a New Nature

[RandyPNW]

Heb 4.6 Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience, 7 God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.
12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

I would just point out something very interesting, very exciting, in this that touched brother Watchman Nee many years ago, which then touched me, as well. The division of soul and spirit lit up for Brother Nee, who saw that in our soul, ie in our mind, will, and emotions, we can do things that are purely "works," as opposed to putting on a new nature, which derives from Christ. We can do all kinds of good things, in apparent obedience to God's word, but if this does not translate into a new nature, modelled after our Creator, then it is empty and nothing more than perfunctory performance art.

Our soul, then, can remain religious and yet without the full knowledge of Christ. We can be emotional over our concern for someone, we can be emotional in spiritual worship, we can fight for a good cause, and we can even understand right and wrong. But if we don't know who God is in the sense of who He wants us to be like, then our soul indulges in a form of vanity.

In that case, the soul misses that which truly saves us--a new nature given to us by Christ. The spirit should know what Christ's nature is, and what new nature it is that we should put on. The word of God detects this essential difference between soul and spirit. The soul needs to be under the supervision of the spirit when it perceives our need to put on the nature of Christ--not just the works of Christ.

Some say Salvation simply results from believing in NT redemption, as opposed to the Law, which was ritualistic and void of changing Israel. This is hostile towards Israel and a form of antinomianism. Yes, Israel as a whole failed over time, but that doesn't mean the word of God under the Law failed!

In reality, the Law was God's word, as much as the New Covenant is God's word. And the Law was designed not just to get Israel to perform externally, but also to worship God internally through conformity to God's nature. The Law was designed, as in everything else, to make Israel put on a new nature patterned after God Himself.

Heb 3.7 So, as the Holy Spirit says:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
8 do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the wilderness,
9 where your ancestors tested and tried me,
though for forty years they saw what I did.
10 That is why I was angry with that generation;
I said, ‘Their hearts are always going astray,
and they have not known my ways.’
11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’ ”

Please note: God used the wilderness sufferings and deprivation to allow Israel's external circumstances and evident signs of God's help to bring them into a fuller knowledge of who God is, or what HIs nature is. It was *testing,* pure and simple. It was to expose the difference between soul and spirit, between external obedience and inward spiritual change. And that was called "today" in that day, ie in the time of the Law. They could *know God* in their own day! That's why Jesus told Nicodemus, while they were still under the Law, that he should've known, as Israel's teacher, what being "Born Again" meant. It was Israel's need to put on a new spiritual nature.

So God has always used His word to bring change to people, to encourage them to do right, but also to come to a full knowledge of His nature so that they may convert completely from their old independent nature to a new nature operating in partnership with God.

God's word is operating in our lives all the time. We just need to become aware of it. It's the job of Christians to make people aware of this, since they should already have that experience. They should be sharing with the ignorant should they be even remotely interested. If they are not interested, their guilt is on themselves. But we need to always make ourselves available to God's word, since we have put on God's nature and actually have chosen to live by His word.

 

[Dan Perez]

Heb 4.6 Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience, 7 God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.
12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

I would just point out something very interesting, very exciting, in this that touched brother Watchman Nee many years ago, which then touched me, as well. The division of soul and spirit lit up for Brother Nee, who saw that in our soul, ie in our mind, will, and emotions, we can do things that are purely "works," as opposed to putting on a new nature, which derives from Christ. We can do all kinds of good things, in apparent obedience to God's word, but if this does not translate into a new nature, modelled after our Creator, then it is empty and nothing more than perfunctory performance art.

Our soul, then, can remain religious and yet without the full knowledge of Christ. We can be emotional over our concern for someone, we can be emotional in spiritual worship, we can fight for a good cause, and we can even understand right and wrong. But if we don't know who God is in the sense of who He wants us to be like, then our soul indulges in a form of vanity.

In that case, the soul misses that which truly saves us--a new nature given to us by Christ. The spirit should know what Christ's nature is, and what new nature it is that we should put on. The word of God detects this essential difference between soul and spirit. The soul needs to be under the supervision of the spirit when it perceives our need to put on the nature of Christ--not just the works of Christ.

Some say Salvation simply results from believing in NT redemption, as opposed to the Law, which was ritualistic and void of changing Israel. This is hostile towards Israel and a form of antinomianism. Yes, Israel as a whole failed over time, but that doesn't mean the word of God under the Law failed!

In reality, the Law was God's word, as much as the New Covenant is God's word. And the Law was designed not just to get Israel to perform externally, but also to worship God internally through conformity to God's nature. The Law was designed, as in everything else, to make Israel put on a new nature patterned after God Himself.

Heb 3.7 So, as the Holy Spirit says:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
8 do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the wilderness,
9 where your ancestors tested and tried me,
though for forty years they saw what I did.
10 That is why I was angry with that generation;
I said, ‘Their hearts are always going astray,
and they have not known my ways.’
11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’ ”

Please note: God used the wilderness sufferings and deprivation to allow Israel's external circumstances and evident signs of God's help to bring them into a fuller knowledge of who God is, or what HIs nature is. It was *testing,* pure and simple. It was to expose the difference between soul and spirit, between external obedience and inward spiritual change. And that was called "today" in that day, ie in the time of the Law. They could *know God* in their own day! That's why Jesus told Nicodemus, while they were still under the Law, that he should've known, as Israel's teacher, what being "Born Again" meant. It was Israel's need to put on a new spiritual nature.

So God has always used His word to bring change to people, to encourage them to do right, but also to come to a full knowledge of His nature so that they may convert completely from their old independent nature to a new nature operating in partnership with God.

God's word is operating in our lives all the time. We just need to become aware of it. It's the job of Christians to make people aware of this, since they should already have that experience. They should be sharing with the ignorant should they be even remotely interested. If they are not interested, their guilt is on themselves. But we need to always make ourselves available to God's word, since we have put on God's nature and actually have chosen to live by His word.

When reading your OPENING POST , it speaking Only to Israel , am I right ?

dan p

 

[RandyPNW]

When reading your OPENING POST , it speaking Only to Israel , am I right ?

dan p

Dan, I started by quoting Hebrews, which was written to Christians. He was speaking of Israel's experience in the wilderness, where they were tested for 40 years. I believe they were being tested to prove that they weren't just obeying by rote, but actually being willing to become "like God," assuming his New Nature.

 

[Clare73]

Heb 4.6 Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience, 7 God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.
12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

I would just point out something very interesting, very exciting, in this that touched brother Watchman Nee many years ago, which then touched me, as well. The division of soul and spirit lit up for Brother Nee, who saw that in our soul, ie in our mind, will, and emotions, we can do things that are purely "works," as opposed to putting on a new nature, which derives from Christ. We can do all kinds of good things, in apparent obedience to God's word, but if this does not translate into a new nature, modelled after our Creator, then it is empty and nothing more than perfunctory performance art.

Our soul, then, can remain religious and yet without the full knowledge of Christ. We can be emotional over our concern for someone, we can be emotional in spiritual worship, we can fight for a good cause, and we can even understand right and wrong. But if we don't know who God is in the sense of who He wants us to be like, then our soul indulges in a form of vanity.

In that case, the soul misses that which truly saves us--a new nature given to us by Christ. The spirit should know what Christ's nature is, and what new nature it is that we should put on. The word of God detects this essential difference between soul and spirit. The soul needs to be under the supervision of the spirit when it perceives our need to put on the nature of Christ--not just the works of Christ.

Some say Salvation simply results from believing in NT redemption, as opposed to the Law, which was ritualistic and void of changing Israel. This is hostile towards Israel and a form of antinomianism. Yes, Israel as a whole failed over time, but that doesn't mean the word of God under the Law failed!

In reality, the Law was God's word, as much as the New Covenant is God's word.
And the Law was designed not just to get Israel to perform externally,

Actually, the Law was never given to make righteous (Ro 3:20), for righteousness had always been only by faith (Ge 15:5, Ro 4:2-3).
The law was given simply to reveal the nature of sin (spiritual defilement) and its singular remedy--blood sacrifice.

but also to worship God internally through conformity to God's nature. The Law was designed, as in everything else, to make Israel put on a new nature patterned after God Himself.

Heb 3.7 So, as the Holy Spirit says:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
8 do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the wilderness,
9 where your ancestors tested and tried me,
though for forty years they saw what I did.
10 That is why I was angry with that generation;
I said, ‘Their hearts are always going astray,
and they have not known my ways.’
11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’ ”

Please note: God used the wilderness sufferings and deprivation to allow Israel's external circumstances and evident signs of God's help to bring them into a fuller knowledge of who God is, or what HIs nature is. It was *testing,* pure and simple. It was to expose the difference between soul and spirit, between external obedience and inward spiritual change. And that was called "today" in that day, ie in the time of the Law. They could *know God* in their own day! That's why Jesus told Nicodemus, while they were still under the Law, that he should've known, as Israel's teacher, what being "Born Again" meant. It was Israel's need to put on a new spiritual nature.

So God has always used His word to bring change to people, to encourage them to do right, but also to come to a full knowledge of His nature so that they may convert completely from their old independent nature to a new nature operating in partnership with God.

God's word is operating in our lives all the time. We just need to become aware of it. It's the job of Christians to make people aware of this, since they should already have that experience. They should be sharing with the ignorant should they be even remotely interested. If they are not interested, their guilt is on themselves. But we need to always make ourselves available to God's word, since we have put on God's nature and actually have chosen to live by His word.

 

[RandyPNW]

Actually, the Law was never given to make righteous (Ro 3:20), for righteousness had always been only by faith (Ge 15:5, Ro 4:2-3).
The law was given simply to reveal the nature of sin (spiritual defilement) and its singular remedy--blood sacrifice.

Yes, I'm glad you brought this up because it's really the meat of the matter for me. When Christians quote Paul as saying the Law did not make Israel "righteous," the inference is not always recognized by its context. The reference is to *righteousness that saves,* and not simply to *righteousness* in the general sense.

So, to restate, the Law does not produce a righteousness that provides Salvation, even though obedience to the Law is, in fact, righteousness. It would be absurd, after reading the giving of the Law in the Pentateauch, and after reading psalms like Psalm 119, to conclude that the Law provided no righteousness at all!

So what Paul was really talking about, in context, was righteousness of a kind that is eternal, that provides for Salvation. This righteousness could only come by the sinless, divine Christ, as opposed to sinful Israel under the Law. Any sin at all in the Israelite priests disqualified them from either their priestly work or the work they were doing for Israel.

But in reality, God provided a dispensation of mercy to allow the Israelite priests to effectively offer sacrifices for Israel, to keep them in temporary relationship with God until Christ had provided his perfect, redemptive righteousness.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I'm glad you brought this up because it's really the meat of the matter for me. When Christians quote Paul as saying the Law did not make Israel "righteous," the inference is not always recognized by its context. The reference is to *righteousness that saves,* and not simply to *righteousness* in the general sense.

You're speaking in God's terms vs. man's terms.
What good is a righteousness in man's terms that does not save in God's terms?

So, to restate, the Law does not produce a righteousness that provides Salvation, even though obedience to the Law is, in fact, righteousness.

That is not in agreement with the NT, where righteousness is only by faith (Gal 3:11-12), apart from law keeping (Ro 3:28).
The law was never given to make righteous, it was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).
God does not have two methods of righteousness for fallen mankind, one by law keeping if he could achieve it, and the other by faith alone.

It would be absurd, after reading the giving of the Law in the Pentateauch, and after reading psalms like Psalm 119, to conclude that the Law provided no righteousness at all!

Nevertheless, the law was given to reveal sin, not to make righteous, for righteousess by law keeping would contradict the principles of Ro 3:20, Gal 3:11-12 of righteousness by faith alone.

Likewise, human absurdity is not the measure of divine truth, for God's thoughts are not our thoughts, and our ways are not his ways (Isa 55:8).

 

[RandyPNW]

You're speaking in God's terms vs. man's terms.
What good is a righteousness in man's terms that does not save in God's terms?

There is no essential dichotomy between God's terms and Man's terms. We can either be on the same page with God, or not. Our righteousness is acceptable to God when He grants us a dispensation, ignoring our sins and recognizing the things that we do that are inspired by Him. In the OT that was called "mercy." In the NT it is called "Christian grace."

That is not in agreement with the NT, where righteousness is only by faith (Gal 3:11-12), apart from law keeping (Ro 3:28).
The law was never given to make righteous, it was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).
God does not have two methods of righteousness for fallen mankind, one by law keeping if he could achieve it, and the other by faith alone.

"Righteousness" is not defined strictly by Christianity. That's obvious because God called for Man to be righteous from the beginning, before there was any Christianity. And even when Cain went astray, God continued to assert that he could do right.

Gen 4.6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

Nevertheless, the law was given to reveal sin, not to make righteous, for righteousess by law keeping would contradict the principles of Ro 3:20, Gal 3:11-12 of righteousness by faith alone.

Likewise, human absurdity is not the measure of divine truth, for God's thoughts are not our thoughts, and our ways are not his ways (Isa 55:8).

Okay, you disagree.

 

[RandyPNW]

Actually, the Law was never given to make righteous (Ro 3:20), for righteousness had always been only by faith (Ge 15:5, Ro 4:2-3).
The law was given simply to reveal the nature of sin (spiritual defilement) and its singular remedy--blood sacrifice.

I disagree with how you appear to define "faith." You seem to be using the word as an expression of intellectual assent to the truth of a proposition. In Christianity, faith's object is God's word--not mere acceptance of the reality or existence of that word, nor the reality and existence of God Himself. Rather, "faith" is to be directed towards God's word in such a way that the proposition is accepted in terms of what that word requires of us.

I love to quote 1 John 2 on this...

1 john 2.3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

So, "faith" is not just accepting that God said this (via John) or that it is true for some. Rather, it is accepting the proposition that this word is requiring of us that we do what it is said we must do.

So, if "faith" is the basis of our justification, so is the performance of God's word in our lives to show that we have truly believed it.

Therefore, "faith" was active in the OT era, as well, when Israel performed the Law. That was an act of faith. And even though faith could not fully justify until Christ had made his atonement, that faith did justify them temporarily until the atonement had been made.

Righteousness is described in conjunction with keeping the Law all through the OT Scriptures. And Paul verified that righteousness existed under the Law. So I think you've simply misinterpreted Paul, which of course is not hard to do. Either way, I wish you well in your faith = righteousness formula. We would certainly agree on at least the intellectual assent part of it, if not on the performance part of it.

If faith does not have, as its object, God's word, then it is just a meaningless belief. But if our faith is directed towards God's living word, then we must participate in what that word is saying to us. That is, our faith must respond positively to that word as it implies our need to obey it.

 

[Clare73]

I disagree with how you appear to define "faith."

Appearances are not always a good measure. . .

 

[fhansen]

I disagree with how you appear to define "faith." You seem to be using the word as an expression of intellectual assent to the truth of a proposition. In Christianity, faith's object is God's word--not mere acceptance of the reality or existence of that word, nor the reality and existence of God Himself. Rather, "faith" is to be directed towards God's word in such a way that the proposition is accepted in terms of what that word requires of us.

I love to quote 1 John 2 on this...

1 john 2.3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

So, "faith" is not just accepting that God said this (via John) or that it is true for some. Rather, it is accepting the proposition that this word is requiring of us that we do what it is said we must do.

So, if "faith" is the basis of our justification, so is the performance of God's word in our lives to show that we have truly believed it.

Therefore, "faith" was active in the OT era, as well, when Israel performed the Law. That was an act of faith. And even though faith could not fully justify until Christ had made his atonement, that faith did justify them temporarily until the atonement had been made.

Righteousness is described in conjunction with keeping the Law all through the OT Scriptures. And Paul verified that righteousness existed under the Law. So I think you've simply misinterpreted Paul, which of course is not hard to do. Either way, I wish you well in your faith = righteousness formula. We would certainly agree on at least the intellectual assent part of it, if not on the performance part of it.

If faith does not have, as its object, God's word, then it is just a meaningless belief. But if our faith is directed towards God's living word, then we must participate in what that word is saying to us. That is, our faith must respond positively to that word as it implies our need to obey it.

This is very true. To divorce faith from righteousness, and from the righteous acts that should accompany that righteousness, is to do violence to the gospel. Faith and righteous living are inseparable.

 

[fhansen]

Appearances are not always a good measure. . .

And yet without good fruit our faith would be a lie, worthless.

 

[Clare73]

Appearances are not always a good measure. . .

And yet without good fruit our faith would be a lie, worthless.

So all fruit is visible?

 

[Clare73]

This is very true. To divorce faith from righteousness, and from the righteous acts that should accompany that righteousness, is to do violence to the gospel. Faith and righteous living are inseparable.

When an unbelieving sinner comes to faith, which faith alone saves him, (Eph 2:8-9), he has no righteousness at that time to add to that faith.
He is saved by his faith alone, apart from any works (Eph 2:8-9).

Who is doing violence to salvation by faith alone, apart from faith's works (Eph 2:8-9)?

 

[fhansen]

So all fruit is visible?

Usually yes, which is why the Bible tells us that we'll know them by their fruit. But not necessarily

 

[fhansen]

When an unbelieving sinner comes to faith, which faith alone saves him, (Eph 2:8-9), he has no righteousness at that time to add to that faith.

Yes, he has no righteousness of his own, that's why he must turn to God for it, in fact. But he's not merely forgiven of sin at that point, righteousness is not solely declared of or imputed to him, but given to him, enabling him to now live as a child of God should so that sin should no longer condemn him to death.

Faith alone won't get him into heaven unless throughout his life he acts upon the justice: the faith, hope, and love, given.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, he has no righteousness of his own, that's why he must turn to God for it, in fact. But he's not merely forgiven of sin at that point, righteousness is not solely declared of or imputed to him, but given to him,

Justification/righteousness, by Greek definition, is a declaration of righteousness, a forensic righteousness, a sentence of acquittal, "not guilty," right standing with God, clean/undefiled by sin.

 

[fhansen]

Justification/righteousness, by Greek definition, is a declaration of righteousness, a forensic righteousness, a sentence of acquittal, "not guilty," right standing with God, clean/undefiled by sin.

That's an interpretation-and we've been down this road before. But either way, there's no doubt that were acquitted of the guilt of sin. The question has to do with whether or not the acquittal automatically applies to future sin or, instead, are we now also equipped to overcome sin, to finally be obedient to God's will as a result of being justified as long as we continue to remain Him, under grace, walking by the Spirit.

Again, no one gets into heaven just because they've believed if that doesn't also mean that, for example, they've acted justly, loved mercy, and walked humbly with their God (Micah 6:8).

 

[Clare73]

That's an interpretation-and we've been down this road before. But either way, there's no doubt that were acquitted of the guilt of sin.
The question has to do with whether or not the acquittal automatically applies to future sin

Only in the mind of those who do not understand what actually took place on the cross.

or, instead, are we now also equipped to overcome sin,

Faith in Christ admits to salvation.
We don't "overcome" the guilt of yesterday's sin, all the sin of those in Christ is paid for.
Those in Christ partake of his righteousness.
Those in Christ walk in faith and obedience by the enablement of the Holy Spirit.

 

[fhansen]

Those in Christ partake of his righteousness.
Those in Christ walk in faith and obedience by the enablement of the Holy Spirit.

And that partaking, itself, remains as optional throughout our lives as your preference of interpretation of the Greek definition of justification.

Anyway, no "understanding" of what took place on the cross would have anything to do with thinking that the future sins of a justified believer could not compromise and destroy his justified position before God.

 

[Clare73]

And that partaking, itself, remains as optional throughout our lives as your preference of interpretation of the Greek definition of justification.

Was Abraham at risk of losing the righteousness credited to him by faith?
Does Ro 4:1-4 give any indication of such?
Nowhere is that even suggested in Scripture.

Anyway, no "understanding" of what took place on the cross would have anything to do with thinking that the future sins of a justified believer could not compromise and destroy his justified position before God.

Contraire. . .you don't really understand the nature of the new birth, nor
the deposit/earnest money of the Holy Spirit from God himself guaranteeing the re-born's shared inheritance (2 Co 1:27, 5:5, Eph 1:14) as co-heirs in Christ's own inheritance (Ro 8:17).

Christ died for all the sins of the re-born. Salvation is of God alone. God doesn't save me and then it is up to me to keep myself saved.
All the glory goes to God alone because he alone saves to the uttermost.

You mitigate the gospel and, thereby, the glory of God.