The Spirit of Liberty

[WordSword]

In all things, our Father teaches us to know the freedom we have available from now on in the Lord Jesus (but you’ve got to appropriate it in your conscience and walk). That is, the release of the old man’s incurred guilt and “dominion.” It’s the possession of the sin nature (“old” or original “man”) and not the sinning that incurred guilt; and it’s not the sinning that determines dominion. Dominion is the ability of which the sin nature had to cause us to willfully desire sin (but never again – Phl 2:13). It was our source of sin (though being in us, we are no longer in it (Ro 8:9) that incurred condemnation—and it is our source that was “condemned” (Rom 8:3) and “crucified” (Ro 6:6), never again to “reign.” Nowhere is it written in Scripture that we can be lost more than once; nor that we can be saved more than once!

To the degree our conscience experiences freedom in Christ will be the degree to which we “Walk in the Spirit.” Where there is doubt of our innocence there is misunderstanding of His expiation. When there is disappointment, there is failure not only in recalling what we have in Him, but also, somewhere in our walk, we have placed “confidence in” ourselves (Phl 3:3) and not in Him, because He never fails to provide all necessities, at all times (Ro 8:28).
NC

The Spirit of Liberty​

There are many Christians who more or less understand that the Lord Jesus has brought them liberty in the matter of righteousness, or the standing of justified ones in the sight of God; but they do not know liberty in their daily walk with Him. Practical growth, in such cases, invariably suffers. Where there is along with this much conscience, it necessarily takes the legal form of ordinances, restraints and the like (“the legal form” meaning works attempting to produce righteousness—NC). Or where souls have not the same internal exercises, it takes the shape of laxity to a greater or lesser extent. That is, they see that they are delivered by the grace of God, and they consider themselves free to use the world, and to allow, to no little degree, the inclinations of nature; because as they say, there is evil in the nature, and as they suppose, God in His tender mercy, makes allowance for it.

Now both of these attitudes are totally wrong. One cause of all this mistake lies in the misapprehension of a very important truth—the effect of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. Yet, in Acts, the Epistles and all the exhortations, the walk that is set forth is built upon the presence of the Holy Spirit. Where this is not entered into, the consequence is that believers must either suppose that there is a certain latitude allowed them by God, which is only another word for indifference, or they must fall back upon the righteous curb that God has put upon our nature, and that is only another expression for the law of God.

But the Gospel insists that, good and holy and perfect as the law of God is, it is entirely powerless either to justify or to sanctify. It cannot in any way make the old man better; neither is it the rule of the new life (it has been said that Christianity is not “the old man” restoration society—NC). The old man is not subject to it (Rom 8:7), and the new man does not need it. The new creation has another object before it, and another power that acts upon it, in order to produce what is lovely and acceptable to the Father—the Lord Jesus as the object, realized by the ministry of the Holy Spirit (2Co 3:18).

Of course, the Spirit can use every bit of the Word. I maintain that the law does not give the form, nor the measure, nor the character and the power for Christian growth (nor Christian birth—NC). It is a misunderstanding of the Father’s design in giving it, and of its present uses, to suppose that therein is the mold in which the Father is now fashioning the souls of His saints.

We might well suppose that Paul had said enough to the Galatians about the law, after having charged them to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made them free, and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. But no. In the domain of growth this liberty is needed, just as much as for justification; and therefore he says, “Brethren, ye have been called into liberty” (Gal 5:13). That is, it characterizes our calling. Only, Paul says, it is not liberty for an occasion to the flesh (which manifests unregeneracy—NC), or you are not to use license: do not turn this liberty for an occasion to the flesh (which sinful will is now absent if reborn—NC), but by love serve one another.

It is not for the purpose of putting you under the law, but that you may serve one another; “for all the law is fulfilled in one way, even this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Had they not been trying the law? What had been the result? He says, You have been biting and devouring one another: that is not fulfilling the law, but lusts. When persons talk about the law, or desire to be its teachers, do they ever fulfill it? It begins with confident words, and ends without deed or truth. Whereas, on the contrary, when the Lord Jesus is the object of the soul, though the law does not occupy the mind, yet it is fulfilled. The Lord Jesus is the power of God (no condemnation – Ro 8:1—NC); the law is the strength of sin (condemnation - 1Co 15:56—NC).

—Wm. Kelly (1821-1906)




August 6 MJS online devotional excerpt:

“To walk in the Spirit is not self-occupation, nor even occupation with the Spirit. Walking according to the Spirit is occupation with the Lord Jesus. When the believer looks to the Lord Jesus, depends upon Him, draws all he needs from Him—if the Lord Jesus is his all, then the believer walks in the Spirit.” -A.C.G.

“To be Spirit-controlled does not mean the loss of free-agency. A free agent acts as he pleases, and the Spirit-controlled individual pleases to act in accordance with the mind and will of the Spirit.” -A.McC.
None But The Hungry Heart

 

[TibiasDad]

It’s the possession of the sin nature (“old” or original “man”) and not the sinning that incurred guilt; and it’s not the sinning that determines dominion.

The sinful nature is the reason that we all will necessarily sin, and when we do knowingly and willfully sin, then and only then are we, ourselves, guilty before God!

The sinful nature is the dominant power, over which we have no power and, as stated above, will invariably cause the the beginning of sinning, but sinning is the evidence of said dominion and is the necessity for there to be any dominion.

It was our source of sin (though being in us, we are no longer in it (Ro 8:9)

You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. (Rom 8:9)

Can the spirit of sin and the Spirit of God, the Spirit of holiness, dwell in the same house?
"With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water. " (James 3:9-12)

The sin nature is to be "put off" the sinful nature (Col 3:9, Eph 4:22) so that it will be "done away with" (Rom 6:6) and thus, no longer be a part of our lives! Yes, we are still capable of sinning, but the power is coming at us from the outside, quite like in the garden, the only pragmatic difference is that we have habits formed by our former master, and deep, deep scars and rugs caused by these old habits that Satan can still use against us, but there is only room for one ruler, one dominate power, on the throne of our hearts! (Matt 6:24) Thus, we now have a choice as to whom we will allow to control our lives, the Spirit of the sinful nature (before we had no choice, sin was our master), indeed, "we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." (Rom 8:12-13)

Nowhere is it written in Scripture that we can be lost more than once; nor that we can be saved more than once!

And so, if we may, after being saved choose between two masters, and if that choice happens to be the sinful nature, you can most certainly "die" again as Paul unambiguously warns! To die, is to be lost, for we were once dead in our trespasses and were this lost, and "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God" (Heb 10:26-27), we are definitely dead, and the lost!

Doug

 

[WordSword]

The sinful nature is the reason that we all will necessarily sin

That's why I said that the guilt of condemnation is not incurred by sinning, but by possessing the sin nature, which is sin. Sinning doesn't incur the guilt because it can only show or manifest the sin nature. It's not possible to avoid sinning, but for example, if we could live without sinning at all, we would still be guilty because we still possess the source and cause of sin (old man, i.e. sin nature). Though the cause of sin is within the believer (Ro 7:17, 20), we "are not in" it (as you've well indicated - Ro 8:9).

when we do knowingly and willfully sin, then and only then are we, ourselves, guilty before God!

Good point, but I believe willfully sinning is descriptive of an unbeliever, because those who are regenerate (reborn) no longer desire or will to sin, not being after or in the sin nature any longer.

I think a good example is Heb 10:26: "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth." To me, this means the same as, "if we have received the knowledge of the truth and continue to sin willfully." My understanding here is that willfully sinning confirms only that the knowledge of the truth was received but not believed upon. The truth of the Gospel can be known without choosing to have faith in it. Thus this is descriptive of one still in unbelief.

The sinful nature is the dominant power

True, concerning unbelievers. But thankfully those reborn are promised that sin will not "dominate" them (Ro 6:14).

Can the spirit of sin and the Spirit of God, the Spirit of holiness, dwell in the same house?

This is a good point, and I can only say that I believe that the physical body is not where the sin nature dwells, but rather within the spirit and soul, for the body is just an object, thing or "instrument" which the spirit of a person can use for evil. Thus I believe it's via the spirit and soul that sin originates and dwells, but never in the body. That being said, the Holy Spirit imparts and controls the believer's mind (1Co 2:16) via the new nature from Christ (Col 3:10).

"With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be.

To me, this is not meaning that a believer can continue to sin, but is describing how one can determine of what sort of person one is. A "babe in Christ" will yet have much carnality because maturing in the new nature requires a sufficient amount of time in the Word of God to be proven out. If one professing Christianity and does not eventually mature in Him, or maturity seems present but eventually proves otherwise, in manifests that God did not dwell within and was not reborn.

Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water. " (James 3:9-12)

Like Jesus said, "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit" (Mat 12:33). As every tree will manifest the sort it is, so all people will manifest the sort they are (regenerate or unregenerate).

 

[TibiasDad]

That's why I said that the guilt of condemnation is not incurred by sinning, but by possessing the sin nature, which is sin. Sinning doesn't incur the guilt because it can only show or manifest the sin nature. It's not possible to avoid sinning, but for example, if we could live without sinning at all, we would still be guilty because we still possess the source and cause of sin (old man, i.e. sin nature). Though the cause of sin is within the believer (Ro 7:17, 20), we "are not in" it (as you've well indicated - Ro 8:9)

I have a couple of issues with your reasoning:

1) Ezekiel 18:4 says "The one who sins is the one who will die." It does not say, "the one born with a sinful nature dies" ! We are born broken by sin, and thus, will not/cannot function properly. That is the result of Adam's sin, but Adam will be the one who pays for his sin, we pay for our own. The child is not held responsible for the father's sins!

2) I do not hold Romans 7 to be referring to a normal Christian experience. That would be Rom 6 and 8, not 7. One cannot be free from the power and control of the sinful nature (as in Rom 6 & 8) and still be a slave to sin (as in Rom 7).

Doug

 

[WordSword]

I have a couple of issues with your reasoning:

1) Ezekiel 18:4 says "The one who sins is the one who will die." It does not say, "the one born with a sinful nature dies" !

I understand your reasoning, but to me they are one in the same and inseparable. Without the old man we would not sin. So to me the issue isn't in the sinning as much as it is in what causes sin.

2) I do not hold Romans 7 to be referring to a normal Christian experience. That would be Rom 6 and 8, not 7. One cannot be free from the power and control of the sinful nature (as in Rom 6 & 8) and still be a slave to sin (as in Rom 7).

The majority of theologians I've checked with teach that Chapter 7 exemplifies one with a duel nature ("Dichotomy"), and only those reborn contain the old and new nature.

Paul's intention concerning "captive" is in the sense of doing something against your will, as opposed to that of a servant, who willfully serves sin.

God bless!

 

[TibiasDad]

I understand your reasoning, but to me they are one in the same and inseparable. Without the old man we would not sin. So to me the issue isn't in the sinning as much as it is in what causes sin.


The majority of theologians I've checked with teach that Chapter 7 exemplifies one with a duel nature ("Dichotomy"), and only those reborn contain the old and new nature.

Paul's intention concerning "captive" is in the sense of doing something against your will, as opposed to that of a servant, who willfully serves sin.

God bless!

I am well aware that most commentaries align with that view, but not all, and, more importantly, my personal exegesis of Rom 6-8 from my days in seminary convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that the language and concepts of Rom 6 and 8 are antithetical to chapter seven's and cannot coexist at the same point of reference. One cannot be simultaneously free from sin and a slave of sin, which is what one must posit to make the Apostle Paul, writing in the present tense in all three chapters, both slave and free!

Your contention that Paul's "intention concerning "captive" is in the sense of doing something against your will, as opposed to that of a servant, who willfully serves sin" is not sustainable by the language Paul uses. It is not a matter of his will wanting to keep the law, it is that he cannot do what he wills, and cannot stop doing what he knows is wrong. That is a slave! And yet, just a few verses later, in Rom 8:4, he says of himself and all who are in Christ, "that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" , meaning that Christ has set us free from the rule of the sinful nature, and that we can indeed do the good we should do and can equally not do the things we do not want to do. It is a completely different state of being from the man described in chapter 7.

Now, I know that there are in a young believer's experience the struggle with overcoming sinful habits, but this cannot be said of Paul at the time of writing Romans. And the tenor of the rest of the NT is equally vocal that actively sinning is not the expectation of a true believer.

Doug

 

[WordSword]

Your contention that Paul's "intention concerning "captive" is in the sense of doing something against your will, as opposed to that of a servant, who willfully serves sin" is not sustainable by the language Paul uses.

Believers still sin, but not intentionally (willfully) as before rebirth when unregenerate. To me, this is what Paul meant by not doing what he did not want to do, that is, at times when he still sinned (nobody stops sinning); and sins of one reborn are not in the same quantity and severity as prior to salvation, nor are they habitual (which bad habits eventually cease) or willful (Heb 10:26) and intentional (Num 15:24-31). Those who profess faith in Christ and continue in willful sin manifest they are false professors and show they are still unregenerate!

John Gill - "the distinctions between flesh and spirit, the inward and the outward man, and the struggle there is between them, are to be found in none but regenerate persons; and to say no more, the thanksgiving for deliverance from sin by Christ can only come from such."
Romans 7 Bible Commentary - John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible

Appreciate our discussion and God bless!

 

[TibiasDad]

Believers still sin, but not intentionally (willfully) as before rebirth when unregenerate. To me, this is what Paul meant by not doing what he did not want to do, that is, at times when he still sinned (nobody stops sinning); and sins of one reborn are not in the same quantity and severity as prior to salvation, nor are they habitual (which bad habits eventually cease) or willful (Heb 10:26) and intentional (Num 15:24-31). Those who profess faith in Christ and continue in willful sin manifest they are false professors and show they are still unregenerate!

John Gill - "the distinctions between flesh and spirit, the inward and the outward man, and the struggle there is between them, are to be found in none but regenerate persons; and to say no more, the thanksgiving for deliverance from sin by Christ can only come from such."
Romans 7 Bible Commentary - John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible

Appreciate our discussion and God bless!

As John Gill is a staunch Five Point Calvinist, and I am a Wesleyan-Arminian, I obviously dissent from such a view! As for Heb 10:26, it is not the act of the will, the "deliberately" factor itself, but the deliberately " keep on sinning" in a habitual manner. We, as believers, can (and unfortunately, do) willfully and deliberately sin (on occasion) but we cannot continually do such and remain under the blood of Christ's sacrifice.

I will again, on a purely pragmatic level, concede that those young in the faith, especially those with highly addictive sinful habits, such as drugs, alcohol, inappropriate contentography, etc, can have a very, very, difficult time overcoming these addictions, but these types of things have been overcome (especially alcoholism) without being born again, so the inward power of the Spirit within the believer who is properly discipled will overcome these things even quicker and more effectively. This overcoming, when properly pursued, should not be overly difficult nor in an overly lengthy time period (though the disciplines employed to overcome these things must continue indefinitely). However, this "struggle" is not the expected result of regeneration as both Paul, John, and Peter repeatedly and unambiguously state. (Rom 6:1-2, 8:4, 12-13, Gal 4:8-9, 1 John 2:1, 3:7-10, 1 Peter 2:11, 2 Peter 1:3-4) Indeed, Satan is always seeking to tempt us and lead us away again in sin (1 Pet 5:8), and these can be very intense times, but as Christ did, we too can, by his Spirit, turn aside of these Satanic efforts.

Doug

 

[WordSword]

As John Gill is a staunch Five Point Calvinist, and I am a Wesleyan-Arminian, I obviously dissent from such a view!

Yes, there are differences between their understanding on nonessential doctrine (teachings related to growth in faith in the Lord Jesus - Eph 4:15), but of course not on essential doctrine (teachings related to receiving salvation). The essential doctrines must be the same, but the nonessential doctrines can vary without interfering with the essentials.

The difference will exist only within the maturity of one's walk in accordance with the level of truth apprehended, which determines one's practical applications; for we can walk only in what we come to understand on nonessentials, though "all things that pertain to life and godliness" is within the believers availability at rebirth

It was wisely said, "In Essentials Unity, in Non-Essentials Liberty, but in All Things Charity
In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity by Mark Ross

 

[TibiasDad]

Yes, there are differences between their understanding on nonessential doctrine (teachings related to growth in faith in the Lord Jesus - Eph 4:15), but of course not on essential doctrine (teachings related to receiving salvation). The essential doctrines must be the same, but the nonessential doctrines can vary without interfering with the essentials.

The difference will exist only within the maturity of one's walk in accordance with the level of truth apprehended, which determines one's practical applications; for we can walk only in what we come to understand on nonessentials, though "all things that pertain to life and godliness" is within the believers availability at rebirth

It was wisely said, "In Essentials Unity, in Non-Essentials Liberty, but in All Things Charity
In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity by Mark Ross

I could not agree with you more! I wish others in this community could follow such a dictum!

Doug

 

[WordSword]

I could not agree with you more! I wish others in this community could follow such a dictum!

Doug

Appreciate your comment! God be blessed!!