagellation and disciplines of suppression. There is no "evil, dirty old man" living in you. Satan is the master of disguise, deceiving us into "eating" from him instead of the Tree of Life. Making people think that his character is who they are. And over time, as someone abides deeper and deeper in the Devil, they do become like him in character and personality. All men abide in the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit of this world. There is no middle ground. There is no neutral ground. Everyone has a Father and no one stands alone. We reflect one of two Fathers, Father God, or the Devil. Jesus said, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do."John 8:44

Satan does not indwell the Christian within the "flesh,”Â and we are not 
trying to oust him. Christians should not despise their God”given body or their God”given desires.

This is why there are testimonies of terrible, most horrible people one day, and then the next they are the most kind and loving. The Enemy has been driven out and the love of God has been shed abroad in their heart. Their flesh/temple is now under new management, as they embark on the "highway of holiness".

It is so very important who we abide in. We must abide in Christ and so many different legalisms today are designed to pull us away and distract us from abiding in Christ.

How is Jesus Body different than ours? The physical body of Jesus never participated in sin, and Satan was unable to get Him to participate. Satan was unable to get Jesus to yield His members as instruments of unrighteousness. Therefore, the Prince of the Power of the Air was unable to ingrain into Jesus' flesh patterns and propensities of sin and selfishness and pride. Yet, Jesus' body was still a corruptible mortal body, yet without sin, having never participated in sin.

We come into the world with a full set of god-given desires (I did not say godly desires), and there is nothing wrong with them, but they are soon corrupted by the prince of the power of the air. We are open channels. Many liken a baby to a blank hard disk and hardware that just needs to be programmed. But, who will do the "programming"?

How is Jesus Body different than ours? The physical body of Jesus never participated in sin

We come into the world with a full set of god-given desires (I did not say godly desires), and there is nothing wrong with them

Satan does not indwell the Christian within the "flesh,” and we are not
trying to oust him. Christians should not despise their God”given body or their God”given desires

When we get to believing that the physical body is simply a carton then we have no need to look at the carton itself to examine what manner of thing it is.

Just-In the human body is corrupt, fallen from the place of perfection in which it was originally created and it is in this condition from the instant of conception in the womb.

Far from being a neutral thing of perfection it is a corrupt and broken vessel which in the very DNA is guaranteed to lead to sinful aberrant behaviour. Satan doesn't have to lead anyone into sin, men sin quiet naturally in their own bodies. Satan's principle activity is to deceive men because he wants to be their god. This is not in some abstract of mere philosophy of the mind so that men foolishly follow his lies. It is physical and literal in sight and visibility of his person.

When I wrote of the curds and the honey which are given to Christ at the point at which He knows how to choose good and to reject evil I didn't have in mind some abstract thing. The revelation to me in this regard has been a revelation which speaks of how the Lord experienced life itself in His own family, in particular the way He was treated and dealt with by His own family and His own neighbours. In short Jesus had a beautiful and perfect family life at peace with His own step father and mother, His brothers and His sisters and His neighbours.

I also believe that Jesus was genetically perfect according to the same perfection that was in Adam before his fall into sin and death. In this I really do mean that Jesus was a perfect man without blemish of any physical kind whatsoever. Just as the pascal lamb had to be unblemished.

Medical science now knows with no doubting it that the human genome is corrupt. Not that it is developing and has some way to go, but rather that it is corrupt. This corruption can be as little as a single chemical or photonics switch and this of itself will lead to deformity, abnormality and aberrant outcomes. Much of what is called psychology is false, but at the heart of iterative behavioural psychology lays a growing understanding of physical reality at the genetic level and a realisation that these abnormalities give rise to pathological outcomes. What psychology therefore calls behaviour in many instances, God calls sinful behaviour because it is behaviour which stands in opposition to God Himself and amounts to disobedience. It is in the first instance the disobedience of Adam. By Adam we inherit this physical reality. It is this which is passed down to each and every generation without exception because we are all of that one man Adam.

We have learned so much in the last ten years regarding the human genome that this knowledge is now being translated into material reality outside of the body. There is now a part of the internet which is being experimentally managed by devices which operate at a nano level, allowing information to be silently switched from one continent to another with a single atom serving as the switch. Just one single rubidium atom can now serve as the switch mechanism for light to pass through photonics polarity and send a chain of electronic events (data) to the left or to the right. Quantum mechanics allows for the switch to be open and closed at the same time.

This is rather like behaviour, men can be both passive and egressive, hateful and compassionate in a single outworking of reason.

The human body is not a carton waiting to be driven it is a life of its own and it drives out of sight and out of mind. Only now is this being discovered by placing man made devices inside the human body and observing these things in the very fabric of the body itself. The thing being measured at this level is light. The thing over which the light has its way, is flesh.

If the light that it in us is darkness, how great is the darkness?

It may well be possible to argue any number of things regarding the physical body whether that of Christ or that of all other men, and to ask the question as to what if any the difference may be. What cannot be denied however is that from the womb men are ruined physically in the most fundamental parts of their bodies. The blood which flows through our veins carries the evidence of it chemically and the physical material of the brain and the nervous system are its fibres.

God did not make Adam in a state of ruination. All that God made was good. You so easily skip over these things by using terms such as 'God given desires' and then qualify this by saying not 'Godly desires'. Again you make an allusion by saying, 'There is no "evil, dirty old man" living in you' as though the implication of behaviour were simply a matter of choice. Rather you ought to have spoken of the old man crucified in Christ. The physical body is not the whole man, the whole man is more than the physical body. It must be clear that the body itself cannot be the source of all our problems nor the entire basis for sinful behaviour. But to deny physical reality as though the physical body is perfected the instant we believe is to deny the reality that the body is in sin and death and will perish and return to the dust.

No doubt you will be happy to know that I have no further desire to pursue this conversation. I simply wanted to hear what you really believed. I have to tell you Just-In that your strong emphatic assertions which have given rise to my questions remain, but the questions themselves you have not so much as spoken to one of them.

DNA you can never get rid of but the powers of darkness can be cast out. After that, the flesh must be controlled and reigned in by new management (walking after the Spirit.

Men will not be able to blame God for DNA. How did Satan impregnate man and mix his DNA in man? Satan is a spirit after all and DNA is flesh and blood.

The "implication of behavior" is not just a matter of choice, but who you are abiding in. We are not independent creatures, we look outside ourselves for spiritual life (in Satan's case it is masked as life but is really death).

Part of it is choice, but who are we choosing? Whose character are we choosing to abide in and imbibe into our being?

Modern theology leaves out the role of Satan in the lives of men and this the Enemy has deftly covered up. He is an absolute master in hiding his role of turning men away from God and towards him. I don't leave out the body. The body is only an instrument that man by his choice (mind, will) yields to God or Satan. When you yield yourself to someone you are agreeing to make a home for that spirit. That is why the Pharisees were filled with the spirit of murder when they yielded to it.

The physical body is not perfect in the sense that you are trying to make it. It is corruptible and a prisoner (you could say) to this world. It cannot be spiritual on it's own and it cannot be evil on its own. It requires a soul that is deriving its identity from either Christ or Satan. This soul makes choices, and yes many choices are based on the desires of the flesh, and participating in excess (of the flesh). Other choices are based on the Enemy whispering his lies to us so that we yield more and more of our being to him. He would like us to open doors wide open to him so that he can establish strongholds in us. Many people are living normal, fleshly lives and know basic right and wrong. They are tempted to do "little" lies and "little" sins, but use their will to say NO to murder, rape, adultery. However, in these last days, men are breaking down and seducing spirits are being unleashed so that society itself is crumbling. For instance, the spirit of adultery has made big inroads into the church as people have yielded to it. This is not men, just giving into their fleshly desires. There is a very strong, unseen spiritual component at work.

Most people would call us crazy if we told them their father is the devil and the lusts of your father you are doing. A father implies relationship and Jesus knew this and purposely used that term to the Pharisees who had not yet killed him. To that point, they were just lying and being hypocritical.

The body cannot inherit the incorruptible, because it is flesh. That is what the Bible says. It does not say the body cannot inherit the incorruptible because it is stained with sin.

God purifies our mind and heart by His Spirit and His Word, it is up to us to clean our vessel (yield it to God).

Just-In I will try one more time to respond to your own comments and write as plainly and as clearly as I can. I must say that I am astonished at the lack of meaningful communication which is evident here, and genuinely do not understand it. But here goes for the very last time.

Everything God made is good and that includes the flesh. Our bodies express the righteousness of God as He said in the garden, "...it is good". The problems come when we walk after the flesh, when we choose to live in the lower realm of the natural/flesh rather than the higher realm of the spirit. As a sinner, I had no choice in this matter, but as a child of God, born of the spirit, I can choose.

Perhaps you do not see this but behind this saying of yours is, at very least, an implication that the body itself is free from the power of sin. It is a meaning that every human being is born with a good body. The confusion appears to lay in the idea that it is in 'eating' of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which makes for a distinction in conduct. Yet I have said clearly, as do countless of other saints, that the body itself is no longer a matter of being good, or of itself being intrinsically evil, but rather it is a matter of sin and death working in the members of the body itself.

The false Catholic doctrine of the sinful nature has brought a lot of confusion, hopelessness and defeat into the church.

This false doctrine which you are speaking about is in essence attributed to Augustine.

There can be no confusion in your mind Just-In as to what I am saying or what you yourself are saying. Nor can there be any confusion as to what I mean or what you yourself mean.

I do know that the doctrine of the sinful nature of man is deeply entrenched in the "Christian Religion." But I also believe it is an odious lie from hell to keep people from repentance and righteousness which is pleasing to the Father. sidewalk

Your response Just-In to sidewalk was:

Yes, Sidewalk and this doctrine keeps many from believing they can overcome sin.

I have pressed, what on the face of it is the teaching of Augustine for some three pages in this thread, you have now said to me:

The physical body is not perfect in the sense that you are trying to make it.

Yet what I really said was:

What cannot be denied however is that from the womb men are ruined physically in the most fundamental parts of their bodies. The blood which flows through our veins carries the evidence of it chemically and the physical material of the brain and the nervous system are its fibres.

You said:

It [the physical body] is corruptible and a prisoner (you could say) to this world. It cannot be spiritual on it's own and it cannot be evil on its own.

How can I make sense of your posts Just-In if you press ideas which cross over boundaries and meanings and at the same time you believe that what I have said stands in complete contradiction to what I did say? The real issue is not whether the body is evil or not. The issue is whether the body is a vehicle and power of sin or not.

I asked you what is the meaning of the scripture which speaks of the law of sin and death. You have not answered it as far as I can see. The reason I asked this is because I am trying to draw out what you really mean when you agreed with sidewalk that physical depravity is a doctrine from hell. By saying this you condemn the vast majority of believers to an accusation of being false. You did the precise same thing regarding the tithe thread. Yet even there no one in that thread actually defended it in clear terms. No one said I believe that tithing is a requirement of God. All we got was condemnation based on the greed of a few men.

To me the really bizarre thing is that I agree with you on much of what you have shared. The difference lays in what I discern to be something other than. In the end that too will become clear as well, even if in the mean time another choses to make good his support. These things have a way of being brought to an end by our own hands.

There is no doubt that this subject is a difficult one, but there is also no doubt that the Scripture is clear that, "the heart is wicked and deceitful above all else” (Jeremiah 17:9). Clearly the heart in this verse does not have to do with the physical body; it is to do with the soul. The wickedness and deceitfulness has to do with unbelief or else a refusal to acknowledge God, Who is "clearly manifest through the things He has created” Romans. Universalism as a doctrine or a teaching is built upon the idea that because men cannot but sin therefore God Himself would be unjust to condemn anyone who sinned simply because they are sinners by nature. It is a claim that this would be unjust and must be therefore incompatible with a just and loving God. Added to this is the modern day teaching that because Christ has died for sin, there is no sin for which eternal consequences can be accounted to any individual, as this would itself be a denial of God’s love which sent Christ to the Cross for sin.

The Scripture teaches that the sin nature is the physical body and the soul becomes sinful insofar as it is governed by the lusts of the flesh. Once this dominion is achieved even the heart, mind and will are taken captive and become carnal by nature as well. Only new birth offers a man the opportunity to overcome this carnal mind and sinful body, by the renewing of the mind as well as by the Cross of Christ through personal experiential identification with Christ’s death and resurrection. What Nee teaches is that the soul does not always sin; not that the soul is sinless. This is different to the reasoning of Augustine who asserts that a man must wilfully sin in order to be accounted a sinner.

Nee teaches that men do not sin in the first instance because they "will” to sin in some particular way or other, but that men sin in the first instance because they are sinners by nature. The singular distinction which Nee draws is a distinction between Spirit, Soul and Body, not simply Soul and Body. So that in Nee’s teaching it is possible to draw a distinction between the inevitability of sin arising from the body (the law of sin and death working in our members) as well as the soul which is governed by bodily lusts and desires, and the possibility that the soul can through a regenerated spirit do that which is not sinful by the governing principle of resurrection life having dominion over the whole man. In this view the unregenerate man will inevitably sin both in the body and the soul, i.e. thoughts and desires; (though even the unregenerate man does not always sin) but the regenerate man can have a renewed mind as well as victory over his body through the Cross of Christ. To that extent I believe Nee is arguing that the soul is not intrinsically evil. The soul does sin, but it has the possibility of becoming free from sin by the renewing of the mind, so that "you may prove that acceptable and perfect will of God”. In contrast the body must be "borne up unto death daily”. The soul is able to "do God’s will” whereas the body must become subject to the "death of the Cross”.

In Augustines argument sin is only sin where the will to sin is recognised. This leaves room for the possibility that a person can claim to be sinless before God simply because they do not wilfully sin, without the need to repent of sin, and this because Christ has died for sin. It is sin which arises from the nature or else the consequence of Adam's sin. This is the historical root of Universalism as we know it today.

Then in finality you say:

Most people would call us crazy if we told them their father is the devil and the lusts of your father you are doing. A father implies relationship and Jesus knew this and purposely used that term to the Pharisees who had not yet killed him. To that point, they were just lying and being hypocritical.

So in finality you clearly believe that all men and women everywhere have a relationship with Satan and Jesus purposefully said to the pharisees who were seeking to kill Him 'your father is the devil' as proof of this fact. Otherwise Just-In why say that, 'most people would call you crazy if you told them that their father is the devil.'

The words "your father is the devil” is spoken to a few men, not the whole of humanity. Moreover it is spoken specifically to a number who are said to have believed in Jesus.

It was the exceptional nature of their accusations of the Lord which proved this fact and later resulted in a few of these men being cut off from life. Satan is called the father of lies. Those who believe his lies become his children in that respect alone. Those who believe lies speak lies. Jesus was simply showing the Pharisees and the Jews in generality that their believing that the good things which He did in full visibility was in reality the evidence that He had come from the Father. In contrast their believing that his words concerning knowing Abraham, demonstrated that Satan had become their father, because they had believed his lies. When men become so absorbed in the world so that the ruler of this world influences their very thoughts in defiance of the visible evidence of God, those same people become increasingly more and more demonic in their thinking

In the end Jesus calls Abraham their father.

""You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. "Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” The Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. "But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges. "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.” The Jews said to Him, "Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.’ "Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”” (John 8:44”“56, NASB95)

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”” (John 8:44”“56, NASB95)

Jesus is telling the Pharisees in actual practice you are behaving like your father the Devil. After the discourse, Jesus refers to their human relation, Abraham to make a point. But their spiritual relation and whose behavior is being exhibited in them, is their father the Devil.

That is not hard to understand why Jesus is using these two examples. From a human point of view, Abraham is their father, from a spiritual point of view, Abraham is not.

Mat_23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

Regarding the "law of sin and death" referred to in Romans 8:2.

The law spoken of here is not implying something that is written down or even spoken. It is not a judicial pronouncement but a rule of action. It is common in language to attach the word law to any working principle that maintains a consistency of operation. When we refer to the "law of nature" or the "law of jungle" we are not referring to any written dictate.

The "law of sin and death" is universally known and reflected in all religions. It is observable to anyone that the "wages of sin is death, the soul that sinneth shall die".

Let's look at all the ways in which Paul uses the word, "law".

Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Why is Paul using the law in various ways? He is discussing the conflict between the Law of God and the flesh. He shows that it is not by coincidence that we are all overcome by sin. Sin finds such fertile ground in the flesh that it operates so consistently in competition with the Law of God. This is why is qualifies as a RULE OF LAW.

THE LAW OF SIN
is not an entity. By that I mean that the law of sin cannot be measured and located. It is not a thing in itself. It is not a force or power with independent identity. It is only a manner of speaking, a way of defining a pattern of behavior.

LAW if SIN in MY MEMBERS
This is indwelling sin, indwelling the flesh. The flesh is so given to sinful indulgence and excess that one can predict with certainty that unaided flesh (without the Spirit of God) will consistently indulge.

THE LAW OF THE MIND
The mind is the normal function of the natural intellect. Paul is not saying that his mind is governed by a law of necessity outside the normal functioning of the intellect. The law of the mind is not some alien force or some constraint foreign to his humanity. It was the normal function of his intellect. The best his natural intellect could offer when viewed as a trend or pattern was called the law of the mind.

The LAW of SIN and DEATH
This is the innate moral law that assures us that all sin terminates in death. Like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it operates consistently without the need of divine oversight. At yet, though it is a law of nature, it is not without divine oversight.

The LAW of WORKS
The law of Moses was a law of works, also called the Law of God, but he is not referring to any written law, rather to the theoretical concept that one approaches God by works. Only one man has ever effectively operated under the law of works, Jesus Christ.

The LAW of FAITH
The law of faith was coined by Paul to contrast the law of works. "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. (Rom 3:27). The law of faith is the operating principle of faith, not a commandment.

The LAW of LIBERTY
"So speak ye and so do, as they that shall be judged by the LAW OF LIBERTY (James 2:12)" The law of liberty is not a commandment. It is that liberty in which a believer operates. It is the working principle of faith and grace in a believer. The law of liberty and the law of faith are in the same vein as the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus. The law of faith is the principle by which we are saved and the law of liberty is the relationship we continue and sustain in God. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is the source of our power and our authority. The "law" are terms from Paul that describes aspects which motivate, guide and empower the believer.

The LAW of the SPIRIT of LIFE in CHRIST JESUS
is set over against the law of sin and death as a competing, overruling law. This term cannot be found anywhere else in Scripture. It is a working principle, a rule of relationship that involves the believer in overcoming sin in the flesh. In our walk of holiness we are required to yield, submit, put off, put on, mortify the deeds of the BODY, set our affection on things above, let this mind be in you, and sin nor more.

The believer has an obligation he must meet or suffer the consequences.

Rom 8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

If we try to pull all these laws together we see that it was Paul's mind to obey the LAW of GOD, but the LAW of SIN, which was in the members of his fleshly body, was inclined to walk after the desires of the flesh and so prevented him from reaching God through the LAW of WORKS. The LAW of SIN and DEATH took affect and Paul came under condemnation. He cries out for deliverance from his bondage.

Christ comes in HUMAN FLESH and is made under the LAW of GOD. He lives by the LAW of WORKS and overcomes. But, then he took upon Himself the LAW of SIN and DEATH and came under the curse of the LAW of GOD and raised by the SPIRIT of LIFE in Christ Jesus.

The LAW of FAITH is preached to PAUL and upon believing, Paul is given the Spirit of God. He is taken out from under the LAW of WORKS and is placed under the LAW of LIBERTY. He then found that what the LAW of HIS MIND could not do in regard to the LAW of WORKS, the LAW of the SPIRIT of LIFE in CHRIST JESUS does very well.

Additional verses on the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in NEWNESS of LIFE.

Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the SPIRIT IS LIFE because of righteousness.

2Co 4:10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
2Co 4:11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the LIFE ALSO OF JESUS might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but THE SPIRIT GIVETH LIFE.

That same SPIRIT that raised Christ from the dead, the SPIRIT of NEW LIFE, that SPIRIT that is the LIFE OF JESUS, the very life of GOD, now dwells in the believer and functions in the place of his own spirit. That day to day function of that Spirit within is called the LAW of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

Sidewalk I just posted a reply to Andrew when you posted. Did not want you to miss it.

For me, my real life in Christ began when I took full responsibility for my own sin and stopped trying to blame it on the sinful nature I was taught to believe in.

Same thing for me. In fact, that is what Romans 7 is about. Paul, realized that He could be set free from the "motions of sins which were by the law, that worked in his members".

Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. Once Paul had a greater power in his life, he realized it was his responsibility now to maintain his vessel in purity.

1Th_4:4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

Jesus never would have commanded we turn from sin if it were not possible. I do believe He has a legitimate right to expect righteous behavior from those who belong to Him, even as they finish their courses in the corruptible earthly bodies they live in.

In fact, He emphatically states that "sin SHALL NOT have dominion over you" (Rom 6:14) and charges us with, "Let not sin therefore reign in your MORTAL BODY".

For me, my real life in Christ began when I took full responsibility for my own sin and stopped trying to blame it on the sinful nature I was taught to believe in. Prior to this I was indeed a child of hell, resembling the other offspring of Satan if I could use that description. I sinned because I liked it, I wanted it, and did not cultivate restraint in my heart. I called myself a Christian, but there was no peace inside to corroborate that.

There was, and never will be, a time that men can take responsibility for their own sin. If it were possible Christ died in vain. I don't doubt your own experience. What I doubt is that your experience taught you the truth. Truth does not come by experience it comes by revelation of God. The first time I comprehended truth was the hour I first believed. Then I threw everything else into the bin and read the scriptures. If there is no such thing as a corrupt nature then the natural body is after all a pure vessel and sin and death are but fictions of the devil. I see that it has been said that the first man Adam was without corruption and yet he sinned. So he did sin and at the point he sinned he died. When he had sons they were flesh of his flesh.

Though heresy seems to be of little consequence now in this place it is of great consequence to me to be restrained by a cry to heavenly wisdom to an end of a peaceable spirit, in order to lay down with demonic wisdom. I want no part in it.

You appear to have gone mad.

Experience can confirm God's word but never prove it wrong.

by amrkelly on 2014/4/12 20:15:13
There was, and never will be, a time that men can take responsibility for their own sin.

That is an interesting statement. One I would expect from an addict or someone not free from the power of sin. Are you sure that is what you mean?

If men are not required to take responsibility for their sin, does that mean all will be saved? I did not think you believed that. So, if some men are not saved, does that mean God is holding them responsible for something?

I thought it was salvation that was Christ' responsibility. Sure, I could not pay for my sins, but would pay for them if I was not IN CHRIST. All you have to do is read the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation to understand God's requirements. Actually, one's sins outside of Christ only represent that they rejected Christ and that is why they will be eternally apart from Him.

by amrkelly on 2014/4/12 20:17:17

You appear to have gone mad.

Brother, I have never been angry at you.
:-)

This is as clear as I can say it, Andrew.

The old man/self is obviously self oriented.

What is flesh? It is self-oriented, self-preserving, I,ME,MY, earthly, of this world, natural, cannot please God, cannot inherit immortality.

Flesh is selfish by nature and antithetical to divine life. Flesh seeks its own fulfillment and desires. Flesh only cares for itself.

Flesh can contain divine life which will then in turn bring the flesh under control for godly activities and endeavors.

Accepting that substitutional death of Jesus Christ, the Christian identifies with the substitutional death of Christ as the death of the old man identity (Rom. 6:6), allowing him to be "dead to sin" (Rom. 6:2,11), to the world (Col. 2:20), to Law (Rom. 7:3,4; Gal. 2:19) and to the flesh (Gal. 5:24).

We have put off the old man/old self identity and put on a new man/new self identity, as a new creature in Christ. It is His Life we have put on. He is the New Man replacing our old man/self.

Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

I think the baptism in the Holy Spirit had a lot to do with your new understanding, Sidewalk. You have a great testimony. I love hearing testimonies where God kept someone from terrible sin. Trust me, you don't need the experience in being a gross, heathen sinner to know and love God. Your love for Him is evident and I encourage you to keep pouring it out on people even as you are doing. You don't get any more chances to do that in eternity.

I encourage you to keep pouring it out on people even as you are doing. You don't get any more chances to do that in eternity.

In eternity we will not be able to pour out anything on people! That is true! Very true! It is also true that in eternity we will have to give an account for that which we have poured out now. Those 'new' truths and 'new' understandings, which we so freely express and which others encourage us to express are the things to be tested here and now if we are to escape having to account for them in eternity. That's the thing about experience, it is personal and cannot give rise to truth. If by truth we really mean experience than we are not speaking about truth at all. We are speaking about ourselves.

You have an unusual talent Just-In for saying that which cannot be but an offence but at the same time taking the love of Christ as your shield.

That is an interesting statement. One I would expect from an addict or someone not free from the power of sin. Are you sure that is what you mean?

If men are not required to take responsibility for their sin, does that mean all will be saved? I did not think you believed that. So, if some men are not saved, does that mean God is holding them responsible for something?

Instead of playing with riddles Just-In, which things you do not comprehend, why don't you simply say what you intend to say? If you do not believe something then why say it at all. Especially when speaking directly to a man! There seems little true purpose in asking that which is already refuted.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=45436&forum=36&9

You missed my name in a thread in which it was cited twice by those who are willing to use it and then you say you didn't know my name. Perhaps you simply do not read what others say Just-In. Given that this man is 'another' then I can only believe that you do not really read what I say either. That seems to be clear enough and I asked you to explain this by showing you that you go too and fro between those things you do 'see' and miss the essential meaning altogether. In that you contradict yourself repeatedly. My understanding Just-In is clear enough and my position is clear as well. I am not one for hiding behind words but tend to use words to make my own position clear. The only time I do otherwise is when I am setting a snare for a man's feet. Then by definition it becomes necessary to say things in such a way that the truth is not impugned, but the man is caught out by seeing another thing altogether.

None of this really matters in explanation I just want you to know it Just-In.

That is an interesting statement. One I would expect from an addict or someone not free from the power of sin. Are you sure that is what you mean?

The statement to which you are referring is:

There was, and never will be, a time that men can take responsibility for their own sin.

How could I say something so clearly Just-In and not mean what I have said. I am not a little child or a youth that I would speak such words suddenly and rashly. Why do you doubt them? Why even question them?

It may be because you have an impure understanding of truth. You mistakenly associate natural ideas with spiritual truth. Yours is a mix of experience and revelation. I take no experience to be a valid basis for understanding truth about Christ or the ministry of Christ to men. Telling a man, whose name you could not even comprehend when it was written on the same page you were reading from, that his words reflect those of a drug addict or a man yet caught in the power of sin, is a novel approach to questioning whether a thing is intended or not.

Put your mind at rest Just-In I am neither a drug addict or a gross sinner. I am a sober man who consumes no drugs at all, even though I have consumed many drugs in the service of Satan for sorceric purposes, I have not, nor am likely to do so in Christ. I do not consume alcohol, though I believe others can in moderation. I live a simple and peaceable life with my wife and children along with four generations of my family.

Could I also ask you to resist laying hold of childish meanings.

In saying that you appear to have gone mad I was not speaking like a child. I was speaking like a fully grown man. Children associate madness with anger. The Lord expressed anger. Satan is mad. Madness equates to rage. Anger equates to reasonable emotion. Be angry but sin not in your anger.

Just-In I am not a little child why would I be concerned even if you were angry with me? Be angry if that seems reasonable to you. Stop playing these subtle games with me. I am not deceived Just-In. I have said it before and I now say it again. The distance of thousands of miles does not a veil make which cannot be drawn back.

I am with Sidewalk on this. The Scriptures seem very clear to me and I have laid out many, many of them. When I left the Catholic church I left the heresy of original sin along with baptisms of infants. It was the Word of God that set me free. You have to stretch, twist and mangle the word for original sin and the case is never laid out clearly. We are not born sinners, we sin after we are born. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", not "ALL are born sinners and fallen short of the glory of God."

Those who engage in ad hominem attacks do so because they cannot lay out their case according to the simplicity of God's Word.

I am agreement with you (Sidewalk and Sree).

The flesh cannot please God.

Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

That is pretty clear to me.

If Paul and those he was writing too knew that there was something innately evil in the flesh besides the fact that flesh is earthly, natural and knows nothing about the spirit or how to please God, then he would not have said:

"Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

It would not have made sense to even make that statement.

Same with this verse:

Php_3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I MORE:

Paul would not even have said this if it was general knowledge back then that the flesh was intrinsically evil and had some boogeyman lurking in some deep dark cave inside the man. That thought process is not even known in the Old Testament. Certainly, not the Early Church as attested to from the Scriptures. So, I believe the Early Church had no concept of the Roman Catholic doctrine of "original sin" and likewise the doctrine of "total depravity". I draw my conclusions from the Apostle's letters written to the churches.

There is no need to add to what is already plain in scripture.

Gal 5:16-17 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Paul then talks about the works of the flesh:

Gal 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, THAT THEY WHICH DO SUCH THINGS shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Notice that Paul is making a connection with DOING these things, not BEING these things.

These things do not exist in your flesh just waiting to happen. Like Sree said, you conceive sin in your heart and then YOU DO THE WORKS OF THE FLESH. Using your mind and will you yield yourself to temptation, conceive sin in your heart and then yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness. The same members you can yield as instruments of righteousness.

The flesh is weak and needs the Spirit of God to govern it and employ it in godly endeavors. Evil is not resident in your flesh. There is not some boogey man, hiding in your flesh. Christians are not schizophrenic, at least they are not supposed to be from my understanding of the scriptures.

The flesh is weak and needs the Spirit of God to govern it and employ it in godly endeavours. Evil is not resident in your flesh. There is not some boogey man, hiding in your flesh. Christians are not schizophrenic, at least they are not supposed to be from my understanding of the scriptures.

The question ought to be then is schizophrenia a physical illness based on physical determinants which if triggered into an outward consequence of both mind and behaviour produce this illness of the body and mind. I'll leave you to research that one. Is seems an unlikely thing to assert that the flesh is fundamentally evil. It seems complete folly to make of the flesh a mere envelope. Not only this when the scripture speaks of flesh the term is used for both the physical body and the soul. The physical body if more than mere biology, it is flesh. Still with the way things go too and fro, it seems of no consequence whatsoever. Everything is simply defeated and made of no value.

Addition

Given my own personal interest in schizophrenia which is present in generations of my own family on my mothers side I thought that I would add something which reflects a straight forward and simple explanation for this disease and show how medical science deals with the complexity of what lays at the root of schizophrenia physically, and environmentally. This interplay between genetic (physical) reality and environmental factors such as the induction of toxins or else drug abuse and so on, in an individuals life experience, does in my own opinion correspond very well with what I believe the Scripture teaches about the power of sin and death.

Given the constant interplay of genes and environment - the greater the exposure to schizophrenia-linked environmental factors (e.g. lead exposure during pregnancy, birth complications, extremely high stress experiences in life while young, drug use while a teenager, etc.) the greater the likelihood that a person with a given level of genetic predisposition will actually develop schizophrenia.

This (above) statement is made by the world authority and research body into this terrible disease.

You could exchange the term schizophrenia and use the term sin and replace the terms, lead exposure during pregnancy, birth complications, extremely high stress experiences in life while young, drug use while a teenager etc, with sinning, and you would have most of the ingredients which give rise to either sin/schizophrenia. The implication for medical science lays in seeking to understand how diseases develop. This is not simply true in terms of the disease itself, but it is true in terms of the genetic predicators which make any disease more or less likely in any given individual.

No amount of behavioural modification will change what you are in essential physical make up. You simply have to live with what you are physically and exercise some wisdom in the way you live. Some physical diseases are certain and guaranteed because they are produced in the very structure of the gene itself, other diseases are multifactoral and only come about when the environmental conditions are met. Even these multifactoral genetic markers are implicit and exist in many more people than those people who eventually develop a particular disease, even when they experience the same environmental factors.

The great difference of course is that the Scripture tells us that there has been only one man in all of human history who has not sinned. If we insist that the physical body itself has no real bearing on sinful behaviour then we would have to explain how it is that every human being has sinned. We would also have to explain how, if sin has no physical foundation, did Christ Himself become sin on the cross? If sin is nothing more than the choices we make, or if the choices we make is no more than being led on by either God or Satan, as some insist, we would still have to ask why did He Who knew no sin, become sin for our sakes?

Before we answer that question we have to acknowledge that the great purpose and accomplishment of the cross was to take away the sins of the world and to reconcile all things both in heaven and on the earth, unto God. The Lord's body was prepared for Him as a sacrifice for sin. Why is it necessary to have a physical sacrifice at all? Without a physical body sin itself cannot be condemned to death. "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,” (Romans 8:3, NASB95)

If sin itself has no physical reality then sin itself cannot be condemned to death, nor can Christ Himself have become sin in his physical body. ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?

Many unbelievers think that God is a monster because He demands physical sacrifices. I have seen a number of people over the years look at me with total and complete disgust and offence because of the reality of physical sacrifices. They just do not get why Jesus Had to die a physical death in His own body. Why not live and just set a good example? Why the physical nature of His sacrifice? Why a physical body? What is more, neither do many believers understand why the Father prepared a physical body for His Son in the womb of a virgin. Jesus didn't come into existence at the moment of conception, He always existed as a true and full person with the Father and the Spirit. Of course every true believer knows that Jesus died in His body to reconcile all men unto God. I haven't seen very much in the way of believers expressing an understanding as to how the Father accomplished that reconciliation in terms of Christ becoming sin for our sakes in His own body.

To be perfectly honest Just-In if I had realised that you were seeing what I have shared through the lens of a Roman Catholic corruption of truth I would have resisted posting anything at all. But there we are. It cannot be helped now can it?

By schizophrenic, I mean Christians don't have 2 natures.

We need God's character and nature, not Satan's character and nature.

Is there a third alternative? Is man really an independent being or was he created dependent? Can he stand alone apart from God or Satan or was man created to derive his character from a spiritual source? What I see in the Bible is that man cannot remain neutral, apart from either God's character or Satans character. Agnostics and Atheists think man is independent and can remain neutral but we know whose nature they are expressing.

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, THE SPIRIT THAT NOW WORKETH IN THE CHILDREN OF DISOBEDIENCE:

1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that WICKED ONE TOUCHETH HIM NOT. (no mention of the flesh).

1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain, who was OF THAT WICKED ONE, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Who was Cain of? The wicked one.

2Co_11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye RECEIVE ANOTHER SPIRIT, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Receive another what?

Cain derived his nature/character from "THAT WICKED ONE".

Mat_13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are THE CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE;

Children have a father.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between THY SEED and HER SEED; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

We become the children of the devil, spiritually and we become the children of God, spiritually.

1Jn 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, AND THE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL: whosoever doeth not righteousness is NOT OF GOD, neither he that loveth not his brother.

I still don't see a third choice. So far, man is of God or of the Devil. I don't see man standing alone, but he is deriving his character/nature from only one of two sources.

Act_13:10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, THOU CHILD OF THE DEVIL, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

My former understand came from RCC and Calvinist teaching. My current understanding comes from the Scriptures.

Is there a third alternative?

You are the third alternative and guess what, there are fish too, and dogs and cats oh yes and birds. Do you suppose that a bird has a nature like a dog? Or a cat like a fish? Man is man is man is man.

Thanks for the usual nonsense of using words without proper meaning. It simply makes all my efforts a waste of time and how easily they are to ignore at that point.

Odd as it may seem I have noticed this problem before, and it is particularly rife in the USA. People simply cannot use the language they claim to speak. Still I ask myself 'Lord why must I do this Lord?" And a great voice cried out of the heavens "Because I want to you know how stupid they are". I was shocked as you can imagine, and then somewhat perplexed I said 'But Lord some of them are from English stock'. There was an unbearable silence for one hour. In finality the Lord sent an angel to me who said "'Behold! In His great mercy, the Lord has sent you his answer.'" 'Yes!' I said, 'what it is it?'. 'Precisely' said the angel. Such comfort! Those Limeys!

Thank God that i am an Irish Jew and not an Englishman, is all I can say!

Edit: Sentence added to the bottom.

When Jesus said, "not my will", He meant that He would not give into the desires of His flesh to save Himself from pain and death. We understand what He was saying. Jesus did not have two natures in Him. But, as you can see, He was born into human flesh just like you and me. And His flesh had desires that would have kept Him from God's will, had He not ruled His fleshly desires by the Spirit of God.

Getting back to the 3rd alternative.

We know there is the character of God and the character of Satan. What character does flesh have? The Scriptures are clear that flesh has desires and lusts, but character?

There are certainly characteristics about the flesh and we have been talking about them.

Satan will use our fleshly weakness and desires to exploit us with his character. He wants us to bow down to him and receive his spirit so he can control our flesh.

Does flesh have hate, does it have love?

Does flesh have gentleness and kindness?

Does flesh have malice and anger or is it simply a vehicle of malice and anger?

If we were independent beings like God and Satan, then we would be standalone little demons because what you are saying is that we can self-generate evil apart from the spirit that worketh in the sons of disobedience. And I and the scriptures are saying that we abide in Christ or anti-Christ, the Spirit of God or the anti-spirit, the counterfeit Christ". You don't stand alone as an independent producer of evil and Jesus made that clear to the Pharisees.

You are saying that we are self-generators of evil apart from Satan and don't simply need deliverance from the Devil. You are also implying that it was only necessary for the Devil to transfer his SIN_DNA to Adam and Eve and from that point on, there is no need for him, because Man became independent, little demons, self-generating evil. Yet, this DNA_EVIL gene seems to be weaker in some people and stronger in others. Why wouldn't we all be evil to the same degree?

I will get to why Jesus had to come and die in a body. The clue is that sin and disobedience was committed in the body.

Humans do not have a nature of their own. Instead, they derive the nature of the spirit or Spirit that indwells them. We are not self-operating selfs. We were once vessels containing Satan and now through the cross we are vessels containing Christ.

Jesus and the Father were one. Jesus said, "If you have seen me you have seen the Father". He was not speaking of Himself physically, but spiritually regarding His nature/character.

His nature/character was the same as the Father's.

2Co_5:19 To wit, THAT GOD WAS IN CHRIST, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Does flesh have hate, does it have love?

Does flesh have gentleness and kindness?

Does flesh have malice and anger or is it a vehicle of malice and anger?

Will the lion lie down with the lamb?

Will the wolf lie down with the Lamb.

Will the serpent lie down with a child?

The wolf without the kingdom devours its pray.

The lion without the kingdom tears its prey.

The serpent without the kingdom bites its prey.

The difference between us is a simple one and it is not a thing attending to theological heresies. It is a thing attending to the claim that men have no nature of their own and that this nature therefore cannot pass from father to son and into generations in its effect. It is in the first instance, according to my understanding, a nature which arises out of the very fabric of the body. Though in its fullest sense it is a nature which is expressed or evidenced more fully in thoughts, words and deeds.

This is, of course in your mind the same as saying, 'depravity', so of necessity it must be rejected. Or else it is the same as saying, 'sin nature' and so it must of necessity be rejected out of hand. What I am talking about however is another kind of thing altogether. It is not a pressing moral degeneracy onto a man because he knows not Christ. It is a pressing the real physical corruption which is in the very body itself. There are countless numbers of men and women who live moral and decent lives and have never heard the name of Christ. If of Christ they have not heard, how will they resist the devil of their own choice? They must according to you either be of the devil or of Christ.

When a Hindu obeys the law of his nation and steals not, it is because if he does steal, he will be called a thief, and suffer. The law of the Hindu in his nation sets in place a restraint of the law on the man's body and soul. The very same thing is evident in all nations. Israel was given the Law of God through Moses and were thus restrained by a measure which exceeded other nations at that time. Yet this law could not perfect the flesh. It simply served to prove the weakness of the flesh. This is perhaps why the apostle Paul chose coveting to cite his example and not theft. Or why the Lord Himself spoke of adultery being of the heart and not simply an action.

By flesh I mean the fleshy man of the body and of the soul. The soul itself is made a beneficiary of the Law, but the soul cannot be perfected by the Law.The body cannot be perfected at all. It is irreparably ruined and is condemned to everlasting dust. If there had been no physical consequence to Adam's sin, then apart from claiming that Satan became his compass in life, we would have to look to his offspring, because these three sons Cain, Abel and Seth are our evidence. Abel was a prophet, the first prophet. Cain became of the devil when he murdered his brother and Seth is given to perpetuate the line from which the Messiah is come.

Why does the Scripture tell is in Genesis chapter six that man had become flesh? At what point does a man become flesh? At what point does any man become flesh? We are all born of the same substance, yet sickness and disease have increased in the generations and men have gone from living a thousand years to living a mere seventy years. What manner of restraint is this which limited physical life to a mere thousand years, or less?

To my mind the answer to these questions lies in understanding that whilst the physical body is ruined, that ruination is not the cause of moral depravity, but rather the basis for the soul to enter into moral depravity. Else how does the blood lust of the lion become such that a lamb can lay down with it in peace? Unless you believe that every single lion is acting under an influence of Satan and taking on his nature then you would have to accept that the lion is driven by its own base (physical) instincts. How have those instincts come about. Did the lion ever sin? It is God Himself who has subjected creation to futility and it is God who has said,"in the day you sin you shall die."

Separation from God did not mean having no fellowship with God. Cain's words are clear enough.

"Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is too great to bear! "Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”” (Genesis 4:13”“14, NASB95)

To Whom was Cain speaking? To Whom did Cain go to find acceptance for his labours? He was doing no more than was commanded of his father.

"By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”” (Genesis 3:19, NASB95)

Sweat speaks of a ruined body. Sweat is the evidence that our father Adam sinned. It is the very least outward sign of an inward change and ruination. But this inward change continues and so sickness and disease, which is death, become more evident as time progresses. The behaviour of men grows worse and their very bodies become the evidence of it in outward conduct and inward lusts of the physical flesh. So in the end God Himself repents that he has made man, such is his condition. The sons of God put their seed into the daughters of Adam and a real physical change happens so that supermen are come into the word, yet their moral conduct is no less depraved than is the conduct of men.

It may seem like a great deal of efforts to make a simple and obvious point. But if we ignore this physical reality we ignore the fullest meaning and benefit of the cross. I don't suppose that we take the admonition of the apostles to flee from sexual immorality too seriously in the sense that we see why sexuality itself is so damaging. But the fact of the matter is evident. Wherever sexual immorality is practised, men become beasts and end up literally devouring one another. If men do that then Satan really does get a stronghold in their lives and then men can become demonic as well. I am not aware of any scripture which teaches us that the work of the devil is to tempt men to sin. In fact I believe the scripture teaches us that when we sin we do so from our own selves. We do not need the devil to tempt us to sin. Anymore than the lion needs Satan to devour its pray.

There is a letter which Miss M.E. Barber wrote to D.M. Panton in 1926 which was published in his magazine "The Dawn" It is a very clear example of how demons work to promote decency and restraint. If that sounds confusing I hope the letter will make it clear.

Dear Sir,

Your valuable article on "Testing the Supernatural” in the May Dawn has interested us deeply. Here in China demon powers are manifesting themselves in new ways; and even in the Churches there have been cases of evil spirits pretending to be Jesus Christ.

One case may be of interest. Last autumn, near Amoy, in a preacher's house one night, a voice was heard in the ceiling and a light appeared. The voice professed to be that of the former preacher who had lived in that house, and had died there twenty years ago. It soon became known all over the country-side that the old pastor was speaking from the roof of his former dwelling, to any who would go and hear, and crowds flocked day by day. The utterances were extraordinary full of Scripture; exhortations to live a holy life were frequent; and people of evil character dare not go, because no sooner were they seated, than the voice would address them by name, and ask them to repent of their sins. In most cases, sins known only to the person and the spirit addressing them were revealed.

There is a well known man in Amoy, a Chinese physician trained in America, and a real Christian. His fees were very high; and to his amazement, when he went to the house, the spirit called on him to repent of the sin of covetousness, and commanded him to reduce his fees. So great was the effect on him that he now treats poor patients for nothing and is in many ways a transformed character.

A brother who preaches the Gospel in the Amoy district came to see me and asked me if I did not believe that this spirit was really the voice of God. He said, "No one in Amoy, scarcely, doubts it; though a few missionaries perhaps may be a little sceptical.” I told him about testing the spirits, and advised him to use the test of 1 John 4:2. The spirit never becomes visible, but often a brilliant light is seen hovering over the house.

Ultimately the test was put by a worker we know and trust. After putting the test, there was silence for about half an hour; and then the voice said, "Read 1 Corinthians 13:13.” As you say in the article, the "not confessing” is sufficient proof of the origin of the manifestation. Many Chinese Christians have been utterly deceived; they well know the supernaturalism of heathenism, but it has never entered their heads that a demon could manifest himself in a Christian church, use Scriptural terms, exhort to goodness instead of evil, and press the reading of the Bible.

I am, etc.,
MARGARET E. BARBER

Things are not as straight forwards as we may think. We do not need the devil in order to desire or practise sin. It is a myth. When believed it will lead to a number of outcomes one of which lends itself to accusing God, another is to go to an extreme of neglecting the very physical body itself. Similarly making the physical body the focus, leads to aesthetic practises and in extreme cases lends itself to a heresy of believing the Gnostic mystics whose teachings include an account of the whole material world being corrupt and fallen. Make no mistake the world is ruined, in as much as it is subject to futility of decay and death in every living organism,of plants, animals and men. But to focus on that is to be without a true hope and to see that the cross itself and our inclusion in the old man being put to death in Christ body.

So for me Just-In it is not the body or the soul, it is both the body and the soul in their true parts.

Thank you everyone for all the questions, I have done my best to show from the Scriptures that man derives his character/nature from only one of two sources, there is not a third independent source. We are dependent creatures and cannot choose to stand apart from either God or Satan. We do not self-generate evil apart from the spirit that works in the sons of disobedience.

A Christian does not have two natures (evil/good), yet he does retain his own individuality and personality (Soul) in the Lord. If you want to call that his nature you can, but it is not evil. It has become damaged by sin because God is intending to save our souls.

1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

The desires of the spirit war with the desires of the flesh and vice-versa. The flesh is corruptible and seeks it's own, but can be a useful instrument by the Spirit of God.

The spiritual nature of man is the nature of the spirit who indwells him. Peter says that Christians are "partakers of the divine nature (phusis)" (II Peter 1:4). Prior to becoming Christians, Paul explained that we "were by nature (phusis) children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3).

We often hear references to "human nature" but it is more biblically correct to refer to someone's spiritual nature.

I think A.W. Pink said it pretty good.

"Since the fall this malignant spirit has entered into human nature in a manner somewhat analogous to that in which the Holy Spirit dwells in the hearts of believers. He has intimate access to our faculties... Satan can also affect from within. He is able not only to take thoughts out of men's minds (Luke 8:12), but to place thoughts in them, as we are told he 'put into the heart of Judas' to betray Christ (John 13:2); he works indiscernibly as a spirit." Gleanings from Genesis.

E.H. Bancroft, Elemental Theology.
"Unredeemed men are in helpless captivity to sin and Satan and are regarded as children of the devil."

Augustus H. Strong - Systematic Theology.
"Self-originated sin would have made man himself a Satan."

A.W. Pink - Gleanings From the Scriptures.
"...death brought its subjects under complete bondage to sin and Satan... They were not guided by the Holy Spirit, but energized and directed by the evil spirit..."

Daniel P. Fuller, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
"Satan rules in the hearts of all those who are not 'born of God' (I John 3:8f); they are called the 'children of the devil' (v. 10; cf. John 8:44). Prior to regeneration all were energized and motivated by the spirit of Satan (Eph. 2:2; cf. Acts 26:18). For the time being God has granted Satan a limited power over death, and Satan uses the fear of death to keep people in bondage to him (Heb. 2:14f.)."

L. Nelson Bell, "Christianity Today" magazine, March 31, 1972.
"There are two forces contending for our minds, wills and bodies. It is a solemn thought, and one we hate to admit, that we are either Satan's slaves or Christ's. I can hear the indignant rebuttal; 'I alone decide what I will do. I am the master of my fate, the captain of my soul.' But the Bible makes it plain that there is no third state of existence for man.
"In the spiritual realm, neither ignorance nor deliberate rejection can nullify the fact revealed in God's Word that our lives are dominated either by Satan or by Christ."

Russell Kelfer, "Decisions, Decisions, Decisions," tape #907.
"Satan's story to Eve in Genesis 3, and to Jesus in Matthew 4, was that you can live independently of God, that you can be your own god, set your own standards, let circumstances dictate your decision. BUT IT IS A LIE. Either God controls your life by your choosing to let Him, or Satan controls your life by your choosing (either by design or default) to let him. You and I were designed by God to be ruled by a spirit. Our choice is not whether or not to be ruled, but rather, by which spirit we will be ruled!"

Ian Thomas - Mystery of Godliness.
"Satan, who is the father of lies (John 8:44), invaded the soul of man. .. The behavior mechanism in man designed by God to be the means whereby he should bear the divine image, was prostituted by the devil to become the means whereby man would bear the satanic image, for 'He that committeth sin is of the devil..." (I John 3:8)...takes his character from the evil one"24

"In the absence of the Holy Spirit instructing and controlling his mind and his emotions and his will with Truth, Satan, who is the father of lies, invaded...man, usurped the sovereignty of God, and introduced this evil agency to pollute, corrupt, abuse and miuse his soul and so to twist and bend his will that the behavior mechanism in man, designed by God to be the means whereby he should bear the divine image, was prostituted by the devil to become the means whereby man would bear the satanic image..."
"...the first man, Adam, not only lost the Life of God, and ceased to be in the image of God, but his whole personality became available to the devil, to be exploited by him, producing a race of men whose ungodly behavior...is a demonstration of 'the mystery of iniquity'."25

"As godliness is the direct and exclusive consequence of God's activity, and God's capacity to reproduce Himself in you, so all ungodliness is the direct and exclusive consequence of Satan's activity, and of his capacity to reproduce the devil in you! ...iniquity is no more the consequence of your capacity to imitate the devil, than godliness is the consequence of your capacity to imitate God. You cannot begin to understand the mystery of godliness without beginning to understand the mystery of iniquity, because the principles involved are identical! When you act in obedience to the Truth, the Truth behaves, producing godliness; when you act in obedience to the lie, the lie behaves, producing iniquity! ..As God is the Author of Truth, so the devil is the author of deception; he is the big lie!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Natural man cannot reform, he needs an exchange, an exchange of the "spirit of error" for the "spirit of truth" (I John 4:6), the "spirit of the world" is exchanged for the "Spirit of God" (I Cor. 2:12), and the natural man is converted from "darkness to light, from the dominion of Satan to God" (Acts 26:18).

I think A.W. Pink said it pretty good.

What Arthur Pink is speaking about here may well seem appropriate as a means of refuting a belief in inherited sin and a sinful nature, but as with all things which we write one has to take them in context of what is fully intended.

Arthur Pink was a leading Occultist in his day and was a member of the Theosophical Society. He was in essential terms an Gnostic in the true and proper sense of what that means from an occult position. When he got saved he became a staunch Calvinist and believed in depravity.

From "The Total Depravity of Man" By Arthur Pink

"It should be quite plain from our definitions and descriptions of congenital sin that the human constitution is not merely negatively defective, but positively depraved. There are in man’s heart not only the lack of conformity to the divine law but a deformity. Not only is the natural man without any desire for holiness; he is born with a disposition which is now radically opposed to it. Therefore he not only has no love for God, but is full of enmity against Him. Sin is also likened to "leaven" (I Cor. 5:6-7). Sin is not only the absence of beauty, but the presence of horrid ugliness; not simply the unlovely, but the hateful; not only the want of order, but real disorder. As "righteousness" expresses objectively the qualities which constitute what is good, and "holiness" the subjective state which is the root of righteousness, so sin includes not only outward acts of transgression, but the evil and rotten state of the whole inner man which inclines to and animates those external iniquities. Very far from being only an "infirmity," indwelling sin is a loathsome disease."

The section which you have posted from is taken from this book. The following paragraph reads thus:

"One man can influence another only by external means, but Satan can also affect from within. He is able not only to take thoughts out of men’s minds (Luke 8:12), but to place thoughts in them, as we are told he "put into the heart of Judas" to betray Christ (John 13:2); he works indiscernibly as a spirit. As men yield to and comply with the devil’s insinuations, he gains increasing control over them, and God permits him to enter and indwell them, as Matthew 12:29 shows. When Satan would incite anyone to some particularly awful sin he takes possession of him. We read that the devil, after Judas had consented to the vile insinuation which he had put into his heart, "entered into" Judas (Luke 22:3), in order to ensure the carrying out of his design by strengthening the traitor to do his will. The word for "entered" is the same as in Mark 5:13 where the unclean spirits entered into the herd of swine, which brought about their destruction. Satan is able to "fill the heart" (Acts 5:3), giving an additional impulse to evil, as a person filled with wine is abnormally fired. But let it be noted that there is no record in Scripture of either the devil or a demon ever taking possession of a regenerate person."

What Pink is talking about here is something which is exceptional and not simply sin or sinning which is common to all men. Not only that but as the Apostle John tells us in his gospel, Satan had already put the idea to betray the Lord into his heart prior to this meal and prior to actually possessing him. It is one thing to be open to Satanic ariel influence because of a wicked heart, it is another thing to be actually possessed of him.

Judas was acting against Christ long before Satan took possession of him. As Gary said he was already sinning and planning to betray Christ. By this point of Satan entering Judas and possessing him, Judas had already agreed a price and been paid. The Lord called Judas a devil at the supper table and only then did Satan take possession of him. I suppose the difference may simply be that when a man acts in his own interests in defiant contradiction to an exceptional circumstance then he puts himself in the way of doing something which will go way beyond anything he is capable of desiring for himself. Did Judas actually intend that Christ be crucified? Or that Christ be ill treated when he was arrested to the point of being put to death? We don't know. All we do know is that once Judas realised the magnitude of what he had done he could not bear to live and took his own life.

In Luke 22:3 we read that Satan entered into Judas in order to plant the idea of betray and that this followed the Lord's words concerning being anointed with perfume for His burial. Perhaps in this we can see the strength of the effect of Satan when he is given ground in circumstances of extreme wickedness.

Nothing Arthur Pink is saying however detracts from a belief and realisation that men of themselves can and do sin or that the very condition of all men is congenital and not simple a matter of experiential sin and sinning. It seems to me that this is precisely where we have to rightly divide the word of truth. If we insist that every man woman and child is a child of the devil in the way you yourself intend that to mean, then we have gone a long way from what the Scriptures really tells us.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/depravity_nook.html

Just for clarification

"Then one of the twelve, named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, "What are you willing to give me to betray Him to you?” And they weighed out thirty pieces of silver to him. From then on he began looking for a good opportunity to betray Jesus.” (Matthew 26:14”“16, NASB95)

""She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. "Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.” Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went off to the chief priests in order to betray Him to them. They were glad when they heard this, and promised to give him money. And he began seeking how to betray Him at an opportune time.” (Mark 14:8”“11, NASB95)

There is some contention as to whether Judas was paid before the last supper or not. My point is simply that Judas was actively seeking to betray Jesus before Satan actually possessed him.

Yes, those quotes contained quite a various array of men.

And, isn't it interesting that men of all walks of life and Christian theologies, understand these same truths of Satanic function in men. Just so you did not think I was biased, I included quotes from Calvinists (Pink) and many other theologians in varying camps.

Still, people want to continue to deny the satanic function of the Devil within the natural man. They refer instead to an ambiguous "principle" of death, sin or evil that is supposedly operative in the person apart from Jesus Christ.

Let me ask you something, Andrew. If you can generate or originate your own sin or evil-character, then why can't you equally generate or originate righteous character? They are both independent and self-generated character.

If you can self-generate sin and evil then you are the Devil and there is no need for the Devil. However, if you can self-generate righteousness then you are God and there is no need for Jesus Christ. But, you are not the devil and neither are you God.

*******You are a dependent creature totally contingent on a spiritual presence for your spiritual nature. You will manifest the character of the spiritual person you are reliant on.********

Let me ask you another question: Can you sin apart from the personal sin-source of Satan? If there is evil apart from the Evil One, or death apart from the one having the power of death (DEVIL) or lying apart from the father of lies, then there must be life apart from the One who is Life, or truth apart from the One who said, "I am the Truth", there must be righteousness apart from the Righteous One. And there must be Salvation apart from the One who is the Savior. Maybe there is holiness apart from the Holy One.

But you and I both know that is nonsense. We would have to agree with Paul that "Christ died needlessly" (Gal. 2:21).

You think the Satanic function in natural man diminishes man's responsibility but it does not and it also did not diminish Adam's responsibility. Consequently, he suffered the consequences of receiving Satan's word over God's. Receiving and obey the word of God or Satan, receives them. That is how powerful one's intentional words are.

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

As far as spiritual sources go, Paul knows that we are "Not ...sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of (ek - out of) ourselves, but our sufficiency is of (ek - out of) God" (II Cor. 3:5). On the other hand, John writes that "he that committeth sin is of (ek - out of) the devil" (I John 3:8), and "Cain was of (ek - out of) that wicked one, and slew his brother" (I John 3:12).

by brothagary on 2014/4/14 15:41:56

i think just is it is not quite as simple as that

due to the fact that we actualy see the script say that satan entered judas at a point in time and at that time it was satan influencing him directly ,, before this it was judas own flesh and sinfull natural desires that comes from the flesh ,that even allowed access to satan him self ,,, the prinice and the power of the air the spirit that wrothest in the sons of disobedience is obviously not the same as satan entering and controlling a person

Hi brothergary,

It is that simple.

When Paul explains the spiritual condition and behavior of the Ephesians before they became Christians, he writes, "who were dead (spiritually) in your trespasses and sins, wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world (of which Satan is "god" - II Cor. 4:4), according to the prince of the power of the air (Satan), of the spirit (the "spirit of this world" - I Cor. 2:12) that now worketh in the children of disobedience (all mankind due to Adam's disobedience - Rom. 5:19). Among whom also we all had our conversation (behavior) in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature (the spiritual nature of the Evil One) the children of wrath, even as others" (Eph. 2:1-3). The natural, unregenerate man functions by spiritually deriving his nature from the spirit of Satan.

That is pretty simple! But ask yourself something? Does Satan want everyone/anyone to know this? Or is it better that we condemn ourselves over and over and over and over, and finally arrive at the place where we give up and just say, God does not expect us to overcome, it is mockery. And then they lose their faith because of bad theology that they were taught.

Remember, the name of this thread is "No more condemnation".

Just-In the only person here seemingly denying anything is myself and perhaps one other. The thing I am denying however is not that Satan can influence mens minds and therefore their actions, I am addressing something which is implicit in parts of this thread which if received would be profoundly detrimental to some people. Knowledge comes by many and varied means. As a matter of dread reality the most wicked men who have ever lived are those who have been exposed to the most light. Even Satanist read the bible and occultist believe much of it as well. This forum is a rich source of knowledge for the occultist. What we say has real consequences.

I am glad that you are showing a balance in your selections of men, but you can scarcely expect me to give context to every quote you have made. I will however if you want me too, and we will see what context can do for meaning.

Still, people want to continue to deny the satanic function of the Devil within the natural man. They refer instead to an ambiguous "principle" of death, sin or evil that is supposedly operative in the person apart from Jesus Christ.

As a former occultist, I know that Satan does posses men, and if not directly by his own spirit, by a deep root of wickedness driven down into their souls. Such occurrences are not easily understood, but of course they do happen. They happen in every society and community. Yet the characteristic of these things is not always as we imagine. Not all truly wicked men are hedonistically driven by their sexual and carnal appetites. Some are aesthetic and very moral men. Yet they perpetuate by philosophy truly dangerous and destructive insights and snares which lead other men to unimaginable blasphemies and cruel actions.

If you can self-generate sin and evil then you are the Devil and there is no need for the Devil. However, if you can self-generate righteousness then you are God and there is no need for Jesus Christ. But, you are not the devil and neither are you God.

Here is what Pink says:

"Unlike the Holy Spirit, the devil has no creative power. He can impart no new nature, but only avail himself of what is already there for him to work on. He avails himself of the constitution of man’s nature, especially of his depravity as a fallen being. He gives impetus and direction to man’s free but evil tendencies. Rightly did Goodwin point out that "as no man doth sin because God decrees him to sin, and therefore none can excuse himself with that; so no man can excuse himself with this, that Satan worketh in him."

Here then is the nature of human depravity as seen from the positive side. The fall has brought man into subjection to the power of death, into hopeless bondage to sin, into complete spiritual blindness. Man has become the bondslave of Satan. In that dreadful state he does not possess a particle of power to deliver himself or even to mitigate his wretchedness. In addition, his heart is filled with enmity against God."

And here is another quote from Pink which adds to it:

"Since the fall this malignant spirit has entered into human nature in a manner somewhat analogous to that in which the Holy Spirit dwells in the hearts of believers. He has intimate access to our faculties. and though he cannot, like God’s Spirit, work at the roots to change and transform their tendencies, yet he can ply them with representations and delusions which effectually incline them to fulfill his behests. He can cheat the understanding with appearances of truth, fascinate the fancy with pretenses of beauty, and deceive the heart with semblances of good. By a whisper, a touch, a secret suggestion, he can give an impulse to our thoughts and turn them into channels which exactly serve his evil designs. Men not only do what he desires, but he has a commanding power over them, as his being termed a prince plainly implies; and therefore they are said to be "taken captive... at his will" (II Tim. 2:26), and when converted they are delivered from his power (Col. 1:13). Yet he does not work immediately in all hearts, as the Holy Spirit does in the regenerate, for he is not omnipresent, but employs a host of demons as his agents."

You will have to read these comments by Pink really slowly and carefully, not once but perhaps three or four times to receive the intention or implication of the words themselves.

Pink is essentially saying that Satan is just one spirit. He cannot posses one man in Africa and then another man in China at the same time. He does however have at his command an innumerable host of unclean spirits who represent him and they can and do possess many people. Pink makes the point that these unclean spirits cannot change the roots of the condition which constitutes the essence and fabric of what a man is by nature. He says that these spirits can only seek for the consent and agreement of a man and in that consent and agreement they can deceive men into acting and especially believing in ways which actually agree with their own natural wickedness. In short Pink is not saying that Satan can make men wicked, he is saying that he uses the wickedness of men as his instruments. If you were to ask Pink therefore 'how is it that a man would agree with a wicked and sinful thing' he would have to answer 'because they are sinful by nature'.

Let me ask you something, Andrew. If you can generate or originate your own sin or evil-character, then why can't you equally generate or originate righteous character? They are both independent and self-generated character.

I can generate and agree with wickedness, and desire to sin, and do unspeakable things because it is in me to do it by reason of having no other power to do otherwise. I know not God. I walk in darkness and I am utterly and hopelessly lost. (Just for effect you understand)!

Did Cain murder Able? And so could I have done. The fact that this would have been in Satan's ambition as a murderer from the beginning is utterly irrelevant to what a man can do of himself if he is sufficiently aroused and angered in his own flesh. When Cain was angry do we ever ask what that actually means. When God said, "why has your countenance fallen" do we ask what countenance means? Anger is not an intellectual abstract. It is a physiological event which takes place in the very fabric of the body itself. We do not speak of 'feeling angry' for no good reason. If I were to say, 'I think I am angry' even I myself would doubt that I was. It was anger which was visible in the face of Cain. Countenance means appearance. It is the very same thing a small child comprehends when they see that we are angry. In explaining his encounter with God to Abel, Cain was once again stirred to anger, and this time he acted on it. 'Sin stands at the door, and you must master it". Do we really believe that God was telling Cain that he had to personally wrestle Satan down and master the prince of the power of the air and the ruler of this world?

You think the Satanic function in natural man diminishes man's responsibility but it does not and it also did not diminish Adam's responsibility. Consequently, he suffered the consequences of receiving Satan's word over God's. Receiving and obey the word of God or Satan, receives them. That is how powerful one's intentional words are.

I agree that no amount of activity of Satan removes the responsibility of men. However to follow on and say, or else imply that Adam obeyed the words of Satan in preference to those of God, in the direct sense you mean, is completely wrong.

"Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.” (Genesis 3:17, NASB95)

Eve did listen to the word of Satan, but even here she is not held accountable at all. It is the man Adam who is held accountable. Eve was deceived, which is Satan's chief activity, and through deceiving he is able to make use of both innocence and guilt. Such is the nature of deception. Adam of course was not deceived, and whilst it may well be necessary to properly understand why he disobeyed God, it is definitely not because he saw his big break from God. He was after all innocent and without the knowledge of good and evil. How could he possibly have even given thought to an evil thing. He wasn't deceived, so he wasn't even tricked in some terrible way. He literally and openly acted in his own will and the power of his own soul. In short he acted in disobedience and to do this disobedient thing he had to be motivated to act on his own behalf in disobedience to God. Was the motivation for this independent and disobedient action of itself sinful? Or was this motivation to act disobediently reasonable? If we actually knew what this motivation was, we would be better informed as to what constitutes ground for Satan to deceive us or else act against us once we have believed and received newness of life. But as to why we continue to sin, the only explanation is that we have something in us which is in the flesh and it gives ground to always doing the selfish thing if we walk in its power. Does Satan possess every one who has ever believed? Where then does the power come from to explain why regenerated believers sin. As John said, "we sin daily". What we don't do is practise sin.

Apart from that Satan didn't directly influence Eve based on some fault in her, he did it by possessing another creature altogether by reason of that creature giving place to possession. Regardless as to what is the meaning of serpent, it is a creature which both Adam and Eve saw no wrong purpose in, when it flew into the branches of the tree of knowledge. Did Eve know that she was in fact speaking directly with the prince of the power of the air? It is not very likely in my opinion. Do men know that they are actually serving Satan's purposes when they do evil things? You would be hard pressed to find a wicked man who knowingly serves Satan, let alone a man who is willing to be restrained by the laws of God in the nations.

Genesis 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Sin is a demon crouching at the door. Sin is not a generic enemy.

"He desires to have you, but you must rule over him."

When I refer to Satan, I mean any kind of demonic activity (demon spirits). You should know that.

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Sin is a demon crouching at the door. Sin is not a generic enemy.

"He desires to have you, but you must rule over him."

When I refer to Satan, I mean any kind of demonic activity (demon spirits). You should know that.

Is that it Just-In? I feel sure that you must realise that in the Hebrew:

הֲל֤וֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ וְאֵלֶ֨יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתוֹ֔ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל־בּוֹֽ׃

.....the word sin חַטָּ֣את means a sin against God and that the word הוּא, is translated variously "that”, "him”, "same”, "this”, "he”, "which”, "who”, "such”, "wherein” and "it".

I feel sure that with a little effort it would be possible to justify the use of the personal pronoun "him" and allude this to mean a demonic spirit. Yet even if it did become a demonic spirit in that direct sense of seeking to drive Cain to murder his brother, on what basis would the demon drive him? You are suggesting that Cain could have had either no power to resist because he is taking his direction from a demon which becomes his life force, or that he has to wrestle with a demon directly and defeat it.

And why is this only if Cain does not do well? Are we saying that if Cain did well his countenance would be lifted up? If we mean that then we are saying the truth, because that is what God has said. If we say that this lifting of his countenance would equate to being happy, then that too would be true no doubt. But tell me this Just-In since when did a man's happiness serve as a cover and as a protection from Satan? If Satan could have gotten Cain in the grips of his direct power amounting to being his driving energy and life, no amount of happiness would make a scrap of difference.

One final thing Just-In!

If sin is a demon then we are saying that Christ became possessed on the cross as a means of defeating sin, because He who knew no sin, became sin. How careful we have to be in these things brother.

We must remember that righteousness and life do not exist apart from Christ. They cannot be separated. "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." (1Jn_2:29)

And sin and death do not exist apart from Satan.
1Jn_5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, AND THAT WICKED ONE TOUCHETH HIM NOT.

1Jn_3:12 Not as Cain, WHO WAS OF (EK - out of) THAT WICKED ONE, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Jesus Christ is the personification of righteousness and life, as well, Satan is the personification of sin and death. Without Satan, there would be no sin. He is SIN. His very existence is SIN as he stands against God.

Satan used jealousy and envy to gain an entrance at Cain's "doorstep". Satan's reason? To destroy the Seed that would someday destroy him. Just like he drove Pharoah and Herod to kill children in the hope that the "seed" would be destroyed.

Cain would be happy if like Abel, he learned and did what pleased God which would have led him to rule over his enemy. Enoch knew that. But God rejected Cain's offering. "The works of the flesh” now began to be openly produced by Cain as he turns to the voice of Satan more and more: "enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger.” (Ga 5:19, 20).

What does John mean when he writes that "Cain was of that wicked one” when he murdered his brother, Abel?
- he had a "bad attitude”?
- he had evil motives?
- the devil made him do it?
- he was deriving evil character from the evil one?

Is John implying that the false-teachers "derive what they do from that wicked one” in the same way that Cain did when he slew his brother? (1Jn 2:18,19; 3:8,10)

If as you say, we have evil DNA passed on to us, then what of Abel? Better still, what of Enoch, who walked with God and was not?

Yes, sin is a person and fallen man derives their character from Satan and his demon spirits.

1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is OF (EK - out of) THE DEVIL (because he is the originator of sin); for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, THAT HE MIGHT DESTROY THE WORKS OF THE DEVIL.

The Church has ignored 1Jn 3:9 because they have been taught bad theology. They just skip over it because they have implicitly been taught they will always sin and I think that is why we have such a bad problem in the Church. It has just been accepted (sin) as a way of life.

1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Adam would not have sinned if there was no Mr. Sin (the Devil).

The power of sin is not your sin nature. Your sin nature is a poor synonym for old man or old self. That "old you" was crucified in Christ (Rom. 6:6). It is a past event. Before you were saved, it was as normal for your old man to rebel against God's authority as it is for a fish to swim. However, with salvation the new man (Christ's nature) hates sin (Rom. 7:15a, 19, 22). That's why the Bible addresses Christians 56 times as "saints" (holy ones) rather than sinners saved by grace like we've erroneously believed. Even the Corinthians, the most carnal church in the epistles, are called "sanctified" and "saints" (1 Cor. 1:2).

"Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil,” (Eph. 6:11).

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, SEEKING WHOM HE MAY DEVOUR:" (1Pet 5:8)

John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, AND HATH NOTHING IN ME.

Howard Pittman has an amazing testimony. Dying of an internal rupture, he left his body on the operating table and was heading towards a light when he heard a very sweet voice say, "stop breathing, stop breathing". But there was something peculiarly strange about that "sweet" voice and the Holy Spirit in him began to resist it, so he joined his will with the Lord's and began to resist it. It was not the voice of God at all, but the Adversary.

If it were possible even the Elect would be deceived. He is deceitful, counterfeiting everything that comes from God.

Yes, Sree.

Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh". He never allowed His flesh to participate in sin. He never yielded the members of His body to unrighteousness.

All "flesh,” in the sense of all men are in solidarity with the choice that Adam made, and thus in that sense we are all in a sinful condition. Without a doubt, men WILL sin. All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

We all have a collective condition described as "sinful flesh". Roman 8:3. God condemned "sin in the flesh". Is there any other place out of the flesh where sin occurs? No, all sin occurs in man, in the flesh.

Jesus was totally unlike any other man in that He did not partake of sin and consequently did not develop sinful patterns in His flesh. He was fully flesh and blood like any man without selfishness and sinful behavior.

brothergary,

There is no OT doctrine or Rabbi that will tell you that Jews held a doctrine that men are born sinners.

God tells us in Ezekiel, that "the soul that sins will die". We will not bear the punishment of our father's iniquity (Adam) or vice-versa. Eze 18:20. The theology of men says the son bears the punishment. The choice is yours who you want to believe.

Psalm 51:5, David is saying that he was born into a sinful environment, sinful world, sin all around him from birth. He wasn't a sinner baby, see Eze 18:20.

Eph 2:3 - What makes us children of wrath is what we have done, not what we are. See Eze 18:20.

"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world...". This is referring to what you did in the flesh.

(2 Timothy 3:13) "But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived." If we were born totally depraved, then we could not get worse.

What is sin? You answered it. "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4).

You missed my earlier point about the personification of sin and righteousness and anyone that does righteousness is of God and anyone that sins is of the Devil.

Double Posted

When you posted the link to Howard Pittman's book Just-In in the thread "Today's Great Deception Built on the Deception of the 80's and 90's" I went and read that book from cover to cover.

If you stripped out every single part of the book other than the five points or messages which Howard explains the Lord gave him to bring to the church across the world, then I would have no difficulty with it. The problem is that he goes into such detail regarding the activity of demons, one cannot help but wonder that he himself does not realise that the overwhelming message ends up being about Satan and in the end the book has very little in it which speaks of how to walk by faith.

Not only that, but the details he gives of demonic activity runs into a presentation which has us seeing them active not only in the air, which he calls the world and the first heaven, but in a realm which is specifically inhabited by demons of every type and kind, which he calls the second heaven. Then he speaks about his first and second trip to the very gates of the third heaven where he tells us that there are no demons, but then describes a long valley and a path bathed in heavenly light on which he is not allowed to walk, but on which those who are entering heaven pass to be with God. He describes how in this tunnel the demons progressively are pressed back and thus he explains their absence from the third heaven where God Himself dwells.

There are serious problems with most of that Just-In, not least that it is a failure to comprehend the limiting passage of demons into heavenly places. He misses completely that demonic spirits are earthbound. This also highlights that he is making no proper distinction between the present sons of God (angels) who dwell in the heavens, and who are being drawn aside for a day of war and the Man of Sin.

"And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war,” (Revelation 12:7, NASB95)

Those spoken of here in Revelation are not unclean spirits or demons, they are yet angels in full possession of all which is necessary to dwell in the heavens, including their bodies.

Demons on the other hand are earth bound. They have come up out of hell and they represent those who were judged in the day Satan lifted up his heart and desired to be as the Most High. Of course one man's visions are as subject to rejection as another man's visions. But in my own knowledge on these things, unclean spirits or demons, are not the same in character or origin as are those angels who presently dwell in heavenly places and are hence referred to as spiritual powers and principalities of wickedness.

For me the overwhelming problem with Howard's vision, is to do with how demonic spirits function. He describes them as stalking their prey. Entering them through their faces and in terms which make clear what type of spirit he is seeing in his vision. For example he describes a young man and a young woman in the hospital, talking to each other and laughing together, when a spirit of lust in the likeness of a frog enters into the young man through his face. There are so many things in that book which are frankly naive because it does not take a demonic spirit for a man to lust. It simply takes experience.

http://www.divinerevelations.info/dreams_and_visions/placebo_howard_pittman.htm

Howard tells us in the picture of a green from crawling up the man, that a demon of the fifth order possesses the man because the demon has made itself desirable. Yet the demon itself looks like a 'stuffed slimy green frog'. Of course what Howard is really alluding to is that the woman is desirable and the demon is just helping things along. He has the man and the woman in dressing gowns so things may have already started. One would assume that these two people are patients, as this scene is in the hospital, but in fact he tells us that they are in the employee lounge. Very subtle this Just-In because I wonder if Howard isn't inferring that these two obvious patients (dressing gowns) are really doing a naughty by using the employees lounge unlawfully? You know they had something in mind all along type of thing. Opportunity for the devil and all that!

Then Howard tells us, 'I was so close to them I could almost reach out and touch them. I could hear and understand every word they said'. Then for some inexplicable reason he doesn't see the contradiction of the words which he then uses almost immediately afterwards to explain "I was not really paying close attention to the words the two were speaking." Whenever there is so much detail, as there is in this book, concerning demonic and spiritual things of wickedness, I always feel inclined to think very carefully on how much detail is needed to say something in simplicity. If the thing being said comes by way of a vision, or as in this case an actual spiritual journey from his body to the gates of heaven, not once but twice, and then through every demonic horde and realm of spiritual wickedness, then one type of detail must correspond with another. And this is no less true in a need for scriptural accuracy. How can you be as close to someone as to touch them, hear and understand every single word they say, and yet have absolutely no idea what they have said?

Right there on the front page of the website I have linked to with the pretty pictures, we have the words "he was taken before the very throne of God" then in another place he says:

"Instead of allowing me to enter, the angel stationed me before the Gates, slightly to one side.

My escort told me to stand to one side of the Gates and present my case. He assured me that God would hear and answer my request. As I stood before the Gates, the sense of joy, happiness, and contentment radiated out from Heaven. I could feel the warmth it produced and as I stood there to plead my case. I could feel the awesome power of God. No being could possibly appear before Him, even separated by a gate as I was, without experiencing this awesome power, might and majesty."

Then Howard says:

"Boldly I came before the throne and started out by reminding God what a great life of love, worship, and sacrifice I had lived for Him. I told Him of all the works I had done reminding Him that I was now in trouble and only He could help by granting me an extension on my physical life.

There is a fundamental, and inherent contradiction Just_in, in these two sayings. I know that we can spiritualise the meaning "before the throne" but just consider this, either Howard was before the throne of the Father in Heaven in the Majesty of His radiance or he was not. You cannot be restrained in the spirit (he was at this moment in the spirit already being restrained and told God would hear him and his body was on a hospital table dying)) and at the same time be free to come before the throne. It is a confusion of meanings and lends itself to disbelief. Such a lack of accuracy is not good when you are seeking to claim that God has sent you with a message to the whole world.

Which brings me back to his message. The summary of the message at the end of the book, with the five points is just fine. It is true and it is a necessary thing to say it. The problem however is that 70% of this book is given over to establishing the nature and order of the demonic realm. Companies and orders of demons, their appearance, their powers and the sphere of their operation are all supposedly to attend to the second point of the five points, that Satan is a real person.

The principle reason for this book is to 'prove' that the lusts of the flesh are not really of the flesh but are in fact demonic spirits which possess us. Which is why you keep coming back to this same argument that men have no nature of their own. It is either of God, or of Satan according to you. The only really significant point which Howard does not lose sight of is that men have a free will.

I won't continue to argue what depravity means as Gary has in some way done it quiet simplify by saying that sin means to miss the mark. Or as he put it, sin is transgression of the Law. If I am a hungry man and need food to survive, and then go hunting to satisfy my basic need for food, I will be massively disappointed if every time I shoot the arrow I miss the mark. If this happens over and over and over again eventually I will either die of hunger or collapse with exhaustion. It seems to me that unless Satan is poking me in the eye every time I line up the arrow (and I am facing the right way) then I can at least blame Satan, and die contentedly knowing that he is the devil and I am a mere man. On the other hand my problem may just be that I myself am depraved in my natural estate of mind and body to sufficient enough an extent that I cannot see to hit the mark at all, no matter how grave my need may be, or how much Satan may want to poke me in the eye. If I am facing the wrong direction and someone shouts 'the other way' then yes I can see how Satan might distract me at that point (the parable of the seed). But if of my own nature I am facing the wrong way it is only the shout which will turn me to Christ (the gospel).

That idea is I believe, the baseline point of the doctrine of total depravity. It is not to prove that men are going to be unable to resist sin even after they come to know Christ. Depravity is as much to do with understanding the nature of the flesh in terms of an 'incapable man' who cannot save himself from sin and cannot of himself even comprehend what sin and death really is. As believers it stands to reason that this cannot be our continued experience and so as Sree shared, we can hit the serpents of the flesh on the head with the stick. It's a good parable for India no doubt, the only weakness here is that brethren such as yourself will claim that the serpents are in fact demons. Whereas the Scripture calls them the lusts of the flesh. I can see that in previously saying , there was, and never will be, a time that men can take responsibility for their own sin," I have failed to make a valid enough explanation of what that means to me or what I intended by it. Perhaps that's where simplicity has its benefit.

Finally Just-In:

Howard is not writing from a Scriptural understand at all when it comes to the most fundamental account we have from Scripture of what constitutes a man in the first instance. Howard actually believes something which has lent itself to the word of faith movement very well because he places the emphasis on an underlying belief that man is a god. It also places the emphasis that the whole of a man's problems in life can be put down to demonic activity, which he sees as a spiritual realm. In his theology the soul as a separating veil which allows men to differentiate from one another, rather than in understanding that soul is precisely who you are and without it we would not be men at all. He believes that men are in reality the precise same in substance as God Himself. If you don't believe me you ought to read the book again. It is in this completely wrong understanding of mankind that he makes it possible for him to believe that we are either driven by the Spirit of God, or else the spirit of Satan by reason of demonic hoards. He acknowledges a man's will, but then diminishes this reality by ignoring a man's true condition in the flesh.

Quote:

"When the angels lifted my spirit from my body, they carried me immediately to the Second Heaven. We did not have to leave that hospital room in order to enter the Second Heaven. We entered there in that same room where my body was, just by passing through a dimension wall. It is a wall which flesh cannot pass through, only spirit.

For you the reader, to understand what was happening, you must understand the separation of the spirit from the flesh. To know how this works, we must know how we, ourselves, are made. The Bible states that we, as humans beings are made in the image of God. To understand this, we must know what God is. The Bible states three immutable things about God: 1st God is Spirit, 2nd God is invisible and 3rd God is immortal. If we are made in His image, then we are spirit, we are invisible, and we are immortal. Therefore, when we look into a mirror we do not see our real selves. We see only the body, or earthen vessel, in which we live. Since we are all made in the image of God, we would all be mirror images of one another without our earthly, physical bodies. Therefore, we were given a soul to separate us from one another to make us an individual."

The effect of this type of doctrine is that the body becomes no more than a packed or envelope to house the spirit. Of itself the body is nothing more than a means to identify yourself to yourself. The soul is nothing more than a means to be differentiated from others. In essence, according to Howard a man is the same as God Himself. Man is spirit, invisible and immortal. That sound like something the occult word would come up with to me.

On the other hand Howard's second visit to the gates of heaven is of course an account of the prodigal son returning to obedience and the Father in heaven. It seems to me however that apart from this obviously sound part of the message there lays a belief that men are not somehow capable of obedience to God if they are not walking in the Spirit. And not because of the lusts of the flesh, but because demons take control of people and thus in disobedience these possessed people fulfil the lusts of demons. I notice that Howrd didn't actually tell us whether his previously wasted 25 years or so as a believer, police officer and pastor sometime, was wasted because he was himself possessed and walking in the power of Satan. Mmmm.

I did not post a link to any Howard Pittman book. I just know a bit about his testimony. Anyway, it doesn't matter who posted it, I have found out in this thread that you just tear down men and don't know how to converse using the scriptures. You can have the last word, this time. It is time to move on.

I cannot support my comment that you posted a link to the Howard Pittman book so I apologise for saying that. Clearly it was an inaccurate statement. You are also correct that I tear down those things which are false. Though of course this is not what you said or what you intended to mean. Some people accuse me of tearing down my brethren as well. I have learned to live with this and understand why it is said to me.

There is no such thing in my mind which amounts to a conversation using scriptures. A thing is either true or it is false. There is no middle ground. The devil can quote scriptures, and it would be of no benefit whatsoever. As you say that it is time to move on, then move on.