One drop of the poison of man's works let fall into a vessel full of God's grace, deprives grace of its character. God will not allow that man shall spoil His gracious act of forgiveness by any mixture of works, for “If by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” (Rom. 11:6.)H. F. Witherby, The Gospel of our Salvation, p. 9 (available online at http://stempublishing.com/authors/HF_Witherby/HFW_Gospel01.html)
A friend sent me some books via drop-shipment from Bible Truth Publishers, including:
My friend sent these books after a brief talk or two we had on deliverance. I wrote a lot about this already this year ("Walking" and "in Christ), but there's a lot more to talk about. Still, I don't want to discuss the topic itself so much as I want to discuss the specific books my friend sent me.
From New Birth to New Creation by R. A. Huebner is a book I'd highly recommend to anyone, with a caveat or two. If you've never read RAH, I'll warn first that his work isn't terribly original: his books are almost more like scrap-books of recommended ministry others have written. This book is no exception: it's largely quotations and summaries of writings by J. N. Darby, A. P. Cecil, W. Kelly, F. G. Patterson, and H. H. Snell. But don't let that put you off! It's a worthwhile read. In fact, it's extremely helpful.
There are two caveats I'll make while recommending this [really very good] book. The first is that RAH is susceptible to tunnel vision. There's an old saying that "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail". Similarly, Huebner's books can become somewhat repetitive, and literally everything becomes evidence of whatever point he's trying to make.
In this book in particular, the main point is that the sealing with the Holy Spirit is a distinct event and experience from the new birth. Of course this was what J. N. Darby taught, and it was the question that eventually led to F. W. Grant being put out of fellowship. But because that is a central doctrine of the book, Huebner brings it into every discussion, sometimes (in my opinion) when it's not really the point.
The book is divided into four parts:
Now, I have read Darby extensively: there is very little this book says that I haven't already read from Darby. But I have to say that this book does an excellent job of laying it out in a very understandable and organized manner. And Huebner answers some of the questions Darby doesn't seem even to notice. There's not much Huebner says that Darby doesn't say, but Huebner has a real knack of putting the pieces together clearly.
But Huebner does have a tendency to hyper-focus, and I noticed this especially in the context of the sealing with the Holy Spirit. He is so careful to point out that new birth and sealing are distinct that he seems to say that every problem in a Christian's life is evidence that he (or she) has not [yet] been sealed. I found myself growing somewhat introspective when reading this book, wondering "have I been sealed?"
J. N. Darby wrote, "Faith never looks at itself or at its effect in us, but at Christ in Himself." ('Review of R. Pearsall Smith on "Holiness through Faith."', Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 23, p. 193). It's worth remembering this when we consider the Christian life: it's tempting for our focus to turn inward, especially when there is some question of the Lord's work in us. But we do well to remember that we're called to look up to Christ, not in to self.
Along that vein, I'd caution anyone reading this book to read two chapters out of order. Section 3 ("Deliverance from the Law of Sin and Flesh") ends with chapters 3.6 and 3.7; read those before you read the rest of Section 3. Then read the whole section in order, re-reading those last two chapters in the order they're in the book. Here's why: Huebner points out [correctly] that Romans 7 isn't really about a man who has been sealed with the Holy Spirit; it's about a man who is regenerated and born again, but not yet sealed. That man has not been set free from the law of sin and death, and he finds himself wanting to please God, but being unable to do so. This is exactly J. N. Darby's and William Kelly's teaching on Romans 7, it's not some strange new doctrine. But every Christian – even those indwelt by the Spirit of God and sealed with the Holy Ghost – find themselves helpless in the face of sin in the flesh. The sealing of the Holy Spirit doesn't free us from the presence of sin, nor does it mean the flesh is somehow done away with. It doesn't mean we're confirmed into some state of sinless perfection! What it means is that we have been set free from the law of sin and death.
There is no question that the Corinthians were sealed with the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19), but there were still serious issues in Corinth, including such fornication that even the Gentiles found it shocking (1 Corinthians 5:1). And the Galatians certainly had the Holy Spirit (Galatians 3:2), but they had fallen into legalism, which is really a denial of the Gospel (Galatians 2:15–21). They had begun in the Spirit, but wanted to be perfected in the flesh (Galatians 3:3). So the epistles make it abundantly clear that an imperfect – or even immoral – walk is not proof that the Holy Spirit is not present.
Chapters 3.6 and 3.7 of this book really make this case very clearly. It's entirely possible for a true believer, who has been sealed with the Holy Spirit, to walk immorally, worldly, and even in a practical denial of the faith.
With that one caveat, I would highly recommend this book to anyone. Read it carefully, but read the end of Section 3 before you start into it.
The William Kelly book was written by William Kelly. I don't really need to add much: anything by William Kelly is worth reading. And you can read it free online (Lectures on the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit on STEM Publishing).
What is the difference between an Old Testament saint and a New Testament saint? How does the Gospel of the New Testament differ from the Gospel of the Old? These are worthwhile questions, and we wouldn't want to overlook them. Here are a few of my [incomplete] thoughts, based on Scripture:
Old Testament saints were justified by faith alone. This is the doctrine established in Romans 4, based on Genesis 15. This is essentially the main point of Romans 4:1–5, that justification by faith alone is not a new doctrine. And so the chapter begins with an appeal to the Old Testament record of Abraham, "What shall we say then that Abraham our father according to flesh has found?" (Romans 4:1). God has never justified anyone on the basis of anything other than faith.
Old Testament saints had forgiveness of sins. This, too, is the plain teaching of Romans 4, based on an appeal to Psalm 32. Romans 4:6–8 establish that David was a man "to whom God shall not at all reckon sin" (v. 8). This is an interesting statement, because in many ways Christendom has actually fallen lower than the Old Testament saints. Where David said that God would "not at all reckon sin" to him, Christians today seem to believe that sins they have have not confessed are reckoned to them. Of course this essentially means that God forgives based on works: confession becomes meritorious in this twisted theology.
This comes from confusing God as Father with God as Judge. We can (and do!) confess our sins to our Father (1 John 1:9), but we don't confuse that with our standing before God as Judge. Acting inconsistently with my place as a son of God might strain our relationship: it might make it difficult for me to enjoy Him and His company... but it doesn't in any way change the fact that God is my Father. A disobedient son is still a son. The Old Testament saints were children, but they weren't sons.
Old Testament saints were born again. I think a lot of people miss this, but it is what the Lord Jesus specifically taught. Consider His words to Nicodemus: "Except any one be born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). No one can get into the Kingdom of God without being born again; but "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (Matthew 8:11) will be in the Kingdom, along with "all the prophets" (Luke 13:28–29). So we can be sure they were born again, can't we?
To take it even further, the Lord Jesus told Nicodemus he ought to have known about new birth, because he was a "ruler of Israel" (John 3:10). So the need for new birth was a truth the Lord Jesus expected a "ruler of Israel" to know, presumably based on the Old Testament. Johnny D. suggests this is an allusion to Ezekiel 36:25–31. Perhaps this is the portion the Lord Jesus was thinking of, but regardless: it's clear He considered the new birth to be Old Testament truth.
So if the Old Testament saints were born again, if they were forgiven of their sins, if they were justified by faith alone; what is the difference between the Old Testament saints and the New Testament saints?
The Holy Spirit wasn't given in the Old Testament. John 7:38–39 explicitly state that "the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified." Of course we don't understand that to mean the Holy Spirit did not yet exist! That is clearly untrue, because He was there at the creation (Genesis 1:2). Of course the Holy Spirit existed, but He was not yet given. The giving of the Spirit was dependent on the exaltation of Christ, and Peter used the manifestations of the Spirit on earth to prove the exaltation of Christ in Heaven (Acts 2:33–36).
The New Testament saints have "no more conscience of sins." Hebrews 10:1–5 contrasts believers in the New Testament with the Old Testament saints under the Law. The first point of contrast is that the Old Testament saints did not have a once-for-all sacrifice for sins. Instead, they had repeated sacrifices. Those sacrifices reminded the people over and over that they had sinned. But our High Priest has offered One Sacrifice forever for sins, and so we should have "no more conscience of sins" (v. 2). Of course, I don't think this is very clearly taught or very clearly believed in Christendom as a whole: but the truth of the New Testament is that we have "no more conscience of sins".
Old Testament saints were justified looking forward to a future work: we are justified looking back on a completed work. This is the teaching of Romans 3:21–26. In the Old Testament, God justified men and women who believed Him, looking forward to the payment He knew He'd receive from Christ. But now that Christ has actually died, been buried, been raised from the dead, and ascended into Heaven; God justifies us based on historical fact. That doesn't mean we're any more justified, but it does mean that we are conscious of what the Old Testament saints couldn't know. And this is what Romans 3:21 says: what the Law and the prophets bore witness to, we now have manifested. There is, in a sense, an advantage to us, because we have the privilege of seeing what God foreknew. We have, in this sense, a more complete view into the heart of God than they did.
The Old Testament saints did not have the adoption of sons. This is the whole point of Galatians 4:1–7. The Old Testament saints were children of God (cf. John 11:52), but they weren't sons. Sonship is different from childhood. A child, Galatians tells us, differs not at all from a slave (v. 1), but the Lord Jesus came so that "we" could receive sonship (vv. 4–5). Sonship is characterized by a close relationship with the Father. It implies familial rights, it implies a claim on the Father. The Old Testament saints didn't cry "Abba, Father" that requires the "Spirit of His Son" (v. 6). Galatians 4:1–4 agrees with John 7:38–39, the Spirit of God couldn't have come here until the Lord Jesus' death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (1 Corinthians 15:3–8).
I'm flagrantly ripping off Johnny D. here, but this is a huge point. The spirit of adoption is characterized by a confidence in God as Father. Servants don't have confidence in God as Father: they might love and respect God as Master, but they don't have the confidence in the Father's love. This is a new thing: this began in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit descended.
The Old Testament saints were not united to Christ. The New Testament saint has been united to Christ in His death (Romans 6:3; Colossians 3:3), His burial (Romans 6:4), and His resurrection (Colossians 3:1). The Old Testament saints we not. The Lord Jesus said that there could be no union with Him until He died (John 12:24). We feed on Christ as dead (John 6:53–57), we eat His flesh and drink His blood: you can't do that unless He has died.
Now, this isn't a complete list. But it's something I've been thinking about recently, and discussing with friends. I thought it would be worthwhile to post a few of those thoughts here.
A friend sent me this excellent article by Johnny D., entitled "Salvation and Separation". It's available on STEM Publishing: http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/NOTESJOT/40010E.html.
Here's a small sample:
Before God, can you mend the first Adam? Will you educate him, and get any good out of him? You will not. God tried it, and it ended in the death of His Son. The very world we are living in is the world that had God in it, but it turned Him out. The flesh that I have got in me has had that Christ presented to it, and it rejected Him - morally, that is. We cannot now, of course, kill Him outwardly.
But people put this flesh under law, and they fancy they can school it. Do you think they would insist so upon law, if they were sure and certain that the only thing it can do is to damn them?
It's in Notes and Jottings, starting on page 46.
There is exactly one way for a person to be accepted by God, and that is in Christ. We are justified freely from all things when we believe (Acts 13:39), but being justified and being accepted aren't exactly the same thing.
Philippians 3:9 makes this clear: if we are found in Him, then we don't have our own righteousness. "[M]y own righteousness" necessarily brings in law (Philippians 3:9). Law is a statement of what I ought to be: there is no righteousness of my own, except by law. But Galatians 2:16 assures us, no one is justified by the works of law. There is no way I can achieve righteousness of my own.
We sometimes describe being "in Christ" like this: when God looks at me, He doesn't see me, He sees Christ. When God looks at me, He doesn't see my sins, He sees Christ. I think that's exactly what Ephesians 1 is talking about. But there is another side to that: when God looks at me, He doesn't see my righteousnesses, He sees Christ. See? This is a two-edged sword, and it cuts both ways. On the one hand, my sin is invisible to God, because He sees me in Christ. On the other hand, all of my righteousness is hidden from sight– just as hidden as my sin– because I am in Christ.
That's Philippians 3:9, isn't it? "that I may be found in Him, not having my own righteousness". You can't be "in Christ" when it comes to sin, but on your own when it comes to righteousness. If I am "in Christ", then all that I am– the good as well as the bad– is gone from God's sight.
Now, sometimes we're not content with that. And so we try and establish a righteousness of our own. But we really can't claim righteousness without (as it were) stepping out of Christ. As long as we're "in Christ", God doesn't see my righteousness. Now we can't really step out of Christ, but it's what we're effectively trying to do when we try and establish ourselves as righteous before God. And when we do that, we end up right back in Romans 7.
Accepting that I am in Christ means accepting that I am past trying to establish a righteousness before God. In fact, it means accepting that God's really done with me. He's not trying to improve me, He's not trying to salvage anything of me. That's really the teaching of Galatians 2:20, "yet not I".
I think this is the real difference between Romans 7, "when we were in the flesh" (Romans 7:5 & 6), and Romans 8, "ye are... in the Spirit" (Romans 8:9). In Romans 7, a man is trying to establish righteousness. He's not content with the righteousness of Christ, but wants his own. That must lead him to law (Philippians 3:9). But in Romans 8, we have a man for whom there is "no condemnation" (Romans 8:1), a man who is content with the righteousness of Christ.
This is so simple, but it's hard for us to get a handle on it. We refuse to believe that God is not trying to salvage the flesh. We must– we must– accept what God says about us. We need to be like Paul in Philippians 3, content to be "found in Him, not having my own righteousness".
This obviously doesn't mean Paul is content to continue to live as a sinner, hiding (as it were) in Christ. No, there is a human responsibility there. I am in Christ, this is God's sovereignty. Human responsibility comes in the next verse: "to know Him" (Philippians 3:10).
God's giving up on the flesh is not an excuse simply to indulge its passions and its lusts. We are to walk as He walked (1 John 2:6). There is to be a reality in our lives, and an integrity that's visible to people around us.
But the power to live the Christian life is really only for those "in the Spirit" (Romans 8:9), who "by the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body" (Romans 8:13). The Christian life (practically speaking) rests on accepting our place "in Christ", not attempting to add anything to that, and not accepting anything less.
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.
I want to talk about something close to my heart. I've talked (ranted?) about this before (Try harder! and Try harder (Reprise)). The fact is, the majority of "ministry" I have heard and read on "Christian living" really isn't "Christian" at all.
Let's talk about that for a minute. Christianity differs from Judaism in only a few points. Or more accurately, what the New Testament teaches differs only slightly from what the Old Testament teaches. Justification by faith alone isn't really New Testament truth: it's Old Testament truth. That's a strong claim, but it's the explicit teaching of Romans 4. Romans 4 specifically teaches the doctrine of justification by faith alone from the Old Testament: Genesis 15 and Psalm 32 are the basis of the doctrine. Genesis 15 teaches God counts a man (or woman) as righteous when he (or she) believes God. Psalm 32 teaches that a forgiven man is one to whom God "will not at all reckon sin" (v. 8). So justification by faith alone is Old Testament truth.
The birth of Christ, His death, and Resurrection are all taught in the Old Testament. The Lord Jesus Himself taught these doctrines from the Old Testament (Luke 24:22–27). So we really can't consider that to be New Testament truth.
The New Testament starts (doctrinally speaking) with the Ascension. The Lord Jesus–– having been crucified, buried, and raised (1 Corinthians 15:1–8)–– has ascended into Heaven, where He has been given the highest place (Acts 2:33; Hebrews 1:1–3; 1 Peter 3:21–22). Before the Lord Jesus went to the Cross, He promised to send the Holy Spirit (John 16:7–15). John's Gospel explicitly states that the Holy Spirit couldn't come unless the Lord Jesus was glorified (John 7:38–39), and Peter's sermon in Acts 2 pointed to the coming of the Holy Spirit as proof that Christ had been exalted in Heaven (Acts 2:32–33). So New Testament truth starts out with Christ ascended, and the Holy Spirit coming down as a result.
So the Christian life is defined as the life of women and men who are justified by faith alone in Christ alone, and indwellt by the Holy Spirit as a result of Christ's exaltation at the right hand of God in Heaven. The Christian life has a goal: it's the life of those who are waiting for the Son of God to come from Heaven and redeem our bodies (Romans 8:23; Philippians 3:21; 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10). And it has a standard, it's the life of those who are to "walk even as He walked" (1 John 2:6).
But Scripture makes it clear that the Christian life is not just characterized by a goal and a standard: it's also characterized by a power. And this is where the vast majority of "ministry" I have heard falls miserably short of Christianity as taught in Scripture. Christianity as taught in Scripture is characterized by the power of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. Scripture says we should walk sinlessly (1 John 2:1); how does one do that?
See, this is the problem with almost all the "ministry" I have found on Christian living. It consists largely of someone pressing on the audience the necessity of a sinless life. There is plenty of exhortation to a holy life, but there's no real teaching on how exactly a person can live that holy life. I've pointed it out before, reminding a bankrupt of his debts doesn't give him the money to pay them. Reminding a Christian of his or her need to walk worthy of our calling (Ephesians 4:1) without providing him or her with the power to do it is nothing more than legalism.
The epistle to the Galatians talks about this in some detail. The Galatians understood that the Christian life started "in the Spirit", but they were trying to finish it "in the flesh" (Galatians 3:3). They thought that human effort could enable someone to live the Christian life. But it can't. Fallen, unredeemed flesh is powerless to live out the life of Christ. And yet, that's exactly what Romans 8:23 says we have. We might be born of God, we might be justified in His sight, we might have eternal forgiveness of sins, but until the Lord Jesus comes from Heaven to change our bodies to be like His (Philippians 3:21), we live in unredeemed bodies (Romans 7:24). God does not see my sins, but there is sin in me nevertheless (Romans 7:23). And that sin makes me powerless to live the Christian life.
So the question is, if I'm powerless to live up to the calling, how can I do it? Does God call me to a life I have no hope of living? In a way He does. God calls me to a life that is lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Remember the Galatians were trying to finish "in the flesh" what they had started "in the Spirit". What does Scripture present as the solution to their problem? "I say, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall no way fulfil flesh’s lust" (Galatians 5:16).
When "ministry" presses on the believer the need for walking a godly life, but doesn't offer the power to do so, it leaves the believer right where the Galatians were. It leaves him or her with a desire to walk a godly path, but with no resources actually to do it, except for the efforts of the flesh. And the person who tries it finds exactly what the Scripture warns he or she will find: the harder we try to do good, the more we find we cannot (Romans 7:18–23).
I once heard a message from a brother I respected, interestingly on "The Flesh". The brother actually suggested that setting an alarm clock to get up early and read the Bible would be an effective measure in combatting the lusts of the flesh. Um, no. That's the sort of thing Galatians 5 and Romans 7 warn against. Trying to live a Christian life doesn't work. It's not possible to walk out a Christian life in the power of the will, nor the power of the alarm clock. It requires the power of the Spirit.
As soon as I say "the power of the Spirit", it's obvious that's entirely opposite to "the power of me". I should point out that I have an awful lot to learn about "walking in the Spirit". I am not at all speaking as someone who's arrived. But I can tell you two things: I can tell you what doesn't work, and I can tell you what Scripture says.
Trying harder doesn't work. It's actually impossible to try hard enough, it's actually impossible for a person to walk the Christian life in and of himself. The Christian life is exclusively for those who are "walking in the Spirit" (Romans 8:4). If you want to live the Christian life, says Galatians, you must walk in the Spirit. This is the only path that can keep us from fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. Set out to live the Christian life, and you will find yourself fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. You'll find, like the man in Romans 7, that trying harder means failing worse. But if you walk in the Spirit, says Galatians 5:16, then you'll find you're not fulfilling those lusts.
A brother pointed out to me that the real lesson of Romans 7 is that even with all the blessings in Christ, we need the Holy Spirit's intervention. Even a justified man who's been crucified with Christ is incapable of taking on the flesh. Even a man who's rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God will find that "in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing" (Romans 7:18). Even a man in the good of all the truths of Romans 1–6 will find that he is a "wretched me" (Romans 7:24). So we still find ourselves in a place of dependence.
And that's the first lesson Scripture would teach us about "walking in the Spirit." We can't walk the Christian life on our own. We can't will ourselves into it. We can't guilt ourselves (or someone else) into it. The Christian life starts with depending on Christ. We can't trust ourselves, we must trust in the God who raises the dead (2 Corinthians 1:9). Will power isn't enough, it takes the power of the Spirit of God.
Now, it's no secret I'm a big fan of J. N. Darby. I've been accused of being a "Darbyist", and that's probably more accurate than I want to admit. I'll freely admit that I'm hugely influenced by Johnny D. on this one, but this is really important. It's not some esoteric doctrine, it's the most fundamental issue of all. If I really am to live the Christian life, if I really am to walk "even as He walked", just how can I do that? The fact is, if anyone actually pays attention to this "ministry" I'm hearing, then they're buying into a life of misery. They're heading out there trying to walk out the Christian life with advice like "set your alarm clock", or "make a solemn commitment before God". They're going to find out, just like Paul did, just like everyone does, that "in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing."
I don't doubt the people who write and speak about this sort of thing are doing so out of good intentions, but the fact is, what they're teaching isn't Christianity at all.
