Sanctification

Is there any distinction in Scripture between ‘‘flesh”’ and “sin”? and “‘the old man’’? If so, please explain. 1. “Flesh” is a word of various meanings in Scripture. Sometimes it means literal flesh, the soft parts of the bodies of men or animals, as in Genesis 17:13; Leviticus 7:20; sometimes the natural body, as in Hebrews 5:7; 2

John 7; sometimes all humanity, as in Genesis 6:12; Luke 3:6; sometimes the sinless humanity of Christ offered as a sacrifice and received by faith, as in John 6:53, 54; but these and other various meanings, are easily determined by the context.

The real difficulty arises when Scripture uses the word in its ethical sense as in Galatians 5:16, 17, and generally in Paul’s writings. So used, the definitions, in view of all the passages where “flesh” occurs in the bad ethical sense, must include the body. ‘The definition suggested and with which one may justly find fault, viz., that “flesh is the inborn evil tendency in man,” is too restricted. The “flesh” when used ethically, is the whole natural or unregenerate man, spirit, soul and body. The evil sense of “flesh” Paul finds to be a law in his members (Rom. 7:23). It is because the body is a seat and source of sin, and associated with “flesh” that the Holy Spirit indwells the believer to give power over “the flesh” (Gal. 5:16, 17).

2. The root error of eradicationism of the flesh has room to grow only in the false conception of “flesh,” as a mere tendency to evil quite apart from the natural body. The biblical doctrine of the body is quite simple. In the unregenerate man it is part of “the flesh’; “sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), literally “flesh of sin,’ in the likeness of which Christ was made — though, of course, Himself wholly without sin. The body of the believer is identically the same body. It is the “body of his humiliation” (Phil. 3:20); he must beat it and keep it under (1 Cor. 9:27); in it he groans because of it (Rom. 8:23; 2 Cor. 5:2); it is a seat and source of sin (Rom. 7:23); and corrupt, dishonorable, weak, and “natural” (psychical) (1 Cor. 15:42-44). But this body is destined to be fashioned like the glorious body of Christ, in incorruption, glory and power, no longer a psychical or “‘natural’’ body as now, but then a pneumatical or “spiritual’’ body. This change, whether of living or sleeping saints, awaits the return of Christ (Phil. 3:20;

1 Cor. 15:42-44, 51, 52; 1 Thess. 4:13-18), and is called “the redemption of the body” (Rom. 8:23).

The earnest of this coming redemption of the body is the indwelling Spirit (Eph. 1:13, 14; 4:30); whose presence makes even the present body to be, in wonderful grace, a temple (1 Cor. 6:19). So indwelling the body of our humiliation (Phil. 1:20, R.V.), the Spirit lusts against the flesh, and the flesh against the Spirit — which could not be if the flesh were eradicated — and gives victory over the flesh to the believer who walks in the Spirit and not in the flesh (Gal. 5:16, 17).

3. The “old man” is a biblical phrase occurring three times in Scripture (Rom. 6:6; Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:9). The first of these passages gives no clue to a definition, simply asserting the co-crucifixion of our “old man” with Christ. But the Ephesian passage brings the needed light. The “old man” is put in contrast with the “new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness,” and can mean none other than “Christ in you” (Col. 1:27). The contrast is of origins. The “new man” is a creation from God, “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God’ (John 1:12, 18). The old man is the precise contrast of this, because born of and after Adam the head of the old creation (1 Cor. 15: 45-47). Accordingly, “the old man” must be defined as human or Adamic nature; the proneness to sin common to all Adam’s descendants.

4, The word “sin” as used in Romans 5:21; 6:2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14; 7:5, 8, 9, 11, 18, 14, 20, refers to what in the three passages quoted is called “the old man.” The only distinction is that “sin” speaks of the moral quality of mere human nature; the “old man” of the origin of human nature in the Adamic “first man.”

What is the distinction between the eradication
theory and the Keswick teaching?

The “eradication” theory is the teaching that by some experience it is possible for the Christian to be wholly and forever delivered from the flesh by eradication. The Keswick teaching is that a Spirit-filled believer may walk in unbroken victory over the flesh and over all known sin.

Sanctification, in Scripture, is three-fold: (1) At the instant of believing the Christian is “sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ, once for all’ (Heb. 10:10, 14); (2) the believer is being sanctified through the application, by the Spirit, to his life of the Word of God (John 17:17; Eph. 5:25, 26); (8) the believer will be entirely sanctified in the sense of sinless perfection at the appearing of Christ (1 John 3:2; Eph. 5:27). This expectation in itself makes for holiness (1 John 3:3). The notion of sinless perfection in this life is unscriptural and dangerous. There is but one perfect man in Scripture — the Man of Calvary; nor has any one ever met a sinlessly perfect human save Him.

But the other notion, that because absolute moral perfection will not be attained in this life, therefore the Christian is excusable for sinning, is monstrous.

Does not the New Testament teach sinless perfection here and now?

Neither Scripture nor experience teach that sinless perfection is possible in this life. It is true that a fountain cannot send forth both sweet and bitter water, and a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, but James uses these illustrations to teach the necessity of yieldedness to the new nature in us. When so yielded, the water will be sweet and the fruit good, — but alas, we are not always yielded.

As to the passages in 1 John, it is exceedingly important to know that John habitually deals with the Christian as a Son of God in an abstract and absolute way, rather than as compassed with infirmity and still bearing about the old nature. He does not indeed ignore the “old man,” but is not occupied with him. In this is the reconciliation of the apparent contradiction of 1:8 and 8:9. The old nature is sin, and we “deceive ourselves” if we suppose sin to be entirely eradicated. ‘The new nature is the “seed of God,’ and as born again, the believer cannot sin — his new nature cannot sin. Those who teach eradication have very little conception of what sin is: ‘Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the law of God.” Aside from wilful transgression, whoever, with this conception of sin, lives even a single day in perfect conformity to the law of God? This doctrine of eradication also breeds one of the most heinous of sins, according to God’s Word, — self-righteousness. Indeed, the nearer one lives to God, the more is he conscious of falling short of God’s holy standard. We may, praise God, live in victory over known sin, and even have particular sins removed out of the life, but new provocations and new circumstances continually bring to light new sins that perhaps we were not even conscious of, and in shame and sorrow we must confess and have them again put away by the blood of Jesus. It is true indeed that some live in greater victory than others, and again, that we are to reckon ourselves ‘dead unto sin and alive unto God’; that is the attitude we are to take continually. The fact has been accomplished by the death of Christ, and when we see Christ and are “like Him” the fact and the experience will agree. Until then, we shall be hindered in our growth upward by the “bondage of corruption” (Rom. 8:21). When transformed at the coming of Christ, we shall be delivered from that bondage and brought into the glorious liberty of the sons of God.

What proofs can be given that the man in Romans 7 is a regenerated man?

The proofs that the man in Romans 7 is a “‘born-again”

man are: (1) Experiential part starts from ‘dead to sin” and “married to another’; (2) The man (Paul) has two “T’s’’; (8) He speaks of the “inner man,” which is Paul’s phrase for the “new man” (2 Cor. 4:16); and he delights (4) in the law of God, which no unrenewed man ever did.

If sinless perfection is not taught in Scripture, how would you explain 1 Thessalonians 5:23, — ‘“‘The very God of peace sanctify you wholly”?

It is explained by the context. The “spirit, soul and body” may be “preserved blameless’ — which is not sinless perfection, but being kept from stumbling (Jude 24) — while the consummation in the sense of “wholly’’ — or sinless perfection — is not until “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Not until “he shall appear” shall we be like Him (1 John 3:1-8), and nothing short of perfect Christliness is “‘sanctified wholly.” The will of God is our entire sanctification. When a sinner believes on the Lord Jesus Christ he is positionally sanctified “‘by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (Heb. 10:10). Then begin the processes by which his state is made one with his standing. The culmination of these processes (see 2 Cor. 3:18, and like passages) is the beatific vision when he sees Christ “‘as he is,’ and is made “like him.” To say that the will of God is our sanctification or that we are to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, is by no means to say that we are to become instantaneously perfect.

It should be added, however, that the believer’s imperfect state is no excuse for living in known sin. The Spirit-filled believer, though most imperfect in himself, has victory over his imperfection through the Spirit.