The Christian Life

Rodger has suggested it would be interesting to put together a sort of a "J. N. Darby Reading List" that would lead through some papers by J. N. Darby in a logical sequence. I've been thinking about it, and I think this might be a good first whack at "The Christian Life", by J. N. Darby.

We should start at the beginning. As Rogers and Hammerstein wrote, that's a very good place to start. The first paper is, "Connection of the cross with the entire development of God's ways with man." It's a big title, and a big topic, but well worth the read.

The gist of the paper is that God's purpose has always been to replace the first man with the Second. In Genesis 3:15, God begins the story of redemption with the statement that Someone Else is coming, and it would be He who crushes the serpent's head.

I was most struck by the discussion of the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3 with the promises in Genesis 22:15–18. In the former, there is no mention of "thy seed", only of Abraham himself. Following the offering of Isaac, the promise is to Abraham and to his seed. Hebrews 11:17–19 tell us about the transition, Isaac had ("in figure", Hebrews 11:19) been raised from the dead. And so we see that Resurrection is the key to the promises of God.

This is not the easiest paper to read, but it is well worth the effort.

Next we turn to 1 John, with Darby's excellent paper, "Cleansing by Water: and what it is to walk in the light." I find this among the most compelling articles Darby wrote. What I find particularly interesting is his claim that the standard evangelical interpretation of 1 John 1:7–10 is a denial of Christianity. Frankly, my experience among so-called brethren indicates we have been thoroughly leavened with the same low view of the high calling.

The main difference between the Old Testament and the New is the presence of the Holy Spirit on earth. This is clearly developed in "Christ in Heaven, and the Holy Spirit sent down". I can't recommend this paper highly enough.

Among Darby's more controversial papers is, "On Sealing with the Holy Ghost." I consider this the most important paper he wrote. Although it took me many years, I've come around to his point of view on the whole issue of sealing. That being said, I'm not sure the biggest pay-off in this paper is the discussion of sealing. This paper might be the most complete description of practical Christianity that I have read outside of the Bible.

I have read this paper at least two dozen times, and I don't feel like I've really even scratched the surface yet.

Finally, there are three papers on Deliverance that I would consider "must read":

• "Deliverance from the Law of Sin"
• "Deliverance"
• "Deliverance from under the Law, as stated in the Holy Scriptures"

If you only have time to read one, read the first; but all three are excellent and extremely important. Most of what we discuss on this blog centers on Deliverance. I really believe it's the one thing most lacking among Christians today.

To me the saddest thing about the "brethren movement" was that it began with insistence on practical Christian living as a Divine manifestation of the life of Jesus in mortal flesh (2 Corinthians 4:7–12), and descended into a series of checklists about church order. Of course church order matters, but if the individual walk is not scriptural, then even the most correct church order is godliness without power.

Active passivity

I'm re-reading Francis Schaeffer's excellent True Spirituality. I love this book for several reasons, one is that it's not written by "brethren". Not that I'm a hater on "brethren" or anything, but it demonstrates that what we talk about as far as the Christian life isn't some fanatical "brethren" view.

One of the best things in this book is Schaeffer's dealing with the issue of trying to serve God in our own strength. His illustration is excellent. He talks about how the angel told Mary she would be the virgin mother of Christ. She had three options, according to Schaeffer (p. 52):

1. She could have said, "no way, leave my body alone"
2. She could have said, "I'll get right on that!" and attempted to become a virgin mother
3. She could have said, "I'm on board! I trust God to do it."

Of course the first option would mean having no part in the blessing she was promised. The second would end in failure (it was entirely out of her power to become a virgin mother). What she actually said was, “Be it unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). She expressed at once her inability to do it and her desire to be used of God. This is what Schaeffer calls "active passivity".

Sometimes I sound like I'm urging passivity when it comes to Christian living: you can't please God, only Christ can please God in you. I need to be careful about that: like Schaeffer says, it's an active passivity. We do have a part to play in the Christian life, and it's not purely passive. Certainly there is a godly desire involved, to be used of God to glorify Christ.

There are some other excellent things in this book, but I think this is the most helpful.

Bible Translations

Every January I think about which Bible Translation I'm going to use this year.  I choose Darby's New Translation by default: it's been my go-to Bible translation since 1992. And to be honest, almost regardless of which translation I decide to use "this year", I generally end up using my Darby again by around August.

Over the last ten years I've tried a couple different translations, but I still haven't found something I like better than Darby's.  My first little Darby is ragged and the pages are falling out, so I generally carry my BTP parallel edition (KJV on the left-hand pages, JND on the right-hand pages). Nevertheless, I find I really miss the the blunt pseudo-English of Darby's translation when I'm reading something else.

Still, I wonder whether my insistence on reading Darby's translation in public isn't a problem.  1 Corinthians 14:19 tells us it's better to speak five words people understand than 10,000 they don't. Sometimes when I'm reading aloud from Darby's translation in the assembly, I wonder whether I'm using 10,000 words that people can't understand.

Of course the same thing applies to the KJV: I've cringed in more than one Bible reading where someone tried to make a point based on his inability to understand Elizabethan English.

So this year I've decided I'm going to switch to NASB. Not in the sense of an irreversible life choice, but I'm going to try and read from and carry my NASB for at least a few months and see how it turns out.  My NASB is a single-column edition, so it's pretty thick and heavy: I might need to find a more portable copy, but I'll start with the one I own, rather than buying a new one.  If I find it onerous, then I'll just switch back to Darby.

If I do end up back with a Darby, I think I might just buy one of those enormous editions.  The font size in my parallel is a little small for reading aloud in meetings.  

Reading List

A discussion grew in the comment section of my last post, ending in a request for a couple reading suggestions about giving up on the flesh. Here it is.

Let's start with The Gospel of Our Salvation by H. F. Witherby. You can find order it from Bible Truth Publishers, or read it online at STEM Publishing. It's an excellent book: easy to read and laid out very clearly. I gave away all my copies, so apparently I need to order more.

Probably the most concise book on the Christian life is The Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee. I used to caution people about this book because of the chapter on the sealing with the Holy Spirit, but now I recommend it with joyous abandon. You can order it on Amazon, or read it online.

I certainly don't recommend all of Watchman Nee's books, but The Normal Christian Life is excellent.

The most complete single volume on the Christian life that I have read is From New Birth to New Creation by R. A. Huebner. This one went out of print in the last couple years, but word is they're planning to reprint it. You used to be able to order it from Bible Truth Publishers and Present Truth Publishers. If it ever comes back in print, I intend to order at least five copies. It is available for free download as a PDF. If you're OK with reading PDF, here's an excellent resource.

I reviewed From New Birth to New Creation last year. It's an excellent read. I like it more this year than I did last year... give it a little more time and it'll be my favourite book.

OK, I've listed three books, I was asked for "2 or 3". Here are some bonus offerings...

Let's start with Francis Schaeffer's True Spirituality. Definitely worth reading, although it doesn't attain to the first three (which is a very 2 Samuel thing to say, isn't it?). One thing I really like about this book is the constant focus on the "real world". Schaeffer was really burdened about the danger of putting faith into another realm from the real world of time and space where we actually live. I wouldn't make this the only book in my library, but it's definitely an important one.

There are two essential papers written by J. N. Darby on the whole subject of Deliverance, and they should really be read together:

1. "On Sealing with the Holy Ghost" (Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 31, pp. 254 – 280)
2. "Deliverance from the Law of Sin" (Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 32, pp. 323 – 332)

I will freely confess I read both of these papers many times before actually understanding what they were saying. It was frustrating to see there was something there I couldn't quite grasp. So don't give up! These two papers really address the entire issue of Deliverance in a very complete sense. But be warned: nothing Darby writes is easy to read.

Another helpful article is "Deliverance" (Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 31, pp. 153 – 160).

Frankly, you could do worse than going to Google and searching for: deliverance site:www.stempublishing.com.

Finally I have several audio recordings of messages on the topic of Deliverance by several brethren. One brother named Robert Thomson has given some really excellent talks. Not all of his audio recordings are easily available online, but there are a few on Voices for Christ. One worth listening to is "A New Dispensation". I confess I have several MP3 files of Mr. Thomson's messages that are probably "contraband". Since I've no right to share them, I'll just say he gave a talk at a conference in Winnipeg called "Nothing", and it is worth listening to that MP3. I've listened to it at least a dozen times, and it has been very helpful. If I can find a source for that recording, I'll share it.

Institutes

I've been reading Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. A couple friends have asked me why.  To make a long story short: I've met a lot of people with strong views on Calvin, but few or none of them actually read his book.

That's why I read Collected Writings of J. N. Darby too: lots of people were willing to share their opinions of his writing, but very few of them seemed actually to have read it. (I wrote a little article about that for a friend's blog.)

So I'm reading the Institutes. I'm about a fifth of the way through, and I'm hoping that wasn't the best of the book: I've a long way to go yet.

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.

Re-reading

We recently moved, and I've started riding the bus to work again. Notwithstanding a woman who brings her small and friendly kids on the bus every morning, I get quite a bit of time to read. So this last fall, I re-read The Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee. It's online too: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/nee/normal

I read it about twenty years ago, and I thought it would be worthwhile to read it again.

I used to recommend that book, with the caveat that the last couple chapters are suspect. But I was wrong. Now I'll recommend it without reservation. It's an excellent book: far, far better than I realized the first time I read it.

The Kingdom

About two-and-a-half years ago, I started reading The Greatness of the Kingdom by Alva J. McClain (see "New Book"). A friend had recommended it, so I picked up a copy and started working on it.

I finished the book this morning. It is, without a doubt, one of the best books I've ever read. I whole-heartedly encourage you to buy a copy and read it. It's amazing.

Now, the fact that it took me more than two years to read is suggestive.  Some of that is because I was reading a lot of other things at the time. Some of it is that I tend to do everything inconsistently, especially reading: it's not at all uncommon for me to read several hundred pages of a book, then put it down for months or even years before picking it up again (I've got bookmarks in at least a half-dozen books at any given time). But in this case, I found the book bogged down significantly in the middle. It seemed to get a little dry, and it took months for me to work through it, sometimes no more than a page in a day. But once I got to around page 300, I found I had trouble putting it down.

I've been interested in the Biblical teaching about the Kingdom for many years. I spend a lot of time around Dispensationalists, who seem to fear the word "kingdom." But at some point I realized my reticence to study the Kingdom was not based on Scripture. The Scripture spends a good deal of time discussing the Kingdom, indeed the book of Acts ends with this description of Paul's ministry:

 30 ¶ And he remained two whole years in his own hired lodging, and received all who came to him,

 31 preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all freedom unhinderedly. (Acts 28:30 & 31, JND)

So certainly the Apostle considered the Kingdom of some importance.

What I love about this book is, it studies the Kingdom from a dispensational perspective. While unapologetically premillenialist and dispensationalist, it's also a passionate and enthusiastic study into Christ as King.  McClain doesn't shy away from the place the Church has as part of the Kingdom: indeed, he almost exults in it.

McClain's book is a study of the Kingdom from Genesis to Revelation. It's written as a text-book, and it's very matter-of-fact. That's probably why I found the middle of it quite dry. But it's not a boring book: not by any means.

What I found most amazing in the book was McClain's study of the four Gospels in relation to the Kingdom. There's no doubt that the Kingdom was the main focus of the Lord Jesus' earthly ministry, and McClain expounds it brilliantly and clearly. His discussions of the Triumphal Entry and the Olivet Discourse are well worth the time, effort, and expense of getting a copy and reading it through.

I've now read three of McClain's books: The Greatness of the Kingdom, Law and Grace, and Daniel's Prophecy of the 70 Weeks.  The Greatness is by far the longest book I've read by McClain: Law and Grace is  a very short book, while Daniel's Prophecy is little more than a pamphlet. Nevertheless, I've become a real fan of McClain's. He does an excellent job of arguing simply and carefully from Scripture, without becoming too abstract or theoretical.

If you're going to read The Greatness of the Kingdom (and you should), I recommend you check out either his book on Daniel's 70 weeks, or even The Coming Prince by Sir Robert Anderson first.  An understanding of Daniel 9 will be helpful to McClain's treatment of the Lord's earthly ministry.

I made the comment quite some time ago that McClain is kind of like Darby, but a lot easier to read. I meant that as a compliment. But where Law and Grace is almost a précis of JND's teachings on the subject, and Daniel's Prophecy of the 70 Weeks is a sort of summation of The Coming Prince,  I haven't read anything that goes into this of depth on the Kingdom of God.  The book is a masterpiece, and everyone should read it.

Library Tips

There was an interesting article on Digital Sojourner on maintaining your library: "5 Tips – Library Maintenance". It's well worth a couple minutes to read.

Not to repeat the comment I made there, but I was struck by the advice no giving (and throwing!) away books.

Book Review: John Nelson Darby, by Marion Field

This year a friend gave me a book for my birthday: John Nelson Darby by Marion Field. I read it excitedly, and I thought it might be helpful to write a short review.

Marion Field published this book in 2008, it's 236 pages, including four appendices and a timeline. I found the book well-written and interesting.

A quick search for "John Nelson Darby biography" on Amazon yields an interesting diversity of results. While the market might not actually be saturated, it's not exactly virgin territory either. Probably the best-known is Max Weremchuk's John Nelson Darby, but I've heard excellent things about Unknown and Well-Known: A Biography of John Nelson Darby by Turner and Cross. I've not personally read Turner & Cross' book, but I've read Weremchuk's a couple times. So I'm not exactly approaching Fields' book with an unformed opinion.

I found Field's book to be a good complement to Weremchuk's. Weremchuk is certainly more analytical than Field: he spends a good deal of time and effort explaining what Darby taught, why he taught it, and what the outcomes are. Field, by contrast, writes more about Darby as a man: she spends more time discussing his family, explains his travels in greater detail, and chronicles several events which are less monumental in the development of Darby's thoughts and teachings. I greatly value Weremchuk's book for its big-picture perspective; but I found Field's book gave me a much clearer picture of who Darby was. She goes so far as to reproduce his will, commenting on the people mentioned in it. I can't remember running across that information anywhere else, although (to be fair) I haven't read Weremchuk's book in more than a decade.

I've read about Darby's time in Ireland in several places, but Field managed to bring out a number of details I'd never heard before. It was in this book I learned Darby habitually preached in Gaelic when he was in Calary (p. 32). Apparently this was one of the attractions the Roman Catholic Irish felt to him: the Roman Catholic Church made it a practice to suppress Gaelic, but Darby was speaking to them in their native tongue. And of course this appealed to the poorer most.

Field also spends a good deal of time on Darby's adventures in Switzerland. I've read Darby, and I've noticed how frequently he alludes to Switzerland, and how he frequently addresses various articles to the people there. Field filled in a lot of gaps in my understanding of what was happening in Switzerland: she talks about "brethren" suffering physical violence and persecution there (pp. 123--125).

She also describes his journeys to North America in some detail: I found his comments on Americans interesting (p. 155 ff.), as well as the details of his trips to Canada, and to San Francisco by rail.

I would definitely recommend Field's book: it's well worth a read. Compared to Weremchuk's book, I found Field's a little light on doctrine. But Weremchuk doesn't give nearly as much personal detail as Field does. I would highly recommend them both: perhaps Field's book first, followed by Weremchuk's.

I greatly appreciate my friend giving me this book. It was very enjoyable and will be read several times.

More Reading

We're having some "special meetings" this weekend to cover some foundational doctrines. It wasn't my intention to do any actual speaking in them, merely to organize, facilitate, cook, etc. But I've ended up having two lectures, so I'm preparing for those. If you think of it, I'd really appreciate prayer for this weekend.

But I've got writer's block (speaker's block?) right at the moment, so I thought I'd blog a minute or two.

I've a friend who's read Darby's Synopsis cover-to-cover. Another friend has commented that Synopsis is one of his go-to resources for Bible study. Well, I've never been able to get into the Synopsis: every time I've opened it, I've found it doesn't really say anything that's not completely obvious. It's not much of a commentary. It's not that I'm not a fan of Johnny D., it's just that Synopsis hasn't ever really grabbed me.

But still, when two friends highly recommend a book, there might be something there.

So this last week I decided to give Synopsis another try, but this time I decided to start reading at the beginning rather than flipping it open to a given passage. I was wrong and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I completely missed the point of the book(s). Synopsis really is worthwhile reading, but I had to start at the beginning to get it.

I'm not going to try and review the book here, I've only read through the commentary on Genesis and the first ten or so chapters of Exodus: it's too early for a review. But I have to say I'm a convert.

Here's why: Synopsis isn't really a verse-by-verse commentary on the Bible, and if you think of it that way, you'll wonder why anyone actually published it. I did exactly that for years, and I always wondered why anyone bothered to read it. I was thinking of it as a commentary; it's not. It's an "Old and New Testament Survey" written into a set of books. It's like sitting in a Sunday School class taught by JND.

I told my dyed-in-the-wool Synopsis friend I had finally started reading it from the beginning. He was very polite and didn't point out I had been an idiot. But he concurred with my description of the set, and explained it this way: "If you want to know what Darby thought about John 4, you can't just read the chapter on John 4. You need to read the whole section on John." That's exactly what I'm realizing. Synopsis develops themes over whole books, and indeed over the whole Bible. You need to read it all to really get what Johnny's saying in context.

So I have several weeks of reading before me, but I have to say it's been really good reading so far. So all those times I referred to Synopsis as "Darby Lite", I was wrong. It's certainly the most approachable of Darby's writing, but it's not a lightweight read. I was just missing the point.

STEM eBooks!

I was poking around on the STEM Publishing website and I made a great discovery: they're putting out eBooks now!

This is fantastic news. I hate reading "online". I like my wife's Kindle, and I can tolerate the Kindle app on my Mac, but webpages are just hard to read. I prefer paper. But with STEM putting out eBooks, we can have the best of both worlds: convenience of electronic media, with a significantly improved reading experience.

STEM has been a classy site since the get-go. They've got some really, really good stuff available there for free. And as much as I prefer to read paper, I frequently use STEM as a convenient way to search for something I vaguely remember from a book, or a quick citation on this blog. I'm really, really happy to see eBooks on that site. Thanks a bunch, Les and all!

eBooks are here: http://stempublishing.com/ebooks/.

I'm off to read Trotter's Plain Papers on Prophetic and Other Subjects.

Reading List

From time to time I've been asked for a book recommendation. A while back I wrote down a list of recommended reading for a friend, and I thought it might not be a bad idea to post something like that here. This isn't exactly the same list I gave him, but it's very similar.

Please note, just because I recommend a book, that doesn't mean I recommend the book's author, nor the other books that author wrote. I hate to make that disclaimer, but I'm afraid I have to.

So here are some books I highly recommend:

Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 12 This is a collection of Darby's Gospel messages, and it centers on God's grace. This volume contains "God's Grace and Man's Need," "The Prodigal with the Father," and "Two Warnings and an Example." This is undoubtedly Darby's best work, and probably the best Christian book I've ever read. I recommend this book unconditionally to anyone.

Sit, Walk, Stand by Watchman Nee. This book is very close to my heart, reading this book was a life-changing moment for me. It was also the time I had to learn that just because something spoke to me, it doesn't mean it'll speak to everyone. At any rate, this book is short and easy to read, but very powerful. It's a brief overview of the principles of the Christian life based on Ephesians. I can't recommend this book highly enough. You can find it on Amazon.

Discipline in the School of God by J. B. Stoney. This is Volume 13 of Ministry by J. B. Stoney, New Series. Not the easiest book to find (I recommend trying the Dover Bible Fund), but well worth the effort to find it. This is probably Stoney's most famous work, originally published as a series of articles in Bible Treasury. Stoney examines the lives of Biblical characters from Adam to Abel, to Noah, to Paul. He looks at God's dealings with each of them. This book is wonderful, but it's humbling and cuts straight to the conscience. I've bought this one several times, it's one of those books you buy just to give away.

Romans Verse by Verse by William R. Newell. I've talked about this one before. Buy it now. You can find it on Amazon.

Lectures on the Church of God by William Kelly. This is hands-down the best thing I've ever read on the Church. William Kelly is a stellar expositor. I prefer Darby's writings to Kelly's, but I don't think there's any question that Kelly was the more careful expositor. This books is very easy to read, and not terribly long; but it's thorough and careful. I need to read it again.

The Church and it's Order According to Scripture by Samuel Ridout. If it weren't for Kelly's book, this would be the best I've read on the Church. If you only have one book on the Church, it should be Kelly's; but this should be the second.

Law and Grace by Alva J. McClain. This is another I've talked about before. I am convinced the whole topic of Law and Grace is of the first importance in the Christian life. This book is not the most complete, but it's dead-on. Short, readable, and straight to the point, this is a great book, and worth running out to get. You can find it on Amazon.

The Coming Prince by Sir Robert Anderson. I have to admit I'm not done this one yet, but I'll go out on a limb and recommend it anyway. This book is stunning for it's careful and painstakingly thorough exposition of Scripture. It's a study of Daniel's 70 weeks. You can find it on Amazon.

The Believer Established by C. A. Coates. This is an introduction to the Christian life for new believers. It's really worth a read, although the last chapter is a little legalistic. This is another one you'll be able to find at the Dover Bible Fund.

Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 10. This volume is all about the Law, and it's incredible. Well worth reading. You can read this one online at STEM Publishing. It's Darby, so it's not the easiest read in the world, but it's really worth the time and effort it takes.

I've a lot more books that are worth reading, but this is a solid core. Maybe we'll get more recommendations in the comments.

Finally, brethren

Well, I'm done. I just finished the final volume of Collected Writings of J. N. Darby.

Complete Salvation

I'm in the last four volumes of J. N. Darby's Collected Writings. The end is close enough to see, so I've been really motivated to keep up the pace of my reading. But there's a danger to simply dashing through a book to finish it: go to fast and you might as well not read it.

All moralizing aside, Volume 31 has really been getting my attention. Don't get me wrong: at this point it's mainly repetition. There's bound to be, in that many volumes: most of what I'm reading now he said at some point in the previous 30 books. Still...

One really striking paper is "On Sealing with the Holy Ghost". This one gets a lot of press as a result of Darby's falling out with F. W. Grant on the subject, but there's a lot of meat in it that's easy to overlook.

I'm not sure whether I agree with Darby or Grant on the subject of sealing. Darby's writing is pretty convincing, but I'm not completely comfortable with his assertion that the man delivered at the end of Romans 7 can't fall back into it. But that's not really what I want to talk about right now.

To me the far more interesting and important thing discussed in this paper is Darby's assertion of complete redemption:

Bad teaching, which puts being born again (a vital and necessary truth, and examining whether we be in the faith, a very natural thing then, but a mere and entire misinterpretation of Scripture), instead of an accomplished and known redemption by the work of Christ, having led many true hearts away from plain Scripture truth, I add here what Scripture plainly states. If a soul can in truth before God say, Abba, Father, that soul is sealed. If a person really knows that he is in Christ, and Christ in him, he is sealed. If the love of God is shed abroad in the heart, the man is sealed. (Rom. 8; Gal. 4; Rom. 13; John 14; Rom. 10.) Other proofs may be given of if, for the whole life of a man is, save particular failures, the evidence of the Spirit of God dwelling in him; but I take the simplest and most immediate evidence in a man's soul purposely and such as are in terms stated in Scripture. Now what hinders the simple acceptance of this truth is, that the full doctrine of redemption is not believed. Forgiveness is looked at as forgiveness of so much past sins,* of sins up to our conversion, what was really Jewish forgiveness, which is contrasted in Scripture with Christian; Heb. 9, 10. What Scripture calls eternal redemption is not believed in. As to Christians in general, what it is to have no more conscience of sins, they cannot tell you, or even of the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputes no sin. No, all their past sins were forgiven when they believed, but sins since? well, they must be sprinkled again, or the present priesthood of Christ on high applies to it, neither of which is in Scripture.

Ask them what it means, when it says that by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified; they cannot tell you: each sin, after its commission, has to find its forgiveness as and when it may; and people are taught that it is a very dangerous doctrine to think otherwise. Now there is an interruption of communion; there is a gracious washing of the feet with water; but when I have believed in Christ's work there is no more imputation of sin, I am perfected as to conscience. We have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. He who bore our sins, and put them away long ago, is there. We must not confound the work of the Spirit, which makes me own my faults, and the work of Christ, finished and effectual once and for ever. He bore my sins when I had not committed one of them, and if forgiveness, in the sense of non-imputation, has to be gained now, it would be impossible; for Christ would have to suffer for them as the apostle says, "For then he must often have suffered from the foundation of the world." Hence he who has not the sense of redemption in his soul by faith, and he who really has, are by current teaching put on the same footing, though one has the Spirit of adoption, and the other has not — one looks for mercy, not yet obtained by faith, and the other, with God, cries Abba, Father; but both are taught to suppose sin imputable alike, and to search if they are children, and the delivered man is thrown back by false teaching under law in Romans 7. If you can really cry, Abba, Father, you are surely sealed; but then no sin can be imputed to you, or Christ is dead in vain. Judaism was, as to that, better than this half Christianity. There, if a man sinned, was a sacrifice, and his sin was forgiven. Here, once, perhaps, pardoned for what was gone before, he has nothing but uncertainty for all that follows. But Christ has obtained eternal redemption, and blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes no sin. And the work being complete, and he who is sanctified perfected for ever, the worshipper once purged has no more conscience of sins, and Christ is sitting down on the Father's throne because all is finished. Of this the Holy Ghost is the witness; being born of God is not.

Darby's prose is tortuous and tangled; it requires some parsing.

First, "an accomplished and known redemption by the work of Christ... what Scripture plainly states". The most important point here is that redemption isn't known by subjective self-examination; it's known from Scripture. This is a very important point, and is one of the most significant points of Darby's teaching. Scripture teaches both objective and subjective truth. Justification is objective truth: it's God's declaration that a man is righteous. New birth is subjective truth: it is God's work in a man. Justification--- objective truth--- is known objectively. One doesn't look inside to find objective truth, one looks to facts. God acquits the one who believes: this is objective. It's entirely outside me. New birth is subjective---it's God's work in me. That is known subjectively, and is proven by my life. It's impossible to see evidence in me that I am justified, because justification implies nothing at all about me: it is entirely outside me. Darby is here insisting that I have peace with God not because I am born again, but because I am justified (cf. Romans 5:1). There is no proof in my life, the proof is in Scripture.

We are redeemed by Christ, and forgiven of sins. There is no way to see that, and really no way to experience it. It is something we accept by faith: God has promised forgiveness to all who believe. If you believe, it's yours (Acts 13:39; Romans 4:5). It's foolish to examine one's self to see whether one is redeemed: there is, by definition, nothing you'd expect to see in one who's redeemed.

Then, "the full doctrine of redemption is not believed... [w]hat Scripture calls eternal redemption is not believed in." This is where we get to the real crux of the matter. "Full redemption" means there's nothing that I can do to change my standing before God. Christ's work for me means all my sins--- even sins I've not yet committed--- have been forgiven. I've not committed them yet, but they're already forgiven. Regardless of what I do, I can't change my acceptance with God.

It's obvious that sins I haven't yet committed have already been dealt with; because when Christ died for my sins, I hadn't committed any of them. If it's truly by Christ's sacrifice that I've been forgiven, then that must apply equally to sins I've not yet committed.

Darby continues, "Ask them what it means, when it says that by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified; they cannot tell you: each sin, after its commission, has to find its forgiveness as and when it may; and people are taught that it is a very dangerous doctrine to think otherwise." Scripture clearly teaches there is only one sacrifice for sins, and it cannot be repeated. This, Darby points out, is precisely what Scripture asserts is different between Judaism and Christianity. Under the Law, sacrifices were repeated; but Christ has died once, He cannot die again, and there is never another sacrifice for sins. This is the whole point of Hebrews 10:1–14. It is not merely that Christ need not sacrifice again for sins, but that He cannot. If the sacrifice He has already made is not enough, then you are certain of an eternity in Hell, with no recourse. There is absolutely nothing you can do; Christ cannot die for you again, you are lost without any hope at all.

There is a subtle subtext here. What Scripture insists on is, the perfection of Christ's sacrifice. But there are those who deny this plain truth out of fear. That is, they're afraid of what someone might do who really believed all his sins (even those not yet committed) are forgiven, and so they're not willing to believe what Scripture teaches. This is not merely theoretical, I have personally met people who believed that. In fact, one missionary told me they didn't like to teach eternal security on the mission field, because it might lead to licentiousness. What this really means is, this person was more willing to deny the completeness and perfection of Christ's work than to see a Christian fall into sin. It's not a matter of laziness or danger or license: denying that Christ's one sacrifice has covered all our sins (past, present, and future) is denying Christ. There is no other way to interpret Hebrews. God's Son has died for me, God says this one offering perfects the sanctified forever; to deny this isn't humility, it's blasphemy.

Let me diverge a moment here and point out that most people don't realize they're actually denying Christ. It's very difficult to accept that Christ's one offering is once for all, has covered all my sins, and there's nothing I can do to change that. It's not that they set out to deny Christ, it's that they can't bring themselves to believe what Scripture teaches. But the fact is, we need to let God be true and every man a liar. The Gospel is unbelievable: it has to be. The problem of sin is too big a problem to be solved by something believable. A gospel less than once-for-all isn't big enough for real sinners. Real sinners need a real gospel: something that requires nothing at all from them, something that rests entirely outside themselves. The Gospel of Scripture is exactly that. The "gospel" you hear preached rarely is.

Then, "We have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. He who bore our sins, and put them away long ago, is there." Christ bore my sins in His own body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). He took them all away, there is nothing left on me. My sins were entirely put on Him. Where is He? He's in Heaven. If one of my sins were left, if a single sin I've committed hasn't yet been dealt with, then Christ has taken it into Heaven. His presence in Heaven is proof my sins are gone. Now, I know there is more to the sacrifice of Christ than bearing my sins: there is propitiation and sanctification, etc. But the plain statement of Scripture is that He took my sins on the Cross. They're not mine any more: He took them. So if He's back in Heaven, sitting at God's right hand, then my sins must be gone. And they must be gone forever, because He's not going to be kicked out of Heaven. This is what Hebrews is actually all about: this is what Colossians 2 insists on.

Next, "We must not confound the work of the Spirit, which makes me own my faults, and the work of Christ, finished and effectual once and for ever." This is a repetition of the first point. The work of Christ for me has brought me peace with God. The work of the Spirit in me brings me into maturity and practical holiness. The Spirit works in me to make me like Christ. It's not that the Spirit's work in me isn't important: it's that God accepts me because of Christ's work for me. The relationship is established solely by what Christ has done on my behalf: the Holy Spirit's work in me doesn't enter into it.

I once read a quote by JND I've never actually found in any of his books: "It is Christ's work for me, not His work in me that brings me peace."

Then Darby makes a striking point: "Judaism was, as to that, better than this half Christianity. There, if a man sinned, was a sacrifice, and his sin was forgiven. Here, once, perhaps, pardoned for what was gone before, he has nothing but uncertainty for all that follows. But Christ has obtained eternal redemption, and blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes no sin." The "christianity" that's taught in so many places is actually inferior to Judaism. At least under the Law there is another sacrifice coming if the old one wasn't enough. But under Christianity, there can never be another. If that wasn't good enough, you're going to burn in Hell.

And I might point out, this is the problem with all Arminianism. If you really can be saved and then lost, then you can never actually be saved. A "gospel" good enough to save you until you sin again is only a "gospel" good enough to taunt you. If that's the "gospel", then not one of us is saved, and we're all going to burn.

But the point is, Christ has obtained eternal redemption. Contingent redemption isn't eternal. If God were to impute sin to me, that would be exactly the same as His rejecting Christ's sacrifice. And that would mean not merely that I would burn in Hell, but you would too. There's only one sacrifice for sins: if God rejects it, then we all are destined for Hell. Think about that: if God were to impute a single sin to a single believer, then He would reject the same sacrifice that makes everyone else perfect. If God rejects me, He rejects Paul too. There is only one sacrifice for sins, it can only be offered one time, and it's been accepted absolutely, with no recourse. God has accepted Christ's sacrifice for our sins.

Finally, "the worshipper once purged has no more conscience of sins, and Christ is sitting down on the Father's throne because all is finished." If I have been purged by this one sacrifice, I can never again be conscious of sins. It's not that I don't sin, nor is it that the Holy Spirit doesn't deal with me when I sin. It's that those sins cannot ever appear before God as mine. God cannot impute those sins to me, because He's already imputed them to Christ. And Christ has already suffered for them, taking them away forever.

Is there such a thing as confession? Absolutely! But confession doesn't absolve me from sins: God has already done that. Confession is how God deals with me subjectively, bringing me closer to Himself. But I don't confess my sins to escape them: it is by one offering that Christ has perfected me. There is nothing else to add to that: not even confession.

And this brings us really to the main point. It's hard--- really, really hard--- for a true believer to believe this when he's sinned. Our conscience is burdened, our mind is troubled, we're upset with ourselves, we fear what we've done, we're ashamed. And so we look for something to soothe the conscience: some penance or confession that will bring us peace. The problem is, there's nothing in Heaven or on earth or under the earth that can do that, because the only remedy for sins that exists (or ever will exist) is that Christ has already suffered for it. And God has already accepted Christ's offering. There cannot ever be anything else if that's not enough.

So how to deal with this problem? The solution is simple: first, we have been once purged, that cannot be repeated. But we do need to trust God. God hasn't lied to us, we need to accept the forgiveness we already have. Second, it's the worshipper who's been purged. When we feel the weight of sin, we find (although it's hard to believe) that it's in God's presence we have no more conscience of it. We don't claim forgiveness out of arrogance, but because we can see what God has given us in Christ. Third, we see that Christ is seated at God's right hand. This is what perfects us:

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, [even] as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Corinthians 3:18, KJV)

Wanna feel forgiven? Look at Christ on God's right hand.

New Book

I picked up a copy of The Greatness of the Kingdom by Alva McClain. It was recommended by a friend I met through this blog. I couldn't sleep last night, so I finished Part 1, which sounds better than "I read the first 36 pages".

It's really a very interesting book, all about the Kingdom of God. I won't recommend it yet, having only read about 36 pages; but I'm really very excited about this book.

Romans 6 & 7

I've started reading Darby again in the last few months. I'm on Collected Writings, Vol. 26. The volume starts with several articles on Romans, which has been good reading.

So naturally my thoughts have been on Romans in the last couple weeks. Hence my post about Newell on Romans 6.

I wanted to make a quick note about Romans 6 & 7 too. I remember the question coming up many years ago, of why Romans 7 comes after Romans 6. I never had a good answer, but I felt like there was something there, if only I could see it. While I've not had any sort of epiphany, I think I have a slightly better understanding of it now.

The progression of Romans starts in chapter 1, around verse 18. The first 17 verses (give or take) are more or less introductory. Starting in Romans 1:18 are a series of arguments that go pretty much to the last chapter. So the first few chapters go something like this:

1. v. 1:18--1:32 the moral history of the Gentiles is traced from knowledge of God to complete depravity.


2. v. 2:1--2:16 the condition of the moralist is considered. This is the person who recognizes heathen darkness, and eschews it: whether a Jew, or an enlightened Gentile.


3. v. 2:17--3:20 demonstrate that the Jews are just as wicked as the Gentiles. While the Jews have God's law, they fail to live up to it. v. 2:12 is really the key to the first three chapters: Gentiles had no law and were lawless; Jews had the Law and were transgressors. So v. 3:19 declares "those under the Law" as wicked as the heathen at the end of chapter 1. Thus, "every mouth might be stopped".


4. v. 3:21--4:25 introduce "righteousness by faith". The last 11 verses of chapter 3 introduce justification by faith alone through Christ alone; chapter 4 develops the concept from the life of Abraham in Genesis.


5. v. 5:1--5:11 give the consequences of justification by faith alone in Christ alone, and introduce two new words into the argument: "love" (vv. 5 & 6) and "salvation" ("saved" in v. 10).


6. v. 5:12--v. 5:21 begin a new discussion: the discussion of sin, rather than sins. Sin is demonstrated to have come into the world through Adam's disobedience, through which we have all become sinners. So while the first three chapters contain the complete picture of depravity, it's not until chapter 5 that the concept of man's sinfulness is really discussed. Chapters 1--3 tell us what man is, chapter 5 tells us what causes it. It's not just that [Gentiles and Jews alike] sin, but that they are actually sinners. The bad behaviour is actually the symptom of the bad heart.

So chapter 6 starts with asking the question that dangles at the end of chapter 5: If God has grace on sinners, and if His grace over-abounds where sin abounds, shouldn't we just go on sinning? And chapter 6 is an ontological argument against the line of reasoning. No you shouldn't, it goes, because you're no longer sinners. We were once sinners, but we've been crucified with Christ. We were once sinners, but now we're dead to sin so that we can walk in newness of life. We were once sinners, but now we're dead to sin and alive to God.

Then we read chapter 7, and we read the awful description of vv. 14--16, "for not what I will, this I do; but what I hate, this I practise." This really sounds like it belongs before chapter 6, doesn't it? Chapter 6 tells us we're dead to sin (v. 11) and "free from sin" (vv. 7 & 18). So what's the deal with Romans 7? Why the apparent step back?

I think there are two parts to the answer. The first is Newell's answer: Romans 7 introduces the idea of "Law as a rule of life" and demonstrates it doesn't work. Notice the introductory argument in vv. 4--6: we are "dead to the Law by the body of Christ". The Law was given to sinners to show them they're sinners (v. 3:20). To attempt to live up to it as one who is justified by faith is really pointless: you've already learned the lesson. And while we are crucified with Christ and are thus dead to sin, there is still certainly sin in our flesh (vv. 17--18) and the Law manages to ferret it out and get it to respond. This is what the Law was for: to reveal sin. "By the Law is the knowledge of sin". I'm justified by faith alone in Christ alone: I am not liable for sin in God's sight. But there is still sin in my flesh, and the Law draws it out. That's what vv. 9--11 teach.

So Newell says, the whole Romans 7 experience can just be avoided by not trying to keep the Law:

Therefore this conflict of Paul’s, instead of being an example to you, is a warning to you to keep out of it by means of God’s plain words that you are not under law but under grace.

But now you will adopt one of two courses: either you will read of and avoid the great struggle Paul had, under law, to make the flesh obedient by law,—with its consequent discovery of no good in him, and no strength; with his despairing cry, “Who shall deliver me?” and the blessed discovery of deliverance through our Lord Jesus Christ and by the indwelling Spirit: and this is, of course, the true way,—for you are not under law. It is the God-honoring path, for it is the way of faith. It is the wisest, because in it you profit by the struggle and testimony of another, written out for your benefit.

The second course, (and alas, the one followed by most in their distress and longing after a holy life), is to go through practically the same struggle as Paul had,—until you discover for yourself experimentally what he found.
(Romans, Verse-by-verse, Chapter 8)

But Romans 7 teaches something else too, and it's very important to grasp it. Romans 6 teaches that we have died with Christ so that we're now dead to sin. This is a wonderful and freeing thing. I am dead to sin, I am alive to God. But Romans 7 introduces us to a new word "flesh". There is something in us that Romans calls the flesh: "in me, that is, in my flesh, good does not dwell" (v. 7: 18). I am justified by faith alone in Christ alone. I am dead to sin. But I find when I look at myself, there is indwelling sin. And worse, I find I am utterly powerless over it. This is the lesson of Romans 7.

And how does the struggle with the flesh end? When he gives up in vv. 23--25 and realizes he can't fix it. When he realizes it's bigger than he is, and looks for a Deliverer.

Romans 8 fully develops the theme of indwelling sin and brings it to fruition in vv. 1--27. We are justified by faith alone in Christ alone (chapter 5). We are dead to sin (chapter 6). But we find sin still lives in our flesh (chapter 7). But Romans 8:1--27 assures us, we're not done yet. Our sinful and mortal bodies will some day be resurrected, and then we'll be free from sin's presence. We are waiting for "the redemption of the body" (v. 23). That day's coming: we're waiting for it, because it hasn't happened yet (vv. 24--25).

And we might notice the word "body" in each chapter. Chapter 6 talks about the "body of sin", chapter 7 calls it the "body of death", and chapter 8 calls it our "mortal body". There is a progression: sin in the flesh will inevitably lead to death. We're waiting for our bodies to be redeemed, so that we can be as free from sin's presence as we are from sin's guilt and sin's power.

There's one more difference I see between Romans 6 and Romans 7. Romans 6 starts out with the question of willful sin, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?". The question there is, since grace over-abounds, why not get more grace by sinning more? Romans 7 introduces a new idea: involuntary sin. This is not the sin we set our minds to, this is the sin we find ourselves committing over and over. Even though we may hate it, and even though we hate ourselves for doing it, we find we just keep doing it. That's the struggle in vv. 19--21

19* For I do not practise the good that I will; but the evil I do not will, that I do.
20* But if what *I* do not will, this I practise, it is no longer *I* that do it, but the sin that dwells in me.
21* I find then the law upon *me* who will to practise what is right, that with *me* evil is there.

So I don't have many answers. But I think Romans 7 comes after Romans 6 because the discovery of sin in the flesh is really a very different thing from being dead to sin. When man sinned, he fell from the inside out. His spiritual death preceded his physical death by a long time. God saves us the same way. First He justifies, then He transforms us, inside-out. He fixes us inside, and some day He'll fix the outside too.

We can't really learn Romans 7 if we don't have Romans 6. There's no real way to understand indwelling sin when we haven't yet grasped our death to sin. We need to learn we've died with Christ so that we can say "it is no longer *I* that do it, but the sin that dwells in me" (Romans 7:17).

And I think that is why Romans 7 comes after Romans 6.

Newell on Romans 6

Romans 6 is an interesting chapter in what is probably the most theological book in the Bible. It's the chapter that deals with the believer's death with Christ. Over the past fifteen or so years, I've glanced at various commentaries and books to see how they deal with Romans 6. There seem to be a few main schools of thought on the chapter, and each has some good points. But eventually each one ends up contradicting Scripture on some point, big or small.

So when I read Newell's commentary on Romans 6 in Romans Verse-by-verse, I was overjoyed. He does an excellent job of explicating the chapter. In my opinion, he goes right through the passage, avoiding the traps that we all seem to fall into.

Most importantly, he correctly differentiates between the old man and the flesh:

The word our indicates that what is said, is said of and to all those who are in Christ. The expression “our old man,” of course is a federal one, as also is “the new man.” The “old man,” therefore, is not Adam personally, any more than the “new man” is Christ personally. Also, we must not confuse the “old man” with “the flesh.”

This is a point of tremendous importance, it lies at the root of a lot of misunderstanding of this passage. He goes on to list four differences between the old man and the flesh. I was pleased to see his mention of Galatians 5: there is a crucifixion of the flesh, but it's taught in very different terms than the crucifixion of the old man.

Not to get on one of my hobby horses, but this distinction is very carefully maintained in Scripture. If we're not careful to maintain it ourselves, we end up in a bad spot. Particularly in Romans, the old man isn't mentioned after chapter 6, the flesh isn't mentioned until chapter 7. They're quite distinct. I think it's obvious in Romans 6 that the old man is something we were while the flesh is something we have.

The problem with equating them is that we have to choose between eradicationism (i.e. the believer is free not only from sin's guilt and sin's power, but also from sin's presence) and the strict "two-naturism" (really positionalism) more common among "brethren" and mainstream evangelicals, where the old man is "kinda-sorta-but-not-really" dealt with. The former leads into real trouble once we get into Romans 7 and Galatians 5, the latter leads to trying to "die to self". There's nothing good down that path.

So I was delighted that Newell is careful with that distinction. Sadly, even Darby seemed to get those mixed up. F. W. Grant seems to have done a better job of maintaining the Scriptural distinction.

I think Newell gets the body of sin right too. I've heard all sorts of explanations where the body of sin is just the sum total of sin. Even Darby takes that interpretation. It seems obvious to me that the body of sin is the unredeemed body. We are justified, we are crucified with Christ, we are to walk in newness of life; but our bodies are yet unredeemed. When the Lord Jesus comes to get us, we will be changed. That is the "redemption of the body" in Romans 8. In fact, that is one of the main arguments of Romans 8.

So I've been delighted to read his comments on Romans 6. I'd started to wonder whether I was totally in left field... it seems no matter whose comments I read on that chapter, I kept shaking my head. And my understanding of the chapter has really increased with Newell's help.

Because I tend to see the chapter ontologically instead of positionally, I needed to be reminded that there is a definite positional aspect to it. The old man really is a federal thing. I've been far too personal in my understanding of that term. It's as a positional thing that it's mentioned in Ephesians 4. I'd really lost sight of that.

So I'm as enthusiastic as ever I was in endorsing Newell's book on Romans. And I'm kicking myself again for letting it sit on my bookshelf for twelve years. Imagine such an excellent book gathering dust for all that time...