Cornelius and Kelly

I've been listening to some talks on "The Dangers of Calvinism" that are more entertaining than helpful. It's not that there aren't real dangers in Calvinism, but these particular talks are more unhinged rants than careful analysis. And it's frankly sad I have to say that, because the speaker does bring up some good points, but his carelessness throughout makes it all too easy to ignore them.

At any rate, at some point in these talks, the speaker uses the story of Cornelius as a counter-argument to the idea of Total Depravity. According to this speaker, Cornelius was an unregenerate man who feared God, and Heaven took notice of his piety(!).

At the root of his misapprehension is the idea that "salvation," "regeneration," and "conversion" are all synonyms. They are not.

William Kelly can explain this better than I, so I'll stop my own commentary here and quote his.

From Introductory Lectures on the Acts:

It is a fallacy then to suppose that Cornelius had no better than merely natural religion. He was assuredly, before Peter went, a converted man. To regard him as unawakened at that time is to mistake a great deal of the teaching of the chapter. Not that one would deny that a mighty work was then wrought in Cornelius. We must not limit, as ignorant people do, the operation of the Holy Spirit to the new birth. No man in his natural state could pray, nor serve God acceptably, as Cornelius did. One must be born again; but, like many others who had really been quickened in those days (and it may be even now, I presume), a soul might be born again, and yet far from resting in peace on redemption, far indeed from a sense of deliverance from all questions as to his soul. There is this difference, no doubt, between such cases now and that of Cornelius then, — that, before the mission of Peter, it would have been presumptuous for a Gentile to have pretended to salvation; now it is the fruit of unbelief for a believer to question it. A soul that now looks to Jesus ought to rest without question on redemption; but we must remember that at this time Jesus was not yet publicly preached to the Gentiles — not yet freely and fully proclaimed according to the riches of grace. Therefore, the more godly Cornelius was, the less would he dare to put forth his hand for the blessing before the Lord told him to stretch it out. He did what, I have no doubt, was the right thing. He was truly in earnest before God. As we are told here — and the Spirit delights to give such an account — "he was a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway."

Such was the man to whom God was about to send the gospel by Peter. Thus we must carefully remember that the gospel brings more than conversion to God. It is the message of life, but it is also the means of peace. Before the gospel was preached to every creature, a new nature was communicated to many a soul; but till then there was not and could not be peace. The two things are both brought us in the gospel — life brought to light, and the peace preached that was made by the blood of the cross. At the same time scripture shows there might be and often was an interval after the gospel did go forth. So from experience we know there is many a man that you cannot doubt to be truly looking to the Lord, yet far from resting in the peace of God. Cornelius, I apprehend, was just in this case. He would no more have perished, had it pleased God to have taken him away in this state, than any Old Testament saint, whether Jew or Gentile. No believer could be so ignorant of God and His ways of old as to imagine there ought to be any doubt about those who nevertheless were full of anxieties and troubles, and through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

And also from Kelly, from An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles,  Chapter 11:

Again, let us remark how clearly this discourse of Peter distinguishes new birth from salvation. Cornelius was assuredly born of God before Peter visited him at Caesarea. Nevertheless Peter was to speak to him words whereby he should be saved. It is a gross mistake to suppose that the salvation which he now found is not far beyond new birth. Present salvation is the first foundation privilege of the gospel. To be born again was always true from Abel downwards. But those who are merely born again do not enter Christian ground until they have received at least the first and most needful blessing, to which the accomplishment of Christ's work entitles all who believe...

The remarkable care with which God introduced the new standing-point [of salvation] to the Gentiles makes this confusion inexcusable. Now, while faith never was without suited mercy from God, it is one of the most marked signs of unbelief to ignore the peculiar privilege which God is now giving, and to go back to that mode or means which may have been at a former time. Here, as has been already and often pointed out, the Evangelicals are as dark as the Sacramentarians. For, if the latter party attach exorbitant efficacy to the mere sign of the blessing, the former are as ignorant of what is signified. Both agree in making the initiatory institution of the gospel to be the sign of life or the new birth; whereas it is really of the remission or washing away of sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16), and of death with Christ (Rom. 6:2-3; Col. 2:12), i.e., of salvation (1 Peter 3:21). Cornelius learnt from the apostle that for a Gentile it was no question any longer of God's uncovenanted mercy. He himself, already born of God and acquainted with the Messiah come for the deliverance of His ancient people by faith, had now to learn of salvation's door open to the Gentile believer as truly as to the Jewish. It is not promise, as hitherto even to an Israelite, it is the work accomplished, and soul-salvation henceforth given to all believers without distinction. As the seal of it, the Holy Ghost was manifestly imparted as on the day of Pentecost.

It's worth taking a look at From New Birth to New Creation by R. A. Huebner, (especially pages 16–17) as well.

We can group Lydia (Acts 16:14ff) and John's disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19:1ff) in with Cornelius. These people were worshiping the one true God before they heard the Gospel. They weren't pagans, they were in the same position as Old Testament saints. For them the Gospel wasn't a call from death to life, but a call into the new order that God has begun with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Well, I promised that I would limit my own commentary and just use Kelly's, so I'll stop here.

 

 

 

Setting aside

R. A. Huebner says

There is a fact to be observed with attention in the book of Genesis the special blessing is not given to the firstborn son. This setting begins with Cain and is seen in every case where there is sufficient information given so that this phenomenon in Genesis may be observed. We should see in this a foreshadow that God’s purpose is to set aside the firstborn. (God’s Sovereignty and Glory in the Election and Salvation of Lost Men, p. 31, downloaded 2016-09-05)

Galatians 4:21–24 supports his view that there is an allegorical truth here.

1 Corinthians 15:42–49 give two descriptions of Christ in contrast to Adam: there is the "last Adam" (v. 45) and the "second man" (v. 47). The "last Adam" carries the idea that Christ is the end of Adam's race, the "second man" carries the idea that Christ is the start of something new.

We see the same pattern in Matthew 27:15–23. Pilate presents Barabbas and Jesus in that order. Of course the crowd chose the first man over the second Man.

Their choice of the first over the second carries on the pattern from Genesis. When Joseph saw that Israel's right hand was on Ephraim's head, it was "evil in his eyes" (Genesis 48:17). Joseph wanted his older son to get the older son's blessing (quite naturally!). Jacob chose the second over the first (v. 20)

When God told Abraham that He would give him a second son (Genesis 17:15–21), Abraham's response was "Oh that Ishmael would live before You" (v. 18). This is remarkable: God is telling Abraham that He would provide the "son of promise" (Galatians 4:28), but Abraham wants the "son according to flesh" (Galatians 4:23) to please God. God certainly promised to bless Ishmael, but He insisted it was Isaac with whom He would establish a permanent covenant (vv. 20–21).

Let's pause and say that it was good and right for Abraham to long for Ishmael to please God. And we don't want to downplay the blessing of God on Ishmael. But we want to see the truth of Galatians 4 here: these things have an allegorical sense, and the Spirit of God is teaching us something in this story.

By the time we come to Genesis 22:2, we have God referring to Isaac as Abraham's "only son". God is no longer acknowledging the first man, only the second.

I fall into the trap of Abraham again and again, as I suspect most of us do. I long to see the "first man" walk with God. What I fail to see is that God is no longer acknowledging that man: He only acknowledges the "second Man." I, like Abraham, have to see that God is now dealing with the son of promise, not the son of flesh.

If you look at Facebook, or listen to so much so-called Christian ministry, you'll see people say things like, "we have two natures within us, the one we feed is the one that grows." I suppose there's a grain of truth there, but it's not at all what Scripture actually teaches. Scripture teaches that in God's sight, there is only the second Man. When we start down the path of thinking we have a choice between "two natures", we leave the teaching of Scripture behind. We aren't to choose between two natures, we are to consider ourselves to have died (Romans 6:11), and to be entirely new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17). Of course I'm not denying that we have "the flesh" in us, but we are to consider that as a dead thing (Galatians 5:24). To think of ourselves as some sort of umpire between two warring sides is to give a place to "the flesh" that Scripture doesn't give it. J. N. Darby wrote,

Other differences have disappeared: there remains but the old man, which we only acknowledge as dead, and the new man. [emphasis added] (J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Volume 5, last checked 2016-09-05)

So this is a challenge to me: don't fall into the trap of Genesis 17:18. Don't think the "first man" will walk before God. He won't. Don't think God will acknowledge anyone except the "second Man". God has found in Christ what He was looking for, and He's stopped looking. My only place before God is "in Christ", which means I've given up on myself (Philippians 3:9), and – by extension – on Adam's race.

Newness of Life

When God brought the children of Israel out from Egypt, He had Moses lead them to Sinai where He established a covenant with them (Jeremiah 31:31–32). That covenant was based on accomplished redemption (Exodus 20:1–2). God, having redeemed His people from slavery, told them exactly how to live to please Him. It was a dismal failure: the people of Israel weren't capable of keeping the Law any more than we are (Romans 8:3–7). Of course God knew that all along: He didn't give them the Law to see if they could keep it, but to demonstrate they couldn't. And so Romans sums up the entire history of the Law in this statement: "by law [is] knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20).

Today Christians find themselves in a similar position to the Israelites of that day. God has redeemed us from the house of bondage, and we naturally ask the question, "how can I walk to please God, since He has freely redeemed me?" Scripture answers that question very clearly: "they that are in flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:8).

Sadly, there is a glut of so-called Christian ministry that ignores the answer Scripture gives, and tries to tell how Adam's children can walk to please God. But our experience eventually confirms what God has already said: Adam's children are incapable of pleasing God. If only we were content to pause there and ask what Scripture has to say about us, we might save ourselves a whole lot of trouble; but of course we don't – we decide what we really need is to try harder, so we redouble our efforts. And so we get ourselves into a vicious cycle, where we try harder to please God, but the harder we try the less we accomplish.

But if we were to listen to what Scripture actually says, we might get a glimpse of something surprising. The fact is that Adam's children cannot please God. It's not that they aren't trying hard enough, it's that there is no such thing as "hard enough". God isn't interested in what Adam's children can do: He's already put Adam's race to the test and found it's not good enough.

Why is it so hard to accept that? It's hard because we can't quite make ourselves believe what Scripture says, "I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, good does not dwell" (Romans 7:18). If only we could get our hands around this! There's nothing good in me, and I need to give up on the idea that there's something – anything – I can do for God! God doesn't want anything I can do: it's all worthless to Him. We need to be like Paul, content "to be found in him, not having my righteousness, which [would be] on the principle of law, but that which is by faith of Christ, the righteousness which [is] of God through faith" (Philippians 3:9). The Christian life is entirely summed up in this one principle: God is not interested in anything from me, He only wants Christ to be everything to me.

Adam's nature is like the fruitless fig tree in Luke 13:6–9. Not only fruitless, but actually making the ground useless. The very presence of that fruitless tree is taking up space that a fruitful tree could be using.

So the New Testament offers us a solution: if we want to be useful to God, we need to accept that we have died with Christ. We need to accept what God has said, that we're so devoid of good that He has put us to death. It's our death with Christ that makes it possible for God to use us (Romans 6:4, 7:4; Colossians 3:1–4). I know that I've said this many, many times: it's not that we have to "die to self", it's that we have to accept that we have died with Christ (Romans 6:11). It's accepting what God has said: there's nothing here for Him to work with. As long as we don't accept that, we're doomed to nurture a tree that's fruitless and cannot bear fruit. We're lavishing our care and attention on what God has already said is good for nothing.

Why do I keep talking about this? Because what I have seen over the last four decades with Christians is a stubborn unwillingness to accept what the New Testament teaches. What I have seen (and continue to see) is admonitions to please God in the energy of flesh. It cannot be done, but we simply don't accept that: we'd rather call God a liar than give up on ourselves. As Huebner pointed out, we're saying, "man is lost, but not that lost".

The Lord Jesus told Nicodemus that it would take a whole new life for a man to see God's Kingdom (John 3:1–8). The life of Adam isn't enough to get us into the kingdom, it takes life from the Spirit of God. And He pointed out Nicodemus should have known this from the Old Testament scriptures (John 3:10). He told the disciples that there is only one way to be fruitful: to abide in Him (John 15:4–5). Paul tells us what that means: to be "in Christ" is to have no righteousness of our own (Philippians 3:9). Until we have entirely given up on ourselves – on our abilities and our talents and our gifts and our potential – we cannot please God.

Sovereignty (Reprise)

I finished reading God's Sovereignty and Glory in the Election and Salvation of Lost Men by R. A. Huebner (from Present Truth Publishers and available as a free PDF download). It is a good book, but not a perfect book. I thought I'd write down some of my impressions here.

There are very few topics so divisive as the question of God's sovereignty in salvation. People throw around terms like 'calvinist' and 'arminian', which I'd prefer to avoid. But the first question everyone is going to ask is, 'Calvinist or Arminian?' So let's briefly answer that question and get it out of the way: RAH's view definitely tends to the 'calvinist' side of things. He thoroughly condemns the notion that man has freewill, insists that men are entirely lost, defends the notion of 'unconditional election', and clearly teaches that it is only through God's effectual (i.e. compelling) call to the elect that any are saved. Interestingly, he doesn't really address the question of 'Limited Atonement', although he does spend just a small amount of time discussing 'Eternal Security'. The book does address the question of the 'Doctrine of Reprobation' and condemns it as non-scriptural. In other words, RAH presents a view we might describe as 'single predestination', or perhaps 'moderate Calvinism'.

So now that's out of the way, let's look at some of my impressions.

The Good

To start, RAH has a necessary ministry in reminding us of man lost-ness. This is one of the most important teachings of Scripture, because it touches every single facet of the Christian life. As RAH points out– as JND and WK pointed out before him– Christianity starts with man entirely lost. "[T]he mind of the flesh is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God; for neither indeed can it be: and they that are in flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7–8). The Christian life isn't the life of the forgiven sinner, it's the life of someone who has realized he cannot please God, and so he accepts Christ as his life (1 Corinthians 1:30–31; Galatians 2:20; Philippians 3:8–11). The Christian is "in Christ" where he has no righteousness of his own.

Of course the majority of Christendom doesn't accept that man is totally lost. So they spend a lot of time and effort trying to improve what God has already condemned (Romans 8:1–4). Ask me how I know… I've spent an awful lot of time down that path.

The single best thing about this book, in my opinion, is showing that man is completely lost.

Again, I don't want to use sectarian language, but many of the self-described 'calvinists' I have known seem to have a pretty mild view of man's lost-ness that doesn't quite seem to measure up to Scripture. Ephesians presents men as 'dead in trespasses and sins', from which some of my Calvinist friends conclude that unregenerate men and women are somehow in a passive state. They are not: consider Romans 1–3, where fallen men and women are very much alive in sins. The problem with fallen man isn't that he hasn't a will, it's that he is self-willed. And so some have concluded that God actively prevents the non-elect from repentance, as though a fallen man might actually be in danger of repenting without God's active intervention! But now I rant.

God's Sovereignty and Glory in the Election and Salvation of Lost Men is valuable solely on the basis that it sums up so well the teaching of Scripture that fallen man has absolutely nothing to offer God: neither before nor after God forgives us of our sins. And it points out some subtleties, including that Scripture doesn't view man as lost until Christ is rejected. God has put man on trial (not because God didn't know what fallen man is, but because He wanted to demonstrate it), and the trial wasn't over until the Son of God came here to be rejected. RAH points out that if Christ had come and hadn't been rejected, that would have proven that man wasn't entirely lost: that there is still something there God can work with.

The Bad

All of RAH's books suffer from two characteristic faults: they are repetitive and hyper-focused. Honestly, this is nothing that couldn't be fixed with a good editor. I think if RAH's books were cut down in length, they'd be better books. Don't get me wrong: I appreciate that he is zealous for the truth, but at some point it gets hard to keep my attention. Doubtless he repeats himself to make a point, but there comes a point where the constant repetition actually gets in the way.

Hyper-focus isn't quite as big a problem in this book as in some of his others, but RAH has a strong tendency to tunnel-vision. That is, he tends to see everything as somehow a symptom of whatever he's addressing. This can make it easy to dismiss his writing at times. Again, this could easily be fixed by an editor. Simply reducing the length of these books would have the effect of removing some of the words and clarifying his message.

The Ugly

Roy Huebner's books tend to be more like scrapbooks than actual books. That is, he has a tendency to cut and paste huge quotations from J. N. Darby, William Kelly, F. G. Patterson, W. T. Turpin, A. P. Cecil, and H. H. Snell into his books. Some of those quotations occupy more than a single page! He's not trying to plagiarize, he's not trying to be dishonest, he's just recognizing that someone else has already said something so well there's no point in trying to restate it. The problem with this is that the books are choppy and long. It would have been better in, in my opinion, to try and reduce the quotes to a sentence or two and cite liberally. There comes a point where the extensive quotations actually make it hard to read.

That brings up another 'ugly' aspect of this book: the language isn't the most consistent. Huebner sometimes writes like a 19th Century writer, probably because he invested so much of his time reading them. I think it might have been a good investment of effort to rework his language and try to bring it up to the 20th or 21st Century.

In the end, there's nothing here that a decent editor couldn't fix. It would require some deep surgery of the text, perhaps; but I'm afraid there is some very valuable truth in this book that will be lost on people who might've read it, but for the awkward wording and [far too] extensive quotations.

Should I read it?

I found this a helpful book. Of course, with a title like God's Sovereignty and Glory in the Election and Salvation of Lost Men, some of my more 'freewill' friends won't even bother picking it up. More's the pity: there is a lot of truth in here that's been lost or forgotten. I would definitely recommend this book to a friend (and, in fact, I have), but I would caution them to read it slowly and try not to miss the forest for the trees.

Honestly, I think RAH has put together a good outline of what Scripture teaches when it comes to election. He addresses common objections from the 'freewill' point of view, while at the same time standing firm against ideas like a 'decree of reprobation' that Scripture simply doesn't teach.

One more thing I'd notice: I can't recall any discussion of the whole question of 'Limited Atonement' in this book. RAH is now asleep in Christ, so he can't comment on it. But I suspect I know what he'd say: Darby has answered that question quite ably in his little paper "Propitiation and Substitution". I'd definitely encourage reading this short article: well worth the time.

Sovereignty

I've been reading another book by R. A. Huebner recently: God’s Sovereignty and Glory in the Election and Salvation of Lost Men. What an amazing book! I highly recommend downloading it and giving it a look.

Free PDFs!

My good friend Rodger posted this to Facebook, and I thought I should repost it here. Present Truth Publishers has posted many of their books online as PDF for free download: Free PDF Downloads.

I definitely recommend From New Birth to New Creation, and I've been interested in reading God’s Sovereignty and Glory in the Election and Salvation of Lost Men for quite some time.

Time to get reading! I've loaded several of them into the Kindle app on my phone for the commute.

Worthy reads

From time to time I get email from someone who's read my blog. A surprising percentage seems to come from people who've read Miles Stanford's books. Perhaps that shouldn't surprise: Stanford liked to quote J. N. Darby, and I'd imagine searches for J. N. Darby online would eventually include this blog.

I was once a much bigger fan of Stanford's than I am now: I think someone could do a lot worse than reading Stanford's books, but someone could do a lot better too. So without picking too much on Stanford, there are some resources that I think are very worthwhile for the believer.

When it comes to the Christian life, Scripture presents both positive and negative truth. Very little "ministry" addresses both the negative and positive aspects of the truth: on the negative side, I am crucified with Christ. I am thus free from sin (in the sense that I am no longer under its power, Romans 6:7). I am no longer under its dominion (Romans 6:14). There is a human responsibility: I must reckon on the truth of my death with Him (Romans 6:10–11). Note that I don't become dead to sin by reckoning: I am dead to sin, the reckoning is merely bringing my thoughts into line with God's.

The positive truth is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It's necessary because the believer who has been freed from sin (by his death with Christ) is not empowered to live the Christian life by that same death. My having died with Christ doesn't give me power to walk godly in this world. Dying doesn't imply life. The positive truth is that I have been indwellt by the Spirit of God. I am free from sin because I have been crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6–11), but I am only able to walk the Christian life because I have the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:2).

Romans doesn't stop in chapter 6. The believer who has learned that he has died with Christ still needs to learn the truth of Romans 7 & 8. Even a man who has died with Christ has the flesh in him. There is still the "law of sin in my members" (Romans 7:21–23). There is only one answer to the "law of sin" in our members, the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1–2).

What Scripture teaches is a two-part solution to the problem. First, the believer has died with Christ. This is absolutely necessary to accept. It is not that the believer must die with Christ, but that the believer has died with Him. The Scripture does not even hint that we must die with Christ: it teaches very clearly that we have died with Him. Our responsibility is not to die, but to reckon on the truth that we have died.

But there is a second part: the man who has died with Christ still needs to active and constant intervention of the Spirit of God. Galatians 2:20 connects both these truths in a single verse, Romans spends three chapters explaining them in detail.

If you're wanting some books that cover more or less the same material in a little more depth (and accuracy), I'll recommend a few titles here:

1. From New Birth to New Creation by R. A. Huebner. This is probably the most complete book on the subject I've ever read. It's not perfect by any means, but it's really an excellent book. I've written a little about it before.
2. The Gospel of Our Salvation by H. F. Witherby. This isn't nearly so meaty as Huebner's book, but it's still very good. I wrote about this one too. I ended up giving away my copy before I finished it. Yes, it's that good.
3. The Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee. People start to tune you out when you bring this one up, but it really is an amazing book. It's not without fault, but it's an absolutely excellent book. If you haven't read this one, you need to read it right away.
4. Finally, there are a few papers by J. N. Darby that must be mentioned in this category. I've listed them last, because they're Darby – they're not the easiest reading:
   1. Forgiveness and liberty
   2. Deliverance
   3. On sealing with the Holy Ghost
   4. Deliverance from the Law of Sin
   5. Cleansing and Deliverance
   6. Cleansing by Water: and what it is to walk in the light.

and Further Reading

A friend sent me some books via drop-shipment from Bible Truth Publishers, including:

• Lectures on the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit by William Kelly (also available on STEM Publishing)
• From New Birth to New Creation by R. A. Huebner
• The Gospel of Our Salvation by H. F. Witherby
• The Old Nature and the New Birth: The New Convert and His Difficulties by George Cutting

I've read the first two titles, I plan to start the third tomorrow morning.

My friend sent these books after a brief talk or two we had on deliverance. I wrote a lot about this already this year ("Walking" and "in Christ), but there's a lot more to talk about. Still, I don't want to discuss the topic itself so much as I want to discuss the specific books my friend sent me.

From New Birth to New Creation by R. A. Huebner is a book I'd highly recommend to anyone, with a caveat or two. If you've never read RAH, I'll warn first that his work isn't terribly original: his books are almost more like scrap-books of recommended ministry others have written. This book is no exception: it's largely quotations and summaries of writings by J. N. Darby, A. P. Cecil, W. Kelly, F. G. Patterson, and H. H. Snell. But don't let that put you off! It's a worthwhile read. In fact, it's extremely helpful.

There are two caveats I'll make while recommending this [really very good] book. The first is that RAH is susceptible to tunnel vision. There's an old saying that "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail". Similarly, Huebner's books can become somewhat repetitive, and literally everything becomes evidence of whatever point he's trying to make.

In this book in particular, the main point is that the sealing with the Holy Spirit is a distinct event and experience from the new birth. Of course this was what J. N. Darby taught, and it was the question that eventually led to F. W. Grant being put out of fellowship. But because that is a central doctrine of the book, Huebner brings it into every discussion, sometimes (in my opinion) when it's not really the point.

The book is divided into four parts:

1. "New Birth, Forgiveness of Sins, and Sealing with the Spirit"
2. "Eternal Life in the Son"
3. "Deliverance from the Law of Sin and Death"
4. "New Creation"

It follows the general pattern that each section establishes doctrine, and then explores how that applies to the Christian life. I found the first section particularly excellent, with its careful distinction of language. Huebner takes great care to differentiate between redemption, salvation, quickening, new birth, and so forth.

Now, I have read Darby extensively: there is very little this book says that I haven't already read from Darby. But I have to say that this book does an excellent job of laying it out in a very understandable and organized manner. And Huebner answers some of the questions Darby doesn't seem even to notice. There's not much Huebner says that Darby doesn't say, but Huebner has a real knack of putting the pieces together clearly.

But Huebner does have a tendency to hyper-focus, and I noticed this especially in the context of the sealing with the Holy Spirit. He is so careful to point out that new birth and sealing are distinct that he seems to say that every problem in a Christian's life is evidence that he (or she) has not [yet] been sealed. I found myself growing somewhat introspective when reading this book, wondering "have I been sealed?"

J. N. Darby wrote, "Faith never looks at itself or at its effect in us, but at Christ in Himself." ('Review of R. Pearsall Smith on "Holiness through Faith."', Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 23, p. 193). It's worth remembering this when we consider the Christian life: it's tempting for our focus to turn inward, especially when there is some question of the Lord's work in us. But we do well to remember that we're called to look up to Christ, not in to self.

Along that vein, I'd caution anyone reading this book to read two chapters out of order. Section 3 ("Deliverance from the Law of Sin and Flesh") ends with chapters 3.6 and 3.7; read those before you read the rest of Section 3. Then read the whole section in order, re-reading those last two chapters in the order they're in the book. Here's why: Huebner points out [correctly] that Romans 7 isn't really about a man who has been sealed with the Holy Spirit; it's about a man who is regenerated and born again, but not yet sealed. That man has not been set free from the law of sin and death, and he finds himself wanting to please God, but being unable to do so. This is exactly J. N. Darby's and William Kelly's teaching on Romans 7, it's not some strange new doctrine. But every Christian – even those indwelt by the Spirit of God and sealed with the Holy Ghost – find themselves helpless in the face of sin in the flesh. The sealing of the Holy Spirit doesn't free us from the presence of sin, nor does it mean the flesh is somehow done away with. It doesn't mean we're confirmed into some state of sinless perfection! What it means is that we have been set free from the law of sin and death.

There is no question that the Corinthians were sealed with the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19), but there were still serious issues in Corinth, including such fornication that even the Gentiles found it shocking (1 Corinthians 5:1). And the Galatians certainly had the Holy Spirit (Galatians 3:2), but they had fallen into legalism, which is really a denial of the Gospel (Galatians 2:15–21). They had begun in the Spirit, but wanted to be perfected in the flesh (Galatians 3:3). So the epistles make it abundantly clear that an imperfect – or even immoral – walk is not proof that the Holy Spirit is not present.

Chapters 3.6 and 3.7 of this book really make this case very clearly. It's entirely possible for a true believer, who has been sealed with the Holy Spirit, to walk immorally, worldly, and even in a practical denial of the faith.

With that one caveat, I would highly recommend this book to anyone. Read it carefully, but read the end of Section 3 before you start into it.

The William Kelly book was written by William Kelly. I don't really need to add much: anything by William Kelly is worth reading. And you can read it free online (Lectures on the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit on STEM Publishing).