Another Good Spiritual Song

 I love this song by Michael Lining's family.

"I Have Not Forgotten" (here)

Denominational Spectacles

Bible "reading glasses"

Too many Christians read and interpret the Bible through denominational or cult spectacles. This is not good. I am glad that I no longer do so. Count me a "non conformist" in this respect.

There are proper reading glasses. My pair of biblical reading glasses is the Spirit of God. The Spirit is the lens, or should be, as we look at scripture. Said the Psalmist:

"Let me see clearly so that I may take in the amazing things coming from Your law." (Psalm 119: 18)

Said one writer:

"We all wear spiritual spectacles of some sort; no one can claim to read the Bible from a totally unbiased and objective perspective. We come to the Bible with an existing set of assumptions that we have built over our lifetimes. Assumptions concerning the authority of the scriptures, what constitutes truth, and so on. If my starting assumptions are different from yours then we will undoubtedly differ in the way we understand scripture." (See here)

Simply read and study the bible with honesty of heart. If a given text or passage contradicts some tradition, so be it. Throw away the tradition and keep to the text.

Of course we should be willing to discuss our interpretations with others who have knowledge of the scriptures. But, we should not allow any pressure (outside of the truth itself) to effect our understanding of the word of God. 

I Wanted That Christian Joy!

The wife may win to Christ her husband (children and others too!) by demonstrating the Christian faith and life. (I Peter 3: 1) What is there in your life as a Christian that would want others to become Christian? Do they see a life of gloom and sadness? Do they see a miserable life? A better life? Or, do they see a life that is worth having? 

People crave joy and peace but where can they find it? If we could put joy and peace in a bottle and sell it we would be superbly rich.

Joy and peace come in believing and trusting in Christ. That is what God in Christ offers to all. 

Oh how precious is the peace and joy of Christ! The joy of the Lord is our strength. (Neh. 8: 10)

Without this joy we will never last long as a Christian professor. Jesus, "for the joy that was set before him endured the cross," sufferings immense. (Heb. 12: 2)

When the Lord awakened me to my plight in sin, and made me aware that I was lost and in a hopeless condition, I began to seek the Lord and to think about the things that pertained to my soul. This began when I was about 15 and continued while I was a freshman and sophomore in high school. When I was in this state I was depressed, sad, worrisome, and saw life as hardly worth living. I had little peace and joy as a young adolescent. When I began going more to church some of my associates in high school, who were Christians, seemed to have so much joy and little sadness. Oh how I wanted that too!

Well, to make a long story short, I finally made my peace with God and found that Christian joy! I would not take anything for this joy! When I was saved, I "went on my way rejoicing" like the Ethiopian Eunuch in his conversion. (Acts 8: 39) I would listen to gospel music as a newborn believer and "rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." (I Peter 1: 8)

Christians should "rejoice in the Lord always." (Phil. 4: 4) If they have trouble doing this, it reveals a spiritual sickness. Something is amiss. When we are not praising God and enjoying doing so, we lose strength to persevere. The joy of the Lord will strengthen one to endure every cross.

I invite all to come and experience true joy and peace in becoming a servant of Christ. You will not regret it.

Marching To Zion

Recently I have written a few posts on what it means to "labor (or be diligent) to enter into that rest" (Heb. 4: 11) and this is a postscript to those posts. 

Hardshells do not believe that the "rest" of Hebrews chapters three and four is connected with final rest in heaven for they think that such a view teaches salvation by works. I have shown this to be false reasoning in numerous postings going back ten years or so when Hardshell Jason Brown and I debated this point. But, Hardshells sing a song called "Marching To Zion." Here are some lines from that famous hymn:

The hill of Zion yields a thousand sacred sweets 

Before we reach the heavenly field, before we reach the heavenly fields 

Or walk the golden streets, or walk the golden streets. 

Then let our songs abound, and every tear be dry. 

We’re marching through Immanuel’s ground, we’re marching through Immanuel’s ground 

To fairer worlds on high, to fairer worlds on high. 

We’re marching to Zion, beautiful, beautiful Zion. 

We’re marching upward to Zion, the beautiful city of God, The beautiful city of God, of God!

In these lines the hymn writer speaks of "sacred sweets" that believers enjoy in life "before" they "reach that heavenly field," which place is the same as Zion, the hill of Zion, the New Jerusalem and its golden streets, the "fairer worlds on high." The hymn writer not only speaks of the believer's life as a time of enjoyment of Zion's sacred sweets but as a time when they are "marching through Immanuel's ground." But, though the Lord has sanctified the land, the very ground upon which we walk, by his having himself walked upon it in the flesh, yet this ground (as it is now) is not our place of permanent rest. That yet awaits for the time after the return of Christ, when the believer enters into full enjoyment of the kingdom of God.

But, "marching" is action, or work. It requires effort to march. So, my Hardshell brothers, if you can sing about marching to Zion, why can you not talk about expending effort to enter God's rest? They essentially mean the same thing. We are marching towards the heavenly Canaan like the children of Israel. We are "pressing towards the mark" as we have previously observed.

Are you marching to Zion with the people of God? Are you enjoying even in this life those thousand sacred sweets from the hill of Zion? If not, will you come and go with us? Christ offers rest to all. Simply call upon the Lord and make covenant with him and you will be able to "taste and see that the Lord is good." (Psa. 34: 8)

Gospel Deniers Are Unregenerate

"Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also."  (I John 2: 22-23)

Denying Christ, failing to believe in him, makes one a liar and "all liars" and unbelievers will have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone. (Rev. 21: 8) Those who deny Christ and the Father are antichrists and have neither the Father nor the Son. Only those who believe in Christ, who believe "the record that God has given of his Son" (I John 5: 10), who "acknowledge" both the Father and the Son, are saved people. 

This uproots the Hardshell idea that heathens "have" the Father, Christ the Son, and the Spirit. The heathen are they who deny the Father and the Son. How then can Hardshells affirm that Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. are saved even though they deny and do not acknowledge Christ and the Father?

Futuristic Present Tense & Heb. 4: 3

In Greek there is, in regard to present tense verbs, what is called "futuristic present tense." There are also present tense verbs called "historical present." Recognizing the few places in the bible where such are used can be important in exegeting a text and ascertaining the full correct meaning. 

We also use present tense verbs in English to express a future action. Notice these examples where the verb is in the present tense and yet a future action is intended.

"The train leaves at 5 pm." (rather than 'the train will leave at 5 pm')

"The course starts in September."

"I go to the office next Monday" 

"I‘m leaving France tomorrow afternoon"

Examples of futuristic present tense verbs are seen in scripture. 

"And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Luke 3: 9)

The hewing down and being cast into the fire is in the future but is expressed in the present tense.

Another example of the present tense being used to describe that which is yet future is seen here: 

"You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is delivered up for crucifixion." (Matt. 26: 2)

 Also in this text:

"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I COME AGAIN, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also." (John 14: 3)

"I come again" is present tense although the meaning is "I will come." In both these instances, the NAS chose to translate the Greek present with an English future.

Futuristic present tense verbs are sometimes used to refer to actions that are certain to occur. See Mt. 27: 63 ("I am rising" = "I will rise"); Mk. 9: 31 ("is delivered" = "will be delivered"); John 14: 3 ("I am coming again" = "I will come again"). The event, although it has not yet occurred, is looked upon as so certain that it is thought of as already occurring. The futuristic present is often used in prophecies.

Heb. 4: 3 - A Futuristic Present Tense 

"For we which have believed do enter into rest" (Heb. 4: 3 KJV)

"Now we who have believed enter that rest" (Berean)

"For we, who have believed, shall enter into rest" (Douay-Rheims Bible) 

"Now we who have believed enter that rest" (NIV) 

Do believers enter into their rest now or when they die, crossing Jordan, the symbolic river of death? Doubtless the rest is entirely future as the context of Hebrews chapters three and four show clearly. But, if that is so, then why did Paul use the present tense? Some believe, as I do, that Paul is using a present tense future verb. Wrote one commentator:

"Or rather, as Macknight observes, the present tense is put for the future, to show the certainty of believers entering into the rest of God. For the discourse is not directly concerning any rest belonging to believers in the present life, but of a rest remaining to them after death, Hebrews 4:9." (Benson Commentary)

Said Greek scholar A.T. Robertson: 

""Do enter" (eiserchometha). Emphatic futuristic present middle indicative of eiserchomai. We are sure to enter in, we who believe." (See in Word Pictures here)

If I put up a sign that says "Only ticket holders are allowed entry" I am using a present tense verb (are) even though I am clearly referring to future entries. Some also believe in what is called a "universal present tense" where what action is referred to by the verb takes in what has happened in the past, present, and future. 

Paul is likewise saying "we who believe are (present tense) the ones who enter," meaning the same thing as saying "we who have tickets enter." ('enter' is present tense) It may be that Paul is using a universal present tense verb but I rather think, for contextual reasons, that it is a futuristic present tense.

On the historical present one writer said:

"For the sake of vividness or dramatic effect a writer sometimes imagines that he and/or his readers are present and are witnessing a past event. He narrates the past event as though it were actually taking place. The present tense is used for this purpose. The historical present is frequently found in Mark and John. It is ordinarily translated into English by the simple past tense." (See here) 

"And in the evening he comes with the twelve." (Mark 14: 17) That is one example sometimes given for the historical present tense. But, there are more. Serious bible students will pay attention to such things in their interpretation of the sacred text.

Dr. Watson On Failing To Preach To The Lost

Elder (Dr.) John McClaren Watson

1798-1866

The following is from Elder John M. Watson's "Old Baptist Test" (as cited by me in chapter 42 - here)

There is, strange to say, an error entertained by some brethren, that the minister of the Lord should not call on “all men every where to repent;” of sinners to look to Christ and be saved; nor on unbelievers to believe. They are constantly saying, to preach in this way betrays Arminianism on the part of the ministry which thus exhorts its hearers, and also on the part of the Church which tolerates such preaching! Observe, shall we become Arminians by faithfully preaching according to the commission given by the Savior? Some, indeed seem to think so! For when the minister discharges his duty zealously, faithfully and in a gospel manner, there are certain ones who cry out, he is an Arminian! The great error, that this is one of the varieties of Arminianism, is affecting both our pulpits and Churches; for instead of requiring this kind of preaching, and sustaining it as a Church, we fear some are opposed to it, and use their influence to suppress it? I ask now, in the name of this world-wide commission, including as it does every creature capable of hearing, and which authorizes and commands the ministerial servants of the Lord to preach the gospel to every creature, who does so? with that love, zeal and regard for the sinner, I subjoin to the question, which the Lord enjoins. Further, is it not to be feared that we have in this way grieved and silenced to some extent the spirit of exhortation in our pulpits? The spirit of exhortation which spoke out plainly and fully, through primitive ministers in the great affair of bringing in these “other sheep” we fear is now with us only in a grieved and vexed state! Primitive preachers did not suppress it, nor attempt to confine its word of exhortation to believers only, as some affect to do among us!” (Pages 84,85)

The Christian Warfare & Two Seed Baptists

The Two Seed Baptists, ancestors of today's largest faction of "Primitive Baptists," spoke of how "regeneration" caused an internal warfare or conflict in the one being regenerated. This conflict is because the sinner, who previously only had a depraved nature, now has a new nature via regeneration, a spiritual nature, and the presence of the two produces this war. They believed that God's people come down from heaven at the time of regeneration and possess the sinner, the one whom God had previously chosen. These elect spirits, the Two Seeders said, were a part of Christ before the foundation of the world. They also taught that if one was literally in Christ before the world began, they were then chosen because of that fact. Thus, their scheme drastically changed the doctrine of unconditional election. 

The Baptists who preceded the rise of the Two Seed Baptists (Regular, Separate, and Particular Baptists) did not believe that God chose the elect because of some natural difference between the elect and non elect. That would be a conditional election. However, the choice was not of those already in Christ, already connected to Christ by "eternal vital union," as the Two Seeders taught. This the bible is very clear in denying.

They even taught that since the elect literally existed as "spirits" in Christ (who many of them say had a human body in eternity past), already in vital union with Christ, and as already "the bride of Christ," therefore Christ was obligated to save her (Jewish law made the husband responsible for the wife's debts). Again, this is a denial of unconditional election. It is also a denial that salvation is by grace, that Christ was not obligated to save anyone, but did so by his free choice and unmerited love. 

The bible rather teaches that God's choice of people to salvation, before the world began, was of people who were not then in actual existence (but only in the mind and foreknowledge of God). It also teaches that God does not first save and then choose sinners but chooses and then saves them.  

One of the texts that the non Two Seeder PBs used to refute such a notion was this:

"Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."

David is talking about his physical body and its members. But it is applicable to the "body of Christ," to that assembly of believers, as the new testament teaches. Each believer is a member of the body of Christ. But, when did they become part of the body? Were they part of the body before the world began as the Two Seeders taught? No. They were no doubt part of it in God's mind and foreknowledge, but not actually so. Just like the body of David and each of its members were foreseen and written in God's book or ledger, so likewise too were the members of the body of Christ. In each case the members were seen and known by God when they were not yet in existence.

The Two Seeder saw regeneration as a "hollow log" experience. This metaphor was chosen because the Two Seeder wanted to convey the idea that regeneration was nothing more than one of God's eternal children coming down from heaven and taking up his abode (as a spirit) in the "Adam man," in the body. Just like a rabbit runs into a hollow log and may be said to be "in" the log, so too with the eternal spirits of God's elect when they enter a man. There was "no change" made to the log (Adam man) by the entrance of the rabbit. Those who fought the Two Seeders referred to their idea of "regeneration" as a "no change" view, or a "hollow log" view. 

The Two Seeders not only did not believe that regeneration did not change the body (that is alright) but it did not change the soul or spirit either. Regeneration did not change what a man loved and hated. A regenerated man in Two Seed thinking was as much in love with sin as he was before the Spirit or spirit entered the Adam man. This "no change" view of regeneration still plagues most PBs today in one form or another.

The Christian warfare thus began, according to the Two Seeders, when the rabbit entered the log. The log does not want the rabbit inside of it (to keep the metaphor going). There was therefore a conflict between the log and the rabbit. This conflict (regeneration), this war between flesh and spirit, is the chief evidence of regeneration. If a man had such a conflict between sin and holiness, between vice and right living, then he reveals that he is one of the "eternal seed" who preexisted with Christ before the world began. (Talk about alien seed among us!) Even today among the non Two Seeder Hardshells there is a remnant of this teaching still observable. (John Crowley said that elements of Two Seed ideology can still be seen in Hardshell preaching if one knows what to listen for, and he is right) I can see remnants of Two Seedism in most PB teaching today.

Many Two Seeders denied the resurrection of the body. This was quite foreseeable. If their view of regeneration and election is correct, then there is no use for the "Adam man." When such a "regenerated" person died, then he went back to heaven where he had been before the world began. This system, as one can see, involved several elements of Gnosticism. One of the mottoes of the Two Seeders was this - "nothing will go to heaven but what came down from heaven."

There is a Christian warfare. That is true. The presence of Christ and the Spirit does create conflict with the flesh. But, it is not as the Two Seeders explained. 

In conclusion, let me ask my Hardshell brothers who deny the perseverance of the saints this question:

Has God predestined (ordained or made certain) that the believer win in the warfare with the flesh? Is the victory over the flesh of the Lord? 

"If They Shall Fall Away"

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame." (Heb. 6: 4-6 nkjv)

The "if" of this verse is a hypothetical "if," that is, "if" it be in the text at all (pun intended).  

Many times in debate on the question about "losing salvation" I have used this same kind of hypothetical if, such as when I say "if a born again child of God could lose his salvation, then..." This is the same as did Paul in our verse. It is an "if" of logic and reason. But, really, the word "if" is not in the original. It is implied, however. "Καὶ παραπεσόντας and (in spite of this) have fallen" (Meyer) But it makes no difference for the thought is the same. The central question is this: Is Paul describing an actual case or an hypothetical? 

Paul is saying "it is impossible for one who was once truly saved and then lost that salvation to ever be saved again." But, such a statement does not require us to believe that Paul is describing an actual case. And the same thing may be said without the use of the word "if." But, who among those who believe one can lose actual salvation, believes that such a one cannot be saved again? None. But, Paul affirms that if it were true that genuine believers could lose their salvation then they could never be saved a second time. It is arguing reductio ad absurdum, showing the absurdity and falsity of a proposition by showing its logical consequences. Commented Albert Barnes:

"If they shall fall away - literally, "and having fallen away." "There is no if in the Greek in this place - "having fallen away." Dr. John P. Wilson. It is not an affirmation that any had actually fallen away, or that in fact they would do it; but the statement is, that "on the supposition that they had fallen away," it would be impossible to renew them again. It is the same as supposing a case which in fact might never occur." 

There is no doubt that the description Paul gives of believers is that of real believers. There is no way that such a description describes pretenders.

Said Spurgeon (See here):

"First, then, we answer the question, WHO ARE THE PEOPLE HERE SPOKEN OF? If you read Dr. Gill, Dr. Owen, and almost all the eminent Calvinistic writers, they all of them assert that these persons are not Christians. They say, that enough is said here to represent a man who is a Christian externally, but not enough to give the portrait of a true believer. Now, it strikes me they would not have said this if they had had some doctrine to uphold; for a child, reading this passage, would say, that the persons intended by it must be Christians. If the Holy Spirit intended to describe Christians, I do not see that he could have used more explicit terms than there are here. How can a man be said to be enlightened, and to taste of the heavenly gift, and to be made partaker of the Holy Ghost, without being a child of God? With all deference to these learned doctors, and I admire and love them all, I humbly conceive that they allowed their judgments to be a little warped when they said that; and I think I shall be able to show that none but true believers are here described."

That is my view exactly. Spurgeon said:

"But some one says, "What is falling away?" Well, there never has been a case of it yet, and therefore I cannot describe it from observation; but I will tell you what I suppose it is. To fall away, would be for the Holy Spirit entirely to go out of a man—for his grace entirely to cease; not to lie dormant, but to cease to be—for God, who has begun a good work, to leave off doing it entirely—to take his hand completely and entirely away, and say, "There, man! I have half saved thee; now I will damn thee." That is what falling away is." 

If the six experiences of saved people (as Spurgeon showed in the sermon) do not keep a man saved, then he can never be saved. 

"It is impossible for those who have been made immortal and who (nevertheless) died to ever be made immortal again."

The example above is similar to the text in Hebrews and it is not affirming that immortals actually die (for this would not be possible if they are immortal) but only in an hypothetical case. Another example would be:

"It is impossible for the one who is God, and became no god (lose his divinity) to become God again." 

Again, the case is hypothetical, a manner of reasoning about the absurdity of a given proposition. The proposition that is absurd in its logical consequences is one that says that there is such a character as loses his salvation.

Rather than the verse teaching that truly born again children of God may lose their salvation it affirms just the opposite. Don't you see?

Children Of God By Faith?

"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3: 26 nkjv)

When I was a young Hardshell minister this verse caused me (other Hardshells too) lots of problems. This verse seemed to teach, prima facie, that faith was the means or condition for becoming the children or sons of God. I used to ask other PBs about their views on the text. Most would say it means "you are all manifestly the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus." That used to bother me. Now, it still bothers me but in a different way. It bothers me now that Hardshells can be so stubborn in their refusal to accept what is plainly stated in scripture. It bothers me when such teachers of the word take such liberties with the word of God! Who gave them the right to add the word "manifestly" to the text? Does not adding that word change the whole meaning of the text? I used to hear them give the same explanation to John 1: 12-13. They would say that those who received Christ were given "power to manifestly become children of God." 

This is not the way to "handle" the word of God. It is dishonest. It is adding to the word of God and God pronounces severe punishment on those who do so. (See the final words of the book of Revelation). I will not do it. The text says that people are sons of God by faith in Christ. Why can't our Hardshell brothers not just accept the plain word of God? 

Elder John Clark, editor of Zion's Advocate (1854 - 1880), often referred to our text in his battle with the Hardshells who began to deny means and advocate against preaching to lost sinners. The first Hardshells had no problem telling men that faith in Christ was necessary in order to be labeled "sons of God."

They are sons of God by rebirth, but rebirth follows faith in our text. Would any of our anti means Hardshell brothers want to come here and defend their view in light of the above text?

No Life In The Bible?

The following is a citation from professor John Crowley ("Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South") and cited by me (here)

"During this time, a major dispute erupted between the Alabaha and its parent organization, the Suwannee River Association. In 1860, Job E. W. Smith, moderator of the Suwannee River Association, preached at the Alabaha River Association’s annual meeting. During his sermon, Smith unequivocally advocated for the antimeans position when he held up the Bible and told the congregation, “You have been told that this is the word of God; do you believe it? I say it is not, it is ink and paper.” Smith also stated “the Gospel had no saving efficacy in it to the awakening of sinners; it was only for the feeding of the flock.” The Alabaha, who had long advocated the instrumentality of the Gospel, declared that Smith’s words were “a departure from the faith” and recommended “that this body withdraw her correspondence from the Suwannee Association until she becomes reclaimed.” (pg. 34)

Notice how the anti means Hardshells believe that there is no life in the word preached, or in the bible. They do not believe that the scriptures are the word of God, are the words of Christ, which are "the words of eternal life" (John 6: 68). Jesus said "my words are spirit and they are life." (vs. 63)

Paul wrote to the Hebrews and said that "the word of God is living and powerful" (4: 12). Paul said that believers "hold firmly to the word of life" (Phil. 2: 16). The words of God are "living oracles." (Acts 7: 38)

The scriptures are the breath of God. Paul said “all scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16).

A man who does not take into himself the scriptures does not have the life or breath of God. When we take God's word into our hearts (faith act) we inhale God as it were, his life and Spirit. Paul asked:

"Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3: 2)

When the word of God, especially the gospel, is heard and received (believed) so too is the Spirit of God heard and received. In receiving the Spirit the believer also receives Christ and spiritual life.

Elder Hosea Preslar wrote of the Hardshell "Two Seeders" and their anti means view, saying:

"And as to their views of the use and design of the gospel being for nothing but for the edification of the Church, and believers being the only subjects of gospel address, I believe it not." (Page 186)

"But some object to these ideas and say all this is the work of the spirit of God; and the gospel has nothing to do with it. Ah, a gospel without a spirit! Well, God save me from a gospel that has not His spirit. God says His word is quick and powerful, and He says by Peter, This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; I Peter 1: 25. And as to the subjects of Gospel address, it is to every creature the disciples were commanded to preach the gospel; and Paul said, Whom we preach warning every man, and teaching every man, in all wisdom, etc.; Col. 1: 28. So we see that their idea on that point is false as the balance, and we will now give their last, but not least error a passing notice."  (pg. 187) (See here)

Yes, the Hardshells preach a gospel "without a spirit." And, without life. The gospel they preach has no life in it.

I am glad that I am no longer a Hardshell, one who believes that there is no life in the word preached.

Many Christians sing the hymn "Wonderful Words of Life" I wrote on this. See here. Some PBs also sing it, but do they believe what it says?

"Wonderful Words Of Life"

Sing them over again to me,
Wonderful words of life,
Let me more of their beauty see,
Wonderful words of life;
Words of life and beauty
Teach me faith and duty.

Refrain:

Beautiful words, wonderful words,
Wonderful words of life;
Beautiful words, wonderful words,
Wonderful words of life.

Christ, the blessed One, gives to all
Wonderful words of life;
Sinner, list to the loving call,
Wonderful words of life;
All so freely given,
Wooing us to heaven.

Sweetly echo the Gospel call,
Wonderful words of life;
Offer pardon and peace to all,
Wonderful words of life;
Jesus, only Savior,

Sanctify us forever.

The scriptures are words of life. They give life to all who receive them.

D. L. Moody on the Doctrine of Election

The above is a chart of D. L. Moody on the Doctrine of Election and Whosoever Will. I always liked this chart. Moody said:

"Do not stumble at the doctrine of election. Preach the gospel to all, and (as some one has said) if you convert any one who was not 'chosen,' God will forgive you."1 "The elect" are the "whosoever will's": the "non-elect" are the "whosoever wont's".2" (See here)

1 D. L. Moody, Notes from My Bible, p. 167. 

 2 D. L. Moody, Notes from My Bible, p. 108. 

People are often fearful of the doctrine of unconditional election, thinking that it means that they might be non elect and have no opportunity for salvation. But, this is not the impression we wish to leave with people when we speak of God choosing men to salvation before the world began. All we want is for men to give all the credit to God for their salvation. 

The doctrine of election answers the question "why did I believe and repent and another did not?" Is it owing to my independent choice, because I chose right while the other chose not? Or, is it because God had a special love for me and gave me special grace, above "common grace"? Should I credit God for my faith and repentance or credit myself? 

Calvin on Faith & Regeneration

The following is from "The Baptist Gadfly" which I posted in March, 2009.

I have cited numerous quotations from John Calvin to show that he did not believe that regeneration preceded faith. Those who insist that this is the view of the first Calvinist reformers are in error and are generally unwilling to acknowledge their error even when shown the proof of it. Clearly, as one can see from this citation, John Calvin did not put regeneration before faith. Calvin put faith before repentance and regeneration and he did not become Arminian in doing so. He did not relinguish a view in "total depravity" or a belief that faith was the gift of God.

"Although we have already in some measure shown how faith possesses Christ, and gives us the enjoyment of his benefits, the subject would still be obscure were we not to add an exposition of the effects resulting from it. The sum of the Gospel is, not without good reason, made to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins; and, therefore, where these two heads are omitted, any discussion concerning faith will be meager and defective, and indeed almost useless. Now, since Christ confers upon us, and we obtain by faith, both free reconciliation and newness of life, reason and order require that I should here begin to treat of both. The shortest transition, however, will be from faith to repentance; for repentance being properly understood it will better appear how a man is justified freely by faith alone, and yet that holiness of life, real holiness, as it is called, is inseparable from the free imputation of righteousness. That repentance not only always follows faith, but is produced by it, ought to be without controversy (see Calvin in Joann. 1:13). For since pardon and forgiveness are offered by the preaching of the Gospel, in order that the sinner, delivered from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of iniquity, may pass into the kingdom of God, it is certain that no man can embrace the grace of the Gospel without retaking himself from the errors of his former life into the right path, and making it his whole study to practice repentance. Those who think that repentance (regeneration SG) precedes faith instead of flowing from, or being produced by it, as the fruit by the tree, have never understood its nature, and are moved to adopt that view on very insufficient grounds.

Certain learned men, who lived long before the present days and were desirous to speak simply and sincerely according to the rule of Scripture, held that repentance consists of two parts, mortification and quickening. By mortification they mean, grief of soul and terror, produced by a conviction of sin and a sense of the divine judgment. For when a man is brought to a true knowledge of sin, he begins truly to hate and abominate sin. He also is sincerely dissatisfied with himself, confesses that he is lost and undone, and wishes he were different from what he is. Moreover, when he is touched with some sense of the divine justice (for the one conviction immediately follows the other), he lies terror struck and amazed, humbled and dejected, desponds and despairs. This, which they regarded as the first part of repentance, they usually termed contrition. By quickening they mean, the comfort which is produced by faith, as when a man prostrated by a consciousness of sin, and smitten with the fear of God, afterwards beholding his goodness, and the mercy, grace, and salvation obtained through Christ, looks up, begins to breathe, takes courage, and passes, as it were, from death unto life. I admit that these terms, when rightly interpreted, aptly enough express the power of repentance; only I cannot assent to their using the term quickening, for the joy which the soul feels after being calmed from perturbation and fear. It more properly means, that desire of pious and holy living which springs from the new birth; as if it were said, that the man dies to himself that he may begin to live unto God.

Wherefore, it seems to me, that repentance may be not inappropriately defined thus: A real conversion of our life unto God, proceeding from sincere and serious fear of God; and consisting in the mortification of our flesh and the old man, and the quickening of the Spirit. In this sense are to be understood all those addresses in which the prophets first, and the apostles afterwards, exhorted the people of their time to repentance. The great object for which they labored was, to fill them with confusion for their sins and dread of the divine judgment, that they might fall down and humble themselves before him whom they had offended, and, with true repentance, retake themselves to the right path.

In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration, the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam."

In another posting on Calvin and the ordo salutis I wrote (See here):

John Calvin vs. "Born Again Before Faith"

The doctrine that an unbeliever is born again before placing saving faith in Jesus Christ is a heresy held by almost all of today’s Reformed Calvinists. As Bob Ross has decisively proven, this heresy is not taught in any of the historic Baptist confessions. It is likewise not found in the Baptist Faith and Message, the confession of the Southern Baptist Convention. In fact, the BF&M teaches exactly the opposite of "born again before faith."

"Born again before faith" theology is not only rejected by Southern Baptists, it was rejected by John Calvin himself! In the book Theology of the Reformers (Broadman, 1988), Dr. Timothy George, the five-point Calvinist dean of the Beeson School of Divinity, says that John Calvin taught that faith precedes regeneration, which is exactly what the BF&M teaches and what Southern Baptists believe.

"This being placed into Christ (insitio in Christo) occurs in regeneration which, Calvin was careful to point out, follows from faith as the result: Since faith receives Christ, it leads us to the possession of all His benefits. Repentance too, which is part of regeneration, is the consequence of faith." (225-226)

Again, Calvin is clear that faith unites to Christ and all the aspects of salvation follow that union.

Brother Ross also wrote:

"In his comment on 1 Corinthians 13:13, Calvin says, "In fine, it is by faith that we are born again, that we become the sons of God -- that we obtain eternal life, and that Christ dwells in us."" (here)

Now, let us no more hear of Calvin teaching that one is born again before and without faith. It is only the later Hyper leaning Calvinists who teach this heresy.

On a more extensive look at Calvin on this topic see my posting "Calvin - Faith & John's Gospel" (here). In this posting I give what Calvin said about John 1: 12-13 and the ordo salutis question. I agree with much of what he says.

Hardshell Prayer Requests

"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved" 

(Rom. 10: 1)

"Primitive Baptist Churches" (Hardshell variety), like other churches, have "announcements" at church services. Generally these come during the introductory remarks of the pastor or speaker and before prayer is led and spoken by the church. They also have "prayer requests." These are most often for a sick member or relative or friend of a member, or some member who is suffering hardship and trial. Sometimes they are for God's blessing on something. 

One interesting fact about Hardshell "prayer requests" is that they never include prayer for the lost. Oh, they may occasionally pray "Lord save your people," but they never ask for prayer to be made for a particular lost sinner to be saved. I would love to hear one prayer request that says "pray for my son. He is living in sin. Pray that God will save him."

Is prayer not intercession? Are we not to pray and intercede for all men? Would this not include their salvation?

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men...For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (I Tim. 2: 1, 3-4)

Intercessions, supplications (pleadings, requests) and prayers should be for "all men" and with a view to them being "saved" and enlightened.  

I have been in Baptist churches where there were a lot of prayer requests for salvation at the end of services, at a time when opportunity was given for anyone to speak. That is far better than in Hardshell churches where there is never a request for prayer for an unregenerate sinner.

Also, see my postings titled "Praying for the Lost?" (here) and "Hardshell Prayers" (here) and "Watson & Thompson on the Means of Prayer" (here).

Direct Public Address To Sinners

Our Old Baptist forefathers believed in speaking directly and straight forwardly to sinners, to unregenerate sinners and pleading with them to heed the call of the Lord in the gospel. We have shown this many times. But, once the Hardshells adopted their anti means view of salvation, their salvation without faith, and their creation of the "time salvation" paradigm, they quit directing their addresses in discourse to those who were lost sinners. This is a new practice among Baptists. It is not "old school." It is the end result of Hyper Calvinism, the logical end for those who embrace the ABCs of Hyper Calvinism. 

Even though Elder Grigg Thompson took the anti means view (mid 19th century), yet he did not stop preaching directly to sinners, which was the preaching he had heard from the early 19th century. See my posting "Elder Grigg Thompson Warns Sinners" (here). For more such addresses to lost sinners, by Thompson and others of his time, see chapter 42 of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" here. 

I beg my Hardshell brothers to return to the ancient practice of exhorting the lost. The ministry is not to restrict preaching and direct address to those already saved. The failure to preach to the lost and to exhort them to repent and believe is the cause of their decline and death. It would be good if my Hardshell brothers would read my series "Addresses to the Lost" for an in depth look at the preaching of Christ and the apostles as our examples. The link above to chapter 24 will take you to the whole series (in the archives). I have also shown how this became a hot issue and cause of division in the late 19th century. Elder John Clark, editor of "Zion's Advocate," opposed the view of the "modern innovators" along with others and affirmed that he would, like his forefathers, continue to preach to sinners (as did Grigg). Old "Cades Cove" church in Kentucky split over this issue, as did other churches.

The above words of Charles Spurgeon expresses the biblical view, yea, the heart of those who love and care about the salvation of their neighbors. 

In a sermon titled "Preaching to Sinners" (See here) Charles Spurgeon said:

"We shall always, I trust, as a church, cultivate an anxious desire for the conversion of all who come within our gates, yea, and of all who dwell around us. Never, I hope, will you wish the pastor to preach so that you shall be fed, careless as to whether sinners are saved or not (This became the Hardshell attitude, belief, and practice  - preaching is only sheep food); nor will you make yourselves into a snug corporation for purposes of profit and mutual admiration (what many churches have become today!). We long to see the wedding furnished with guests, and our Redeemer seeing of the travail of his soul. The public ministry must not be confined to a part of the truth, for it should reflect the whole counsel of God as far as mortal mind can do so. It is my delight to preach the doctrine of election, and all the other grand teachings which declare Jehovah’s special love to his chosen; but at the same time I have felt it to be my duty to preach the gospel to every creature. We know no other limit to our invitation than this, ‘Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.’ ‘Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.’"

Well, amen to that! Spurgeon continued:

"I have been amused lately with a story told me by a dear fellow-labourer in the gospel. One of his church-members came to him, and said that she was going to unite herself with another church, a church higher in doctrine, and less given to evangelistic efforts. She said, ‘When you preach the doctrines of grace I am very happy; but when I hear you inviting sinners to Christ, my heart goes down into my shoes.’ ‘That is a very sad thing,’ said the minister, ‘but I cannot alter my preaching on that account, for I think you are wrong.’" 

Oh how sick are Christians like our Hyper Calvinistic and Hardshell brothers! Many of those who oppose gospel exhortations to the lost and appeals to them about their soul's salvation were themselves saved through such preaching. Spurgeon continued:

"There is not a sinner in the world who is to be told that he may not come to Jesus and receive the whole of the blessings of the gospel. What a blessing to have a free salvation to preach as well as a full salvation! At least, I feel it to be so. Everyone must speak according to his light; but while I see clearly the doctrines of distinguishing grace, I see also the universality of the gospel command."

My sentiments exactly! That is Old Baptist doctrine. Spurgeon said:

"Many years ago I had a good old friend, who, like myself, had a very sweet tooth for Calvinistic doctrine; and I cannot do with any other doctrine any more than he could. He said to me one day, ‘I love to hear you preach the doctrines of grace, but I feel very uncomfortable when you are giving free invitations to sinners; I feel as if I could not sit in the place.’ I said to him, ‘Well, shall I give up inviting sinners in order to please you?’ ‘No,’ he replied, ‘by no manner of means; for about a month or two ago my son-in-law, about whom I was very anxious, went to hear your sermon, and you were very persuasive with sinners, and set Christ before them most freely. I did not enjoy it at all; but when I got home I found my son-in-law in tears, and that sermon, by the blessing of the eternal Spirit, brought him to the Saviour. Therefore I think you had better go on in your own style, and don’t alter your preaching to please a poor old man like me.’ I answered, ‘That is just how I feel; I would gladly agree with you in everything, but I dare not try to appear consistent by leaving out one side of the truth.’ He said to me afterwards, ‘If I do not quite agree with your invitations to sinners, it is clear that God blesses them; and therefore I must look into the matter, and see whether I am right or not. You have declared the doctrines of grace, yet you have freely given the invitations of the gospel; and I hope, my dear sir, you will long continue to preach what you feel you have learned in your own soul.’ I have followed his advice, and I hope to do the same as long as the Lord spares me. We shall proclaim the doctrine of God’s sovereignty without toning it down, and electing love without any stuttering over it; but we shall proclaim the other truth also."

Amen brother! Concerning that "sweet tooth for Calvinism" see my posting "Is Calvinism The Pearl Of Great Price?" (here).

Spurgeon continued:

"Those who differ from us in one direction ought also to remember that there are others who differ from us on the other side. A sister has written to me saying that even if I do believe in election she would not have me preach it, but keep it in my own mind, and get comfort from it for myself. I do not know who the friend is, for she forgot to put her name to her letter; but I would like her to know that I cannot accept her idea for a moment. I feel sure she does not expect me to do as she says, for if I did I should act like a Jesuit: I should say one thing and believe another, and that be far from me. I hope that no earthly power could bring me to do that; no, not even an anonymous letter from a good lady. Everything that I believe to be in God’s word I shall preach, whether my hearers accept it or not. It is to me a great comfort that such numbers do receive my teaching; and I never feel surprised when I meet with those who do not. I do not expect everybody to eat everything that I put on the table. I may flavour a dish with too much salt or too much pepper at times, but your own prayerful judgments will guide your tastes. We must preach all the truth; and this one thing is certain, we shall never give up loving the souls of men, or cease from trying to bring in the last from the highways and hedges. We shall throughout life echo that blessed call of our Lord Jesus — ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.’ Labourers and burden-bearers shall hear continually that gracious ward; and if they do not come to Jesus, their blood shall be upon their own heads, for the invitation is as free as the blessing is full. The gospel trumpet rings out clearly over hill and dale. ‘The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is a thirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.’ We cannot make men come; that is the work of the Holy Spirit; but we can persuade them by the love of Jesus and by the terrors of the Lord. We can preach Christ to sinners if we cannot preach sinners to Christ; and we know that the Lord’s word shall not return unto Him void."

Oh that my Hardshell brothers today would listen to what Spurgeon is saying!

Spurgeon in another sermon said:

"In the process of reconciling the sinner to Himself the Lord uses means. He might, if He had pleased, have influenced all human hearts by His Spirit, without a pleading ministry selected from among men, but He has not chosen to do so. God exercises His power over the human mind not miraculously, but in conformity with the laws of the mind. The Spirit of God beseeches and prays men to be reconciled. He deals with us not as with marble or wood, carving and shaping us by mere power. Acting upon the mind of man He does not act according to the laws of matter, but deals with mind after the mode in which minds must be dealt with. And therefore His Divine Grace operates upon human wills by persuasion—"as though God did beseech you by us." And by pleading—"we pray you, in Christ's stead, be you reconciled to God."" ("God Beseeching Sinners by His Ministers here)

Let us reason with sinners. Let us warn them. Let us tell them what God told us to tell them. If we plant God will give the increase.

Where Is My Place Of Rest?

"Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" 

(I Cor. 3: 16)

"Where is the place of my rest?" When God asks a question it is foolish to ignore it. Rather should we muse upon it and seek the right answer. So it is with this question.

There is much information about salvation being an experience where the believer himself enters into "God's rest." (See Heb. 3 & 4) In these cases the ones who are doing the resting are believers and their rest is manifold, being enjoyed in this life partially and in eternity fully, in a literal place of rest in the new heavens and earth. But, in the above texts it is God who is entering into rest. Of course, this does not mean that God gets tired, but it means the place he calls home, the place where he especially dwells. 

Temples of wood and stone (material structures) are not only historically seen as places of worship but as places where God(s) dwelt, and the place where the worshipers could "meet" and "commune" in the deity's house. In the new testament, the "temple of God" is used to describe the person of believers (in which God is said to dwell) and to describe the church, the body of Christ, believers as a group or corporate entity. Of the latter Paul said - "in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit." (Eph. 2: 22) Of the former Paul wrote:

"Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are." (I Cor. 3: 16-17)

Of the former, of individual believers, Paul again wrote:

"Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?" (I Cor. 6: 19)

The temple is the place of God's rest. Two times in the new testament we are told that "God does not dwell in temples made with hands." (Acts 7: 48; 17: 24) But, the human body is not made with hands, not a human creation, but is made by God. Thus, when he dwells in a believer he is not dwelling in temples made with hands. When God, the whole Trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit, take up their abode in the believer, God finds his place of rest. Said the Lord Jesus:

“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him." (John 14: 23)

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me." (Rev. 3: 20)

Yes, we find joy in knowing that a "rest remains for the people of God," and that we are promised entrance into it, but we joy even more to know that God has found his rest, his home and domicile, in us! Glory hallelujah! Wrote the hymnwriter:

"Joy to the world! The Lord is come Let earth receive her King! Let every heart prepare Him room."

Will you prepare room for the Lord in your heart? Once he enters he is there to stay! He says "I will never leave you."

Personal Responsibility In Bible Study

In my first introductory article on "Waiting for the Huiothesia" (See here) I wrote:

"We cannot escape personal responsibility in our Bible studies. Each Bible student must judge of the reliability of "translations," because translations are in fact but "interpretations.""

I firmly believe this is so. I do not accept any bible translation as without error. Many translations, in any given passage or text, will give different renderings in English to convey the original language. Some of these translations are extremely important for they give different meanings to the text. How can we know which translation is right in a given place? Do we trust someone else to tell us which is right? Or, is the responsibility ours to hear all the arguments and reasoning and decide for ourselves? To use proper rules of bible interpretation? Translations are interpretations.

What think ye?

God's Elect or World's Elite? XXXIX

"concerning the pneumatikon, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant"

(I Cor. 12: 1)

In the previous chapter we began to consider how the believer in Jesus, because he possesses the Holy Spirit, and the "spirit of Christ," is "spiritual" and acquires spiritual gifts and things. Thus, he is superior in status than are the world's rich ruling elite. He is the truly elect, the one graciously favored by God, the real elite or special one. He is the one "set apart" and distinguished, of a higher "calling." 

His wisdom and knowledge about God and the world is from the Holy Spirit and from the word (logos) of the Spirit. His special status, his calling, his uniqueness, is owing to his being indwelt by the Spirit. His power, authority, and privileges come from his being born of the Spirit. Though the believer is among the "base things of the world," yet he is not so in his standing with God nor in regard to his appointed exaltation. The believer is not "base," but high and lofty, though such does not yet fully appear to be so, as we have previously observed. 

We have seen how the believer is "noble" because he is "high born" in being born of the Spirit, in being the begotten children of God. We have seen how being thus indwelt and led by the Spirit and the words of the Spirit the believer is strong and mighty and elevated in his thoughts and understanding. In all this we have seen how the believer, though he is often in this world characterized as "of low estate," of base standing, yet he has been "raised" and "lifted up" by his new standing in Christ. He is raised to life from a previously dead state, morally and spiritually speaking. He is elevated in his values and beliefs, in his goals and aspirations, in his language and conduct. 

"Standard of living" with the believer is not to be connected with material well being, with economics and social standing in the present world, but with living an abundant life in the joy of the Spirit, in pleasing God. "A little that a righteous man has is better than the riches of many wicked." (Psalm 37: 16)

In the passage at the head of this chapter Paul says that believers ought not to be ignorant in regard to the "pneumatikon." Whenever you see an "ikos," "ika," or "ikon" ending on a Greek word, it means characterized or controlled by. This is like in English words that have "itis" for a suffix. The suffix means "inflammation." Therefore pneumatikōs or pneumatikon means to be controlled by or characterized by the Spirit, or to what has its source in the Spirit. Sarkikos means to be controlled by or characterized by the flesh. Psychikos means to be controlled by the psyche, by the soul, by natural reason. 

The KJV and other translations add "gifts" and render the Greek word as "spiritual gifts," but "gifts" is not in the original, hence the reason why it is italicized in the KJV. The word is plural and may be best translated as "spiritualities" or things pertaining to the spiritual, except that in such a case we have substituted a noun for an adjective, which the word is. It would be set in opposition to "carnalities." Perhaps we should translate the plural adjective "ton pneumatikon" as "the spirituals" or "spiritual characteristics." 

The verses following do talk about spiritual gifts and things. It seems that Paul, up to chapter ten had a lot to say about what is carnal, about what is natural and debased, and so in the beginning of chapter twelve he can finally discuss in more detail what are the true evidences and characteristics of spiritual men and things. We could possibly translate the text as "concerning the characteristics of being spiritual I would not have you to be ignorant" or as "concerning spiritual gifts and things." 

The adjective implies a noun to which it is the modifier. Another way to look at the text is to put quotation marks around the word "spirituals." Paul may well be saying "brothers, I don't want you to be ignorant on the use of "spiritual" as an adjective for anything." Or, "I don't want you to be ignorant of "spiritual" as a label or designation." 

The gifts or things of the Spirit are called pneumatikon, whereas "spiritual gifts" proper are rather called charismaton, denoting "grace gifts." (v. 4). Sometimes in scripture usage we have simply domata, without a qualifying adjective, meaning "gifts" (Eph. 4:8). Spirit gifts are indeed grace gifts, and vise versa.  

Not only in his Corinthian epistles but elsewhere too Paul spoke of what it means to be spiritual, even in passages where he does not use the word pneumatikos, as in this passage:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (Rom. 8: 1-10)

The words "according to the Spirit the things of the Spirit" (κατὰ πνεῦμα τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος) mean what the singular words "pneumatikon" or "pneumatikos" mean. As stated, "tikos" means "from" or "concerning" or "pertaining to." But, in the above, Paul uses "kata," which similarly means "according to," or pertaining to. The "things of the Spirit" denote not what comes from man's internal spirit, as the Gnostics affirmed, but what comes from the Holy Spirit. The things that originate with God's Spirit are "spiritual." The above words of Paul give us a good definition of how we are taught of God to define "spiritual." 

The sarkikos man is governed by the appetites of "the flesh" and the fallen nature, by his animal or beastly instincts. Over these he has no control, but is rather controlled by the flesh and by the soma (body). The scriptures affirm that such people are "slaves of sin," in bondage to their carnal appetites. Self control and liberation from this bondage must come from the Spirit and word of God. Both the man ruled by the psyche and the man ruled by the sarx fight a losing battle with those powers. So, they raise the red flag of surrender to those powers and are overcome by them and made slaves. So wrote the apostle Peter:

"While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." (II Peter 2: 19)

The man of the flesh, who lives merely to please the body and the flesh, is a "slave of corruption," of immorality and vice. The sarkikos man has his reasoning or justification, his excuses, for living such a morally reckless life, a life of pleasure, indulgence, deviance, and perversion. His life is all about "the pleasures of sin." (Heb. 11: 25) His fleshly depraved nature produces "vile affections" (Rom. 1: 26) for it is infected with the disease of sin, with the curse pronounced upon all men by the one sin of Adam (Rom. 5).

Men of the world, men who are without the Spirit, often promise "liberty" to others through the advice and philosophy that they promote. Especially is this true with the worldly wise, with "the mighty" of this age, with the worldly "nobility," the wealthy and successful, with "the disputers of this age." The most immorally debased people, the worst criminals, have their justifications for such a hedonistic life. Their motto is "let us eat and drink today for tomorrow we die." (I Cor. 15: 32) Their idea of "carpe diem" or "seizing the day" equates with having as much physical pleasure as possible. In Greek society, as in others, there were "pleasure cults," which were more like clubs for those seeking to please the flesh. Many of the religious cults had orgies, and paid prostitutes, and all kinds of lewd behavior. We may mention the feasts of Bacchanalia, of the philosophy of the Epicureans and Dionysus as examples. Wrote Paul along this line:  

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,  backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,  undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." (Rom. 1: 28-32)

That is the description of the man governed by either the soul or flesh. Immoral behavior is compared to sweet tasting food in the bible. Men do it because it brings pleasure, even though the pleasure often brings pain afterwards. Perversion and deviancy are fun. Men would rather participate in worldly parties and festivals, as Peter described when he wrote: 

"For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry." (I Peter 4: 3 NIV)

The NASB translation translates as "having pursued a course of indecent behavior, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties, and wanton idolatries." It is the party spirit, the lust for the "wild side" of life. We see this in the unbelievers among the redeemed Israelites who sinned and died under divine judgment in the wilderness. Wrote Paul:

"Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand." (I Cor. 10: 7-8)

By "rose up to play" denotes a making merry, a "partying." It was lewd and debauched. All was designed to please the flesh and the lusts of it. Though these fake believers had been brought out of bondage in Egypt, yet they showed that they were still in bondage to the lusts of the flesh. It is ironic. In the above words of Peter such "playing" involved debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing, and such things. Wrote Paul along this line:

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law." (Gal. 5: 19-23)

There are two sources, two governing principles, that produce human behavior. One is the flesh (which in this context would include the soul) and the other is the Holy Spirit. Each one is known by the things each produces. Both the Romans 8 text (above) and the Galatians 5 text (above) affirm this. 

"Works" is from the Greek word "ergon" the root word for many words in English, such as in ergonomics. Strong says it means "business, employment, that which any one is occupied," or "that which one undertakes to do, enterprise, undertaking," and "any product whatever, any thing accomplished by hand, art, industry, or mind." We might also include in "ergon" the idea of "energies," or "activities," or "practices" (habits). Paul did not use this word when he referred to those things produced by the Holy Spirit but rather used the word "fruit." Doubtless the "fruit" involves works, deeds, and activities, yet the choice of "fruit" instead of "works" is most interesting. Works of the flesh versus fruit of the Spirit.

Those who are "of the flesh" and who "walk after the flesh" focus their minds upon "the things pertaining to the flesh," to its desires. Those who are "of the Spirit," and who "walk after the Spirit" focus their minds upon "the things pertaining to the Spirit." 

In the passage above from Romans chapter eight, Paul spoke of "law" in several ways. There is "the law of the spirit of life," and "the law of sin and death," and "the law" and "law of God" (references to the OT scriptures). The idea behind each of these uses of "law" is that of "governing principle." The first definition of "law" given in dictionaries is that of a civil code of conduct, or rules contained in statutes. But when we speak of "physical laws," such as in law of gravity, law of motion, laws of thermodynamics, etc., the meaning does not refer to statutes and ordinances but to observable governing principles. Even in the social sciences there are laws of human behavior. A law is what governs conduct. 

God's moral law was given to govern man's thinking and behavior. But, it was "weak" (impotent or powerless) on account of "the flesh." The law, Paul said, is "spiritual." But, a man without the Spirit is carnal, fleshly, hedonistic. His sinful nature is opposed to the law and word of God. Thus, he has "enmity" towards God, is at war against him and his spiritual law, and so "is not subject to the law of God." But, "what the law (statutes) of God could not do" was to give man liberation from his flesh and his sinful nature. The law was never intended to be the means for man's redemption. It was designed to reveal to man his bondage, his impotence to do what is right and pleasing to the Lord. "The man who is after the Spirit," on the other hand, is the one who "sets his mind (thinking) upon the things of the Spirit." 

If a man kept a record of what he thinks about, and about what he does, he would discern what was governing him. Being possessed by the Spirit results in being governed by the Spirit. The entrance of the Spirit of God into the spirit of a man brings spiritual "life." "The law (ruling principle or power) of the Spirit" says the apostle, liberates one from the bondage of the flesh and sinful nature, sets free from "the law (ruling principle or power) of sin and death." The words "things of the spirit" are what is meant by the singular word "spiritual" (pneumatikos). The words "Spirit of life" mean "life giving Spirit," being an objective genitive.

W. E. Vine said:  

"The phrase “the Spirit of life,” is not subjective, “the Spirit who has life,” but objective, “the Spirit who gives life.” “It is the Spirit who quickeneth” (John 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.")." (Collected Writings)

A physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior (i.e. the law of nature). It is a word that denotes what is universally observed to occur in regard to a given event or situation. In the case of human behavior, in relation to God, everyone born of Adam is under the curse of original sin. That curse has resulted in man's alienation of affection towards God and holy or spiritual things. In this condition "there is none that does good, no not one." There is "none that seeks after God." (See Rom. 3: 10-18) Under the law of sin and death the sinner's heart is "fully set on doing evil." (Eccl. 8: 11) His will is a slave to his flesh, being governed by the "law of sin." Unless the Spirit changes his will and beliefs he will remain a slave to the flesh. The Spirit must work in the sinner "both to will and to do" the things that are spiritual and pleasing to God, and things related to salvation. (Phil. 2: 13) The will of the sinner is under the governing power of sin, of the flesh and its lusts. "The law of sin and death" speaks to the governing power of sin and death. It takes a greater power, another law, "the law of the Spirit of life," to liberate from this law and power of sin.

Said one commentator:

"The "law (principle) of the Spirit" is analogous to the "law (principle) of aerodynamics" and it's effect on lifting a plane off the ground thus "countering" effects of the "law (principle) of gravity" (see F B Meyer's note). The Spirit similarly lifts believer's lives to a new plane, to "fly" at a new altitude that heretofore was not possible under the "law of sin and of death" when they tried to attain righteousness in their own power and/or by keeping the Law (or religious rules - anything that we do with the intent to try to make us more pleasing to God." (See here)

Paul used "law" in the sense of governing principle also in Romans 7. There he wrote:

"I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." (Rom. 7: 21-25)

Paul says that the "law of sin" is "another law" in addition to "the law of God," to the governing power of the Spirit and the word. There are two different Greek words for "another." One is from "allos" and means "another of the same sort" while "heteros" means "another of a different sort." In "another law" the Greek word is heteros. The law of sin is a law of a different kind than is the law of God (or the law of the life giving Spirit). Both are the same in the sense that both are "laws" but the kind of law is different in nature and effects. The Spirit rules and governs the believer but the psyche and sarx rule and governs the unbeliever. 

Discerning the Spiritual Man

"But as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” 10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ." (I Cor. 2: 9-16)

From what we have already seen from our study on the meaning of spirituality we should be able to easily identify the kind of character we are, or are others. The qualifiers of the spiritual man and the qualifiers of the carnal or natural man are clear and easily recognized. What men think, believe, and do reveals what kind of people they are, whether they are spiritual or fleshly. We have seen that a spiritual man first and foremost is a man who has welcomed the Holy Spirit, welcomed God the Father, and welcomed Christ Jesus and the Gospel and word of God into his heart, soul, mind, and spirit. 

We have seen how the spiritual man is "spiritually minded" and enjoys "life and peace" as a result. On the other hand, those who are "carnally or fleshly minded" are in a state of moral and spiritual death without peace. The spiritual man "walks according to the Spirit" while the fleshly led man "walks according to his fleshly lusts." The Spirit of God transforms the thinking of the believer who is possessed by the Spirit. He has "the mind of Christ," a spiritual mind, as Paul affirms in the above text. He has spiritual insight and understanding. He knows "the mind of the Lord." 

In the above text "the Spirit of God" is set in opposition to "the spirit of the man" and to "the spirit of the world (cosmos)." Likewise "the things of a man (human)" is set in contrast to "the things of the Spirit."

The way in which man acquires the knowledge of himself, and humanity, is by the human spirit. The way in which a man acquires the knowledge of God and spiritual things is by the divine Spirit. No man can know his own mind, his own plans and intentions, but himself, his own spirit. So likewise no one knows God like the Spirit of God. 

One of the "things of the Spirit" that Paul focuses upon is the Gospel and word of God, yea, upon those things God "has prepared for those who love him." These things are "revealed" by the Spirit and the Spirit makes use of the word preached to accomplish that enlightenment in the things of God. It is by receiving the Spirit via the word of God that men come to "know the things of God." Wrote Paul:

"Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal. 3: 2-3)

Through the proclamation and teaching of the scriptures by the Spirit, through "the words," not of "man's wisdom," but of the Spirit's own words, men are given revelation. When a psychikos or sarkikos man hears the Gospel and teachings of scripture, he is unable to receive it. He does not understand it nor believe it. It is contrary to his thinking, going against the grain of his depraved nature. He is not interested in the afterlife but in the present life. His flesh rules his thinking. The thing he values most is "enjoying life to the fullest," and this does not include living a godly life. He is not interested in repentance and turning away from such a life. He thinks that holy living is stupid and a waste of time. The only religion he is interested in is that which allows him to indulge his lusts and bring him sensual and bodily pleasures, for which many of the Pagan cults are infamous. 

The psychikos man, though he is a thinking and rational man, and one who is more educated and cultured, yet he also is highly influenced by the flesh, by his depraved nature, and believes nothing but what he himself thinks is right. He does "whatever seems right in his own eyes." (See Judges 21: 25) He "leans upon his own understanding." (Prov. 3: 5) He follows that "way that seems right unto a man," not knowing that "the end thereof are the ways of death." (Prov. 30:12) "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes," said Solomon, "but the LORD weighs the hearts." (Prov. 21: 2)

The sarx man has no desire to love God, being one of those who are "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God." (II Tim. 3: 4) Of these Paul said: "whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—who set their mind on earthly things." (Phil 3: 19)

The psychikos man sees love to God, religion, as irrational. Overly religious people to him are "superstitious," of weak minds. He may even show a willingness to "love God" but it is never the leading reason for his life, not the thing which motivates and controls him. He will not be governed by God or religion but is governed by his own mind, his own soul. The Psalmist describes them: "Who have said, “With our tongue we will prevail; Our lips are our own; Who is lord over us?” (Psalm 12: 4) Such people serve themselves, make gods of themselves. They may pretend to honor God or the gods, for selfish ends, but it is pretense. The sarx man does not want God in his thoughts at all. "God is not in all his thoughts" said the Psalmist. (10: 4) The natural man, the psychikos man, the man guided by his own mind, by his own ego or self, does "not like to retain God in his knowledge." (Rom. 1: 28) 

The natural man, the man who listens to his soul and obediently follows it, has no problem being viewed as a "lover of God," so long as he is the one who designates which "god" or "gods" he shows love. Though the man of the flesh (sarkikos) has his "belly" for his "god," the man of the soul (psychikos) makes his rational mind to be his god. Of course, as we have stated, a man may be both sarkikos and psychikos, sometimes led by his carnal reasoning and sometimes by his fleshly appetites.