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.
62 comments:
The life which we have as Christians, new in us, is in origin before the worlds.
It is not, remark here, that there is a predestination of individuals, important as this may be in its place, but that the church-eternal life-the promise of that life-our present saving and calling, had their place before the world existed. The life itself had, in the Person of the blessed Son of God. Life, the church, incorruptibility, our salvation and calling, have been brought to light and revealed, yea, as to the church, begin to exist since Christ came.
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
Rom.8.29,30
If language means anything, then predestination is most certainly of individuals.
Absolutely, Robert!
Jnd vol 23 p139
https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/DOCTRINE/23007E.html
Dr. Merrill F. Unger supplies us with a very interesting refutation of the error set forth by these two well-known leaders. "Our Lord, while on earth, taught that the Father in answer to prayer would 'give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him' (Luke 11:13). This promise, of course, was pre-Pentecost, and was spoken under the Old Economy, when the Spirit of God came upon men, and departed according to divine sovereign will. For a man to ask for, much less receive, the Spirit was a staggering new thing to a Jew, in advance of the fulfillment of Joel 2:28, 29, and there is no evidence that any asked for the Spirit, claiming this promise.
"To apply this teaching to the present age is erroneously to assume that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is the same in every dispensation and to forget Pentecost, ignoring the fact that every believer now, has the Indwelling Spirit. It was the ascended Christ who asked the Father for the Spirit as the Ascension Gift (John 14:16), and no believer now, baptized and indwelt with the Spirit, as he is, need ever ask for Him. He possesses Him, and never because he has prayed or asked for Him, but because he has Him as a free gift by virtue of simple faith in the crucified and risen Saviour.
https://web.archive.org/web/20010715173419fw_/http://withchrist.org/MJS/receive.htm
Galatians 4:6. "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."
This determining Scripture is wholly contradicted by the theory that the Spirit is given in answer to personal sanctification. Rather it is because of the fact that believers are sons that the Spirit is given unto them, and this procedure of necessity must include every son.
Lsc VI, 129
LSC VI,73
I guess its hard to take types from acts and apply them to ourselves today because it was a transitional book from the old testement to the new. Acts ten was a sort of gentile pentecost. The old brethren didnt hold to that very well.
so true...
In such a declaration, if we are to understand it aright, we must remember that we are here in the overlapping of two dispensations. It is as evident, on the one hand, that Cornelius was already a believer, as that, on the other, he had not yet the faith of Christ. In the midst of Christendom today, such a condition would be perfectly anomalous and unintelligible; and so for most it would be to talk of a soul having life and being still unsaved. Cornelius undoubtedly had life; he was one of those sheep not of the Jewish fold, of which the Lord had spoken, whom He would bring and unite with those of Israel, and there should be one flock, one Shepherd (Jno. x. 16). He was in fact now cansing these to hear His voice, and this accounts for what is strange apparently in the Gentile here, but which is at once intelligible when we consider his position between the dispensations. And though Cornelius was a believer of that which was passing away, yet for final salvation he needed to receive the Christ who had come, and would do so if the Shepherd's voice fairly reached him: for His sheep hear His voice. If it be final salvation that is spoken of here, all diffienlty disappears as to the words used. Of a present salvation Judaism, as a legal system, could know nothing; much less, if possible, a Jewish proselyte, or one like the Roman centurion, converted to God, and yet outside the law. Into the precious assurance of this nothing but Christianity could bring him.
Fwg Numerical bible p71
Early brethren would have condemned calling Acts 10 "a sort of Gentile Pentecost" on the ground that the Holy Spirit having been given in Acts 2, it is impossible He would be given again. This is precisely why JND condemned Irvingism (Notes and Jottings pp 28–29): they taught that the Holy Ghost had "come back again," but Christ had already poured Him out. Pentacostalism falls on the same point.
Darby's view on sealing was not that the Holy Spirit needed to be given, nor even that He needed to be received. I'm not certain Darby equated the Holy Spirit's presence with His sealing. His point was the the Holy Spirit seals faith in Christ. So the sealing with the Holy Spirit was a question not of faith in God, but of faith in Christ. This is in John 7:39.
Darby's teaching on the subject leaves a lot to be desired. While I more or less agree with him, I think he overemphasized some points at the cost of others. As an example, he insists that Romans 7 vs. Romans 8 represents a one-time transition, while not addressing the very real warning in Romans 8:13. It's possible to read Darby on sealing and come to the conclusion that he believed in Wesley-style "entire sanctification." He assuredly didn't, but he wasn't very clear on that point for the most part. Frankly, I objected to Darby's teaching on sealing for a long time precisely because I couldn't see a difference between what he taught and "entire sanctification."
But I really wasn't attempting to address the question of sealing. Even the FWG quote agrees with Kelly's view that Cornelius was certainly born again before Peter went to him. Cornelius, while believing in God, had not yet heard the gospel of Christ. This transition from "faith in God" to "faith in Christ" (see John 14:1) is a major theme in Acts.
Maybe that's a bad term I only meant that the Gentiles were added to the body of Christ not that there are two bodys. It's still a bad example to take things from acts and apply them to us today. things had to be ironed out so to speak. Just like there's no laying on of hands or speaking in tongues there's no second blessing or salvation.
Kelly used this passage more than once to explain sealing and it was a point of contention among the early brethren.
I'm in agreement with Anonymous on this. Darby and Grant disagreed on this subject as well.
"Darby distinguished between the life received at new birth and eternal life received at some later time, the former characterizing the one in Romans 7, the latter, in Romans 8, that one in the full Christian faith with the sealing of the Spirit.
Grant taught that divine, therefore eternal, life was the possession of believers in all dispensations. In the present age of grace the knowledge of eternal life in the Son, who was ever the fountain of life, is given through the Word and all who receive Christ possess Him and are immediately sealed by the Spirit. The man in Romans 7 has both life and the Spirit but does not have experimental knowledge of either until he sees his place in Christ risen, as set forth in Romans 8."
F. W. Grant: His Life, Ministry and Legacy by John Reid
The threshold being entered is by a christian who discovers his sin isnt taken away when he was saved. We don't realize that the sin nature is still active and has to be overcome but we struggle with it and try to produce holiness by the law until we come to defeat and realize that our crucifixion with Christ was the answer to our sin problem. It is a one time experience where you learn your position in Christ to your death with him to the sin nature when he was made sin for us.
Yes - For me a slow and painful process.
I think most of the regulars here would side with FWG over JND on the question around sealing.
The difficulty that eventually drove me into Darby's view is Romans 7. I remember a lot of people I knew asking why Romans 6 doesn't lead right into Romans 8. In FWG's or MJS's view, Romans 7 seems like it belongs before Romans 6, not after it. But JND's view sees Romans 7 as addressing a different problem than Romans 6 addresses.
Exegetically, Romans 6 and Romans 7 don't seem to be discussing the same thing. Romans 6 talks about "the old man," Romans 7 does not. Romans 7 talks about "the flesh," Romans 6 does not. So at least exegetically, JND's view carries more weight.
As an aside, I haven't read it in several years, but I think Newell's Romans Verse by Verse is closer to Darby's view than Grant's, at least in Romans 7 & 8.
Romans 6 deals with two problems. In the first half, it deals with slavery to sin. In the second half, it deals with someone who is not enslaved to sin per se, but likes to dabble in it from time to time. This person says, "since I'm not under law, but under grace, I can sin." The first half deals with "continuing in sin", the second half deals with "sinning."
Romans 7 deals with the issue of "the law of sin in my members" that's triggered when we try to do what we know we should. This isn't someone enslaved to sin, this is someone who finds his or her efforts at righteousness somehow provoke and invoke something evil in themselves. In other words, this person might do just fine if he or she just never tried to act righteously at all.
In the JND view, Romans 7:5–6 summarize the verses that follow. So the remedy for "the law of sin in my members" is the transition from "in the flesh" to "clear from the law." This is very closely related to the remedy presented in Romans 6, but it's applied to a different problem.
I have found that the FWG/MJS view tends to conflate Romans 6 and Romans 7.
But let me hasten to add, pretty much every Christian I know who looks into these chapters at some point shrugs and says, "it's complicated." I think Darby's insistence that they represent one-time changes is probably correct, but isn't really helpful. The fact is that we're never beyond backsliding, reverting, or finding a new failure in our lives. FWG's view might address that more helpfully, even though it's on weaker exegetical ground.
Even though you do do know your postion in Christ youre still being walked into it. Its not enough to know but need to learn experientially. Your old nature will keep the law over Christ and we have to learn that through experiences in everyday life. Thats where our crucifixtion comes in. Rom 7 is taking what paul explained in 6 and applying it to everyday life. And thats our crucifixion with Christ to the law and sin nature. Chapter 8 is explaining how the Spirit works it out. Only he can open anyone up to anything.
is there more than one anonymous on this thread??? Just wondering...
Mark, sometimes writers refer to "old man" and "flesh" as the same.....Even Darby..."But the examination of Scripture will shew that the flesh, or old man, is an evil thing, gauged and rejected of God and of faith, accounted dead by reason of Christ's death, but never renewed, never changed."JND
https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/DOCTRINE/29006E.html
We're all still growing - None of us have arrived ---
You learn Christ though your sufferings with him its only through pain that we can know him and his mind as backwards as that seems. Thats our crucifixtion with him and it takes many and unlitmmited forms based on our expeiences in life past and present but its all tied into together and mix and matched. Its a little hard to type into words becuase you dont think about much when youre going thru it but they are as varied and wide as you can imagine. Roms just gives us the broad outline. The Spirit makes good on it personally.
Susan, I agree Darby uses the terms interchangeably, and I wish he wouldn't. Kelly is better, but not much. Newell's comparison of "old man" and "flesh" in Romans Verse by Verse (pp. 210–212 in my copy) is probably the best I have read.
Newell points out that (1) the old man was crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6) and (2) those that are Christ's have crucified the flesh (Galatians 5:24). We can't reconcile these two statements without drawing a distinction between "old man" and "flesh". But that's only one line in two-and-a-half pages of discussion. It's really worth reading: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/newell/romans.vii.html, under his commentary on v. 6.
They are closely related, but they are not used as synonyms in Scripture. I think Newell's understanding of "old man" referring to federal headship under Adam and "flesh" referring to the indwelling sin in unredeemed bodies is probably correct.
Agreed, Mark....Newell's is the best!!! 210-212 in my copy as well
Agreed, Anonymous......suffering is necessary
“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with
him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that
henceforth we should not serve sin”. Romans 6:6
“Knowing refers to doctrine based on facts in the past. The term old man' is used in a corporate sense and refers to the whole race in its Adam standing. This was 'crucified with Christ at Calvary where the end of all flesh came before God. A judicial sentence was passed by God on the whole race and man in his Adamic standing was terminated at Calvary. As far as I am concerned individually this relates to the old nature I have as belonging to that old Adamic race, but the teaching here is that the
whole Adamic race was crucified with Christ.
The 'body of sin' is this mortal body which is not destroyed but annulled, or rendered powerless to sin. Verse 12 explains 'body of sin'. It is our mortal body which provides the territory where sin can reign. It has been 'annulled', a word that is also used in
Hebrews where the writer states that our Saviour, by His death, 'destroyed' him that had the power of death, 2. 14. The idea is not so much that the devil has been destroyed but his power in relation to death has been annulled. The purpose in view is that 'henceforth we should not be slaves to sin.
The old man is the root; the body of sin is the fruit. The old man relates to a sinful nature; the body of sin is where that nature expresses itself.
In summary, the old man was crucified and the body of sin is annulled. As we have observed, this mortal body provided the monarch, sin, with the territory in which to reign and to exercise its mastery. Sin made its pressing and relentless demands on the members of our bodies with the result that the members of our bodies became sin's weapons to do what is not right, cf. v. 13. Now the service of sin has been brought to an end; our old man has been crucified. The whole Adamic race corporately was crucified.
There are important distinctions to make. Our old man did not die; I died. Death is natural; crucifixion is judicial. People may die through such things as disease, old age, or accident but crucifixion is a sentence of judgement. It was done deliberately by one person to another and, in the case of our Lord, Pilate passed sentence and
the soldiers carried it out. Here, God passed sentence on the whole of Adam's race and that sentence was executed on our Saviour at Calvary, There the end of all flesh came before God because there was nothing in it that could please God.”
Albert Leckie Commentary on Romans 1-8
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things
of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the
things of the Spirit. Romans 8:5
“In this section, the apostle is not speaking of carnal and spiritual Christians, as he does in 1 Corinthians 3, but concerning the matter of being in the Spirit or in the flesh. All believers are in the Spirit: all unbelievers are in the flesh. Note verse 9: 'ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit'. In the Spirit is not as in Revelation chapter 1 verse 10. Being in the Spirit, v. 9, is true of every believer. We accept, and rightly so, that the Spirit of God dwells in every believer and because that is true 'you are not in the
flesh'. It is most important to notice that we are in the Spirit because the Spirit is in us.
Paul will develop this truth. The but of verse 9 is the 'but' of conversion. If 'in the Spirit' is true of every believer, 'in the flesh' is true of every unbeliever. As for the
believer, the child of God, the flesh is in him but he is not in the flesh. Every Christian has the indwelling Spirit of God and is 'in the Spirit', meaning that he is in that sphere now where he is under the rule and influence of the Holy Spirit. As to the unbe-
liever he is in the flesh. The apostle does not mean that the unbeliever is in the flesh corporeally, in a body, for that is true of all men. In Galatians he speaks of 'the life which I now live in the flesh', or 'the life I live in a body'. Neither does he mean simply
that he is in Adam, as being his child, or in the flesh as being possessed of a corrupt life which has a will not according to God's will. Rather, he is characterised by the flesh and controlled by it and so the Bible speaks of the 'will of the flesh' and the 'mind of the flesh. However, the believer is no longer in the flesh as we saw in chapter 7 verse 5. when Paul speaks of the time ´when we were in the flesh'. Now the believer is in the Spirit. Thus, in verses 5-11 the apostle sets out to show the sharp contrast between the generate and the unregenerate. Unless we see this we shall never understand the section.”
Albert Leckie Commentary Romans 1-8
When we cross that threshold of rom 7 to rom 8 it is a one time act of yielding yourself to God in rom 12. Rom 6 gives the outline of know in verse 6 reckon in verse 11 and yield in the verses after. 12 is a retelling of the learning your position in Christ for victory.
True consecration
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pFK1hUKXlmA&list=PL1usBZfF7Z6fvhonnp_wd4YmIsrqeHEzh&index=9&pp=iAQB
Its all about usin your faith like in james 2 when we excercise our faith in tye facts of Gods word the holy spirit can make them a reality in in our lives. When we dont faith becomes idle or dormant.
Robert and Anonymous - Very good!!!
When we do excercise our faith theires a quickening process going on where something that was mudane a day ago becomes alive and stands out in relief. And using all these quickened things to paint a picture leading us along thru the day.
and where that which was not understood becomes understood.....
Hes manuvering through impressions so theres going to be a lot of alone time with him directing you through the exercises he has set for the day theres a different excercise for everyday but they all string together. But this only happens if youve crossed the threshold and place your faith in the word of God.
“In Romans Six we see the foundation of our deliverance—the fact that we died with Christ; and also the conditions of our deliverance—that we reckon ourselves dead unto sin and yield to God as those that are alive from the dead. Romans Eight tells us the means and the method of our deliverance—that it is through the blessed Holy Spirit alone that we are actually delivered in everyday life, from sin’s reign; the moment we cease from all our own efforts and let Him do all the work, He will begin delivering us from the power of sin. How long it takes some of us to come to the end of our own efforts can be seen in Romans Seven!” —W.R.N.
Bit you dont get tondecide what hes going tonshownyou alot has to fonwith your spiritual walk but alot has to do with darkness in the world til all you see is the spiritual side ofnthings. You dont gr to choose jus t the good you have the evil that comes with it.
OK Anonymous- now I'm getting an uneasy feeling about some of your comments.....A lot you say I'm in agreement with, but some of what you say is getting a little "off".....IMHO.....
That's why I asked if there is more than one Anonymous on this thread..
PS - Welch is my maiden name. I don't know how it appeared???
It's only one person. When we give up Romans 7 to a mere salvation experience it removes the of struggle as christians with sin in daily life. And more importantly it removes the more obscure passage of learning our position in Christ for strength over that sin nature. Sadly the less experienced understandings fall by the wayside and you're left with the gospel all over again. Sealing is also used like covenant folks for telling others they're not saved or one of the elect and is a part of exclusivism. That's why it's a pet doctrine of the TWs etc. It's a means of control.
Its hard to gauge these things from our perspective because we weren't there. It really was a victorian cult and all we can do is take their good doctrines and separate them from the the ones they used for childish dysfunctional behavior and control. If anyone has had problems with cult.like behavoir in the past they should stay as far away from brethernism.
It all comes down to the sin nature learning practically what it is. Theres too many exortations in the bible against the sin nature to ignore it rom 7 is the practical learning of our sin nature and the solution based on what we learned in rom 6 that we died the old nature with Christ and we are to reckon that to be so. Its not of our own effort but the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus works that into our reality. And thats true spirituality or being filled with the Spirit. Were going with his flow as hes teaching.
Rom 8 is the Spirit that works in you to produce the crucified life and Christ life. Notice verse 4 is in and not by. Theres a certain leading in all things and i lt comes down to very minute details depending on the exercise. And this is the only way we can mortify the deeds of the body its the Spirits fight not yours or you end up with flesh suppressing flesh. This is the only way we can be more than conquerors.
When we insist on reducing "salvation" to mean only one thing, then we run into serious trouble. See Romans 13:11 as an example. In fact, there isn't a single use of "salvation" in the book of Romans that is in the past. The closest thing to past-tense salvation you're going to find in Romans is in Romans 8:24, which is self-evidently referring to a future event.
This was the point I was making when I shared the Kelly quotes in the OP.
Scripture uses "salvation" to refer to a past event, a present (ongoing) event, and a future event. We have been saved, we are being saved, and we shall be saved. All three are true.
But what I insist on – the point Kelly makes clearly – is that Scripture never uses "salvation" as a synonym for justification, redemption, regeneration, new birth, or the forgiveness of sins. In every case – every case – "salvation" means coming into the fullness of what God has for us. It's not a stretch to say "salvation" includes all of those things, and more besides. It takes us all the way into God's presence, accepted in Christ, glorified with Him.
Romans uses "salvation" exclusively in a future sense, because it gives the details of every step of the path from unregenerate paganism to glorification with Christ. In Romans, our glorification with Christ is certain, but we don't have it yet. Thus, we're not yet saved, but are being saved, and shall be saved, which is the point of Romans 8:24.
Ephesians uses "salvation" in the past sense because in Ephesians we're already seated in the heavenlies with Christ. So Ephesians 2:8–10 says, "by grace ye have been saved." Ephesians sees it as accomplished fact. But again, in Ephesians we're already seated up there with Christ.
If you use "salvation" in the reductive (evangelical) sense, you end up with the idea that salvation is "merely" new birth. Scripture doesn't ever use it that way.
(Continued)
I think Grant agreed with Kelly on this, by the way. The difference is that Grant believed that there cannot be a gap between regeneration and sealing, while Darby (and Kelly) believed it was not only possible, but probable. Huebner might even push that harder than they, which isn't surprising.
It is true that many of the exclusives attempted to make a Shibboleth of sealing, which resulted in the Grant/Cecil/NHH division.
I genuinely believe that the Ramsgate 1881 division was the spiritual end of the exclusive movement: that was the point where they ignored what they taught and claimed to believe to get rid of someone they found inconvenient. Every single division since has been applying the same faulty logic to make "the circle" smaller. So while I bristle when I hear someone use the term "cult," I have to admit that claim has some merit. I think "Ichabod" was written over it in all the carnal goings-on around Kelly's excommunication.
But the flesh within us is capable of turning any truth into division, sectarianism, and outright sin. The fact that Darby's view of sealing became a Shibboleth doesn't mean it isn't scriptural. Recall 2 Peter 3:15–16. The question isn't whether and/or how a teaching is abused, but "what saith the Scriptures?"
If you take Grant's view (which is certainly the majority view amongst evangelicals), then you have some exegetical problems in Romans 7 & 8. First, you have Romans 8:9, "But *ye* are not in flesh but in Spirit, if indeed God's Spirit dwell in you; but if any one has not [the] Spirit of Christ *he* is not of him." In Grant's view, that means that someone who does not have the Spirit of Christ cannot be born again. Again, I think this is the majority view among Protestants, and also the majority view of the regulars here.
The problem is in the first half of the verse: if you have the Spirit of Christ, then you are not in the flesh. So someone "in the flesh" must not be born again. That's problematic when we compare with Romans 7:5–6. Does "when we were in the flesh" there mean "before we were born again?" If that's the case, then what do we do with the next 19 verses? You end up in one of two places: either Romans 7:7ff refers to an unregenerate man(!!), or it refers to a man living the normal Christian life.
If Romans 7:7ff refers to an unregenerate man, then you can get into real problems. Here's just one example: I actually heard, in an "open brethren" assembly, from a well-known Bible teacher, that Romans 7:9 meant that the unregenerate are not spiritually dead, but that they die spiritually when the Law is applied. This is beyond nonsense. There was no public retraction of that statement. And this wasn't some nobody (like me) making the statement, this was a well-known "commended worker" from out of town giving a series of meetings.
But if you take Romans 7:7ff to refer to a regenerate man, then how can you understand Romans 7:5–6? There is clearly a transition there, which is reflect in the transition at the end of Romans 7. You must conclude that these two parallel transitions are not related.
Of course I'm not saying Darby's view is a slam-dunk, there are some issues with both the JND/WK and the FWG view. This passage is difficult for everyone. I am merely saying that I find Darby's view easier to support exegetically. But I will hasten to add: I find it less practical.
Again, I suspect Newell aligned more with Darby than with Grant, but his take on Romans 7 isn't the same as Darby's. Well... they're a whole lot more similar than we might think, if we read everything Darby wrote on the subject. But at least on the surface, Newell's view of Romans 7 seems like a "moderate Darby" view.
Oh wow!
If I'm agreeing with FWG's view, I became a born again Christian at 29.
If I'm agreeing with Darby's view I became a born again Christian as a child.
about the "flesh" I really like Robert's post on the subject!!!
"As for the
believer, the child of God, the flesh is in him but he is not in the flesh. Every Christian has the indwelling Spirit of God and is 'in the Spirit', meaning that he is in that sphere now where he is under the rule and influence of the Holy Spirit."
It's also true that for God's elect chosen ones who are not yet saved - "they will be saved"....
Amen, Susan!
My biggest concern with Darby's view is the tendency to create a "two-tier" system, which Anonymous has already mentioned.
I have no doubt that Darby had no such intention: "I add here what Scripture plainly states. If a soul can in truth before God say, Abba, Father, that soul is sealed" (https://stempublishing.com/authors/darby/DOCTRINE/31019E.html). JND was certainly not teaching an agony of introspection in which one has to question one's own experience to find his or her state before God. But Anonymous is correct that this is what his teaching became.
My own experience was that it was many years between profession, then baptism, then coming to see I had died with Christ, then realizing I was accepted before God, and nothing I did or didn't do would change that. But it still wasn't some sort of "one and done" thing: we still can fall into sin. We still can become a slave to sin by getting into the habit of obeying it (Romans 6:15ff). Romans 8:12–14 is a real thing.
This is probably the biggest weakness in Darby's ministry. He was so intent on making the Romans 7 to Romans 8 transition a one-time thing, he tended to down-play the significance of Romans 8:12–14. And in practical terms, he didn't address very well the fact that the Pauline epistles address both doctrinal (Galatians) and moral (1 Corinthians) failures among Christians who were sealed with the Holy Spirit! Scripture doesn't present sealing with the Holy Ghost as some sort of "entire sanctification." It's simply not what Scripture teaches.
This is the biggest problem in Huebner's book. He treats every single issue in the Christian life as proof that one has not yet been sealed. Again, that is to ignore the clear teaching of the Pauline epistles that it's entirely possible for believers indwellt by the Holy Spirit to fall into error. He attempts to correct this in a later chapter, but like Darby before him, he does it as an afterthought. Huebner's book is excellent, it really is, but his tendency to tunnel vision can lead to disastrous outcomes.
It seems to me like "brethren" who hold to the Darby/Kelly/Grant/Mackintosh teachings of sanctification (that it is driven by our identity with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection) have a tendency to diagnose themselves and others with "being in Romans 7" when they are likely "in Romans 6:15ff." The clear teaching there is that it's possible to make sin your master in a practical sense by dabbling in sins. This is a case that I can't find many of these Christians considering. The man in Romans 7 is sinning against his will. But the man in Romans 6:15ff has chosen to dabble, and now finds he can't stop. That's not the same thing at all.
So I'm left in the difficult position of saying that I think JND et al were correct doctrinally, but tend to offer very little practical help. Others that I think were less correct doctrinally tend to produce more helpful ministry. It's frustrating.
I think the final chapter or two in Watchman Nee's The Normal Christian Life might offer a more helpful take on Darby's view. Like Darby, Nee clearly distinguished between new birth and sealing. But Nee's take seems much less legalistic and introspective to me.
I need to reread a lot of these books, I'm afraid I'm relying too much on my memory.
Sealing with the Holy Spirit does not prevent future grieving or quenching of the Holy Spirit. So to me it is never linked with sanctification. It is proof of ownership.
I had a similar experience to most people - believed at 12, baptised at 14 (told it was following the Lord), knew nothing of acceptance until around 21. I have attended only one series of meetings in my lifetime on Romans 5-8. Everything I know about those verses I had to teach myself. We’re it not for the works of ‘exclusive’ brethren I would know very little They are very difficult passages and these posts show that we are all still struggling to come to terms with them, which shows that they should be pondered over throughout the Christian life.
If you want to hear teaching that is beyond nonsense, the present crop of open brethren commended workers will happily oblige you! Many of them are teaching that it is possible to kill sin, which they have learned from Piper.
Piper, huh?? Oh no...
Seems like there's pretty much a great falling away in all the camps these days.
Outside the camp, inside the veil,
Susan
I have found "open brethren" have all but completely walked away from "our" view of sanctification. Almost thirty years ago, I was in a tiny minority, and those would hold "our" view were more influenced by Miles Stanford than by "brethren" writers. I realize that sounds sectarian, but it's meant more as an observation that the "brethren" teaching on the subject was so lost that when it cropped up, it had been re-imported (so to speak).
On the other side, it's not completely forgotten. Well, not yet. There's a lot of influence from folks like Piper, and from MacArthur too. Again, I'm not trying to be sectarian, but the heritage of "brethren" has largely been lost. Darby, Kelly, etc. are remembered mainly as harsh legalists. Their greatest contribution in terms of ministry is largely forgotten or ignored.
One disturbing trend I have seen is that many who recognize our identity with Christ then veer off into making it a point of either fruitless introspection or an odd form of legalism. To turn the liberty we have in Christ into another, subtler form of legalism is a terrible thing. Self-judgment can become self-focus, and then it becomes self-obsession. Before you know it, you're back in the center, with Christ on the periphery.
I cannot say how deeply I appreciate the interactions I have with the regulars here.
I think that Stempublishing is a great blessing to us and I encourage all young people who will listen to take advantage of it. But sadly I also tell them to be wary of telling others where they learned the truth from. The world speaks of cancel culture but brethren assemblies of various shades invented it years ago.
I also agree that salvation is past, present and future. We suffer from poor gospel preaching. My grandfather once said to me, ‘most preachers are concerned with the start of the journey but God is interested in how it’s starts, continues and ends’.
Even Paul fell into the trap of introspection. In Romans 7 he uses personal pronouns forty seven times in nineteen verses - ‘I’thirty times, ‘me’ twelve times, ‘my’ four times, ‘ myself’ once. This produced the ‘wretched man’ of ch 7. It is only when we ask ‘who shall deliver me’ that we make progress. He learned that the only safe ground is ‘not I but Christ’.
Yes - I am grateful too for this forum. It is so encouraging to know that we are not alone in our searching.
I think we can all agree there's a certain period in a christians life where he learns his position and the spirit works it for you instead of powerless struggle. Call it whatever you want second blessing second salvation second sealing there's a time when you realize you receive power from the Spirit because you are unable to. I went thru a time of coming back to the Lord after addiction and thinking there's gotta be more to this than try your best because I can't cut it. Then I came across Stanford's books and tapes and my eyes were opened. If someone would've told me before hand what my position in Christ was and what real Christianity is I would've laughed. There was a good month or two afterwards where I was in spiritual shock. That process has been only refreshed twice and probably more to come but there's only really one time that threshold is being crossed.
There's a good series on identification truths https://www.hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/messages/?series_id=30&series_page=40
OK, I think I get where you're coming from. Most of us here have had very similar experiences: we believed something like, "Christ died for me, now I have to live for Him." It takes some people longer than others, but we eventually get lost when we try to make progress on that road.
When we first "see" that Christ has died for me, so my sins are gone; and I have died with Christ, so I don't have to live... that's a qualitative change in how we perceive the Christian life. And that, I agree, is a one-time step. For me, that came about through reading Watchman Nee's Sit, Walk, Stand.
I was baptized at 11, but by the time I was 21, I was in serious trouble. Oddly enough, I had already encountered "identification truth" through Bill Gothard. Of course he was able to make that a law, too. But that's another rant. Religious flesh can turn any gift into a law.
The Lord used Watchman Nee to show me that "I have died with Christ" isn't something we attain, but something we get for free. That was the biggest turning point in my spiritual life.
I absolutely agree that's a big step we only take once. But I will also add that we can always lose ground, even in that. We don't need to "learn" it again, but we do need to be reminded. I think everyone here agrees on that.
I have some problems with Miles Stanford's ministry, but he has reached more people with the truth of our identification with Christ than probably anyone else. His constant refrain of Christ as our All-in-All is of inestimable value. I owe MJS a huge debt, even though the Lord used Nee to show me identification truth. MJS's ministry was a big help to me for several years after that, as it has been to thousands of others.
Mark - As you know I came to identification/position truths by arriving at Dan Smedra's website withChrist.org over 20 years ago. That is where MJS writings were found. I ordered all of his material. His later Position papers were loaded with Darby and the early PB's articles. So thankful for them all. We all know that only God's Word is perfect though don't we? I did read Watchman Nee's SWS and right away I had problems with him. Interesting huh? It was so long ago I don't remember what exactly the problems were.
btw - I was in a ladies Bible Study by Bill Gothard about 40 years ago. It didn't take long for me to discover serious trouble with his teaching!
If you have some time, I would be interested in you expanding on the idea, "Christ died for me, now I have to live for Him" and the pitfalls of this approach to the Christian life. It is rife in the evangelical world and is promoted to all age groups. Those who detract from it are labeled as passive, theoretical, mystical etc, etc.
We have agreed in this post that it is a rare thing today to hear Romans 5-8 taught and I feel too that John 13-17 is also neglected as outlining how we should live in the present dispensation. It contains a lot of truths that are inconvenient to the current evangelical landscape. "Without Me, ye can do nothing" is one of them.
I have often thought that the people who understood human nature the best were the servants of Naaham - "And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it"?
yea - the "Christ died for me so now be good and do good" does not work
does it???
I'm sure Mark has much to say when he is able....I believe the statement " "Christ died for me, now I have to live for Him." is concerning the dangers of putting Believers under the law as the rule of life to be good and do good. (reformed theology)
We are fully convinced that a superstructure of true, practical holiness can never be erected on a legal basis; and hence it is that we press 1 Cor. 1:30 upon the attention of our readers. It is to be feared that many who have, in some measure, abandoned the legal ground, in the matter of "righteousness," are yet lingering thereon for "sanctification." We believe this to be the mistake of thousands, and we are most anxious to see it corrected. It is evident that a sinner cannot be justified by the works of the law; and it is equally evident that the law is not the rule of the believer’s life. As to the believer’s rule of life, the apostle does not say, To me to live is the law; but, "To me to live is Christ" (Phil. 1:21). Christ is our rule, our model, our touchstone, our all. We receive the Ten Commandments as part of the canon of inspiration; and moreover, we believe that the law remains in full force to rule and curse a man as long as he liveth. Let a sinner only try to get life by it, and see where it will put him; and let a believer only shape his way according to it, and see what it will make of him. We are fully convinced that if a man is walking according to the spirit of the gospel, he will not commit murder nor steal; but we are also convinced that a man, confining himself to the standard of the law of Moses would fall very short of the spirit of the gospel. [C. H. Mackintosh, The Mackintosh Treasury–Miscellaneous Writings, pages 628, 653–654.]
"An example of this is Ephesians 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." The law said, thou shalt not steal. The gospel empowers a person to steal no more. It then enables him to hold down a job. He works in honest employment and is able to meet his own needs. But more than that, the man who once stole from others now gives to others. Thats the spirit of the gospel.
The gospel saves it does not sanctify covenant folks like to take the law and bring it all the way past the cross and strap it to the believers back. Eveything isnt a birth truth we have to to think in terms of growth. You cannot grow on the gospel its the starting point. Thats where macarthur pipper sproul crowd gets it wrong then it wknds up being a check and balance system just like sinai that can only condemn but bring no power. Only death brings death and we need death of our old man in order to bring life except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die it abideth alone but if it die it produces much grain.
I don’t agree that the gospel does not sanctify. I don’t think scripture makes that distinction.
Romans expounds the gospel of God concerning His Son Jesus Christ. Therefore Romans 5-8 is part of the gospel in its fullest sense. All growth comes from knowing Jesus Christ. That was my previous point about present day gospel preaching. People should be told that the gospel saves them from the wrath of God but also from sin and self. It should tell them about a Saviour who died to save them and who now lives to save them. Many of the present day problems have to do with the message people heard and believed.
Colossians 1: 5 confirms this - “the word of the truth of the glad tidings, which are come to you, as [they are] in all the world, [and] are bearing fruit and growing, even as also among you, from the day ye heard [them] and knew indeed the grace of God, in truth”. JND The gospel plants a seed which then grows and bears fruit. And part of that growth is to lead us to see our position in Christ.
“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present evil world”. Titus.2.11,
Salvation also teaches us, it leads us onto paths of righteousness.
our old man did not die but we (Believers) died to it.
https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/boyd/The_Old_Man_the_New_Man_and_the_Flesh.html
Anonymous - Are you NicW? Just curious......
The old man was crucified with Him yes positionally the old man is dead and gone but in our experience we have to reckon him dead by faith in order for the Holy Spirit to hold him in the place of death and powerlessness. This comes in a hundred different ways but the Lord makes you aware of the exercises it's not just reading a book and going back to your normal daily life it's an internal process and interaction going on. You check Darby even he says the old man is dead but that doesn't mean eliminated in our condition. Same goes with sanctification we are set apart when we are saved but there's a process of setting apart as we grow in grace and the knowledge of Jesus Christ. What macarthur does is mix it all together so there's nothing definite and I think the old brethren were at fault in that as well. Raven comes to mind.
Yes this is NicW it won't let me log in
FOUNDATION OF RECKONING
Reckoning upon our life-union with the Lord Jesus Christ estab- lishes us in the full assurance of salvation. On this foundation we are able to reckon upon our eternal, unconditional security in Him. Until we are grounded in the truths of substitution and union, we are not prepared for the more demanding reckoning of our identification with Him in His death and resurrection-and on to ascension.
The believer who does not realize that he is eternally secure in Christ-a birth truth for babes-is certainly not going to be able to trust Him for emancipation from sin and maturity of growth. Those who begin weakly, and are not instructed concerning their position in the Lord Jesus, are apt to remain weaklings. They move mainly up, down, and backward, with rarely any forward spiritual progress and abiding growth. For the most part, they subsist on experiences and so-called blessings; they seem to go from one crisis to another, never really settling down to reckon upon Christ risen as the source of their life here and now.
Mjs The reckoning that counts p91
It is remarkable how dispensational platitudes or criticisms will be embraced and be discussed while the conscience shrinks from the sight of the onward step which, if accepted, must necessitate an increased forgetting of the things behind. One may speak of anything but of the Man of God's purpose. What He did for us, or what we shall be in heaven hereafter, will be listened to and welcomed, but what is refused is that He is the One to supplant the old man, and thus connect us with Himself where He is; so that I am to live here in the scene of my own natural life, in the manner of His life, entirely for Him, and His interests. This only is true progress. May the Lord lead us all fully into it.
Jbs Vol 11 p179
“Do we think of, and rejoice in, our blessings more than in the Person in whom we have them? As to even our doctrinal blessings, there is a wonderful charm about them when they are new to us, and they sustain the soul for a certain time; but when the first joy of them passes away, a settling-down process commences. Every new bit of blessing may seem to put a new bit of life into us, but it gradually loses its lustre and power, and we become just ordinary Christians—we make very little progress.
“It is as we take the Lord Jesus by faith into the affections of our hearts that we make spiritual progress. It is as He occupies an enlarged place in our affections that we go on. The head may be filled with general theological information without producing one spark of heart-affection for the Lord Jesus, and the soul remains in a state of spiritual emaciation.
“Many have been misled by thinking that by reading the Bible you become like Christ—transformed; but you will find diligent students of the Word, who may never say anything incorrect in doctrine, yet who never seem to grow in grace and walk in spiritual reality.
“All blessings of this dispensation of grace are wrapped up in a Person, and, by means of the Word of God, we make spiritual progress as our hearts learn to find everything in Him—the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us.” -C.A.C.
Post a Comment