Blog or Article?
Blogs often focus on personal opinion, experiences, views, anecdotes or advice. Blogs tend to have a relaxed and conversational feel, such as in storytelling and are generally 300-500 words.
Articles aim to deliver well-researched, informative content with solid evidence to back up the points made. Articles are usually more formal, organized and frequently range 500-1000 words.
Comments
thank you very much for your further thoughts in the recent post above. I just happened to be at the computer as I received the notice of the new blog post, so I "came over" and had a look
You write
I am not interested in combating past doctrine, I am interested in and looking forward to receiving answers to my questions, and if they are short and easy, even better (!) ... if there is any combatting of old doctrines needed, you can (and should?) leave that to me since it would be my problem, not yours ... You continued
Again, please don't worry about what problems I may have with past teaching when I read your answer and your plain, straight forward, logically and reasonably formulated understanding ... I take the responsibility for my dealing with what I hear or read and how I deal with it, you need not be burdened with it. IF and when I have further questions concerning something, I will ask for further clarification of your understanding, so that I hopefully can better understand what you understand and are saying, it's not because I want to put the burden on you to combat my past teaching (or anyone else's past teaching which we may have received over the years) .... You then continue
If I could or already had an answer, I would not be asking in the way I am .... I have no problem admitting that I do not understand (or that I am not quite satisfied with my current understanding) of these expressions and this topic .... thus, since your blog article gave the impression that you perhaps had a good understanding of this matter, I decided to write and ask the questions I asked .... And, as I mentioned here in this post, I am NOT interested in arguments about past teaching, I am interested in learning about your current understanding and wanting to see whether it may help me further to arrive at a satisfactory understanding for myself. You need not feel like you must convince me of your view, because you won't, instead what you can do is to present your understanding logically and reasonably to me and I will take the responsibility to deal with what I hear and read and to make up my mind and be responsible before God for what I then want to believe ...
As for your encouragement to read the Rom 4 passages concerning "imputing righteousness", "forgiveness of iniquities/sins" etc .... you have lost me a bit, because I am as of yet not seeing the connection you are trying to make. Thus I would need the "missing link" to recognize the connection you apparently have in your understanding of "old man / new man" and the "dead to sin", yet "we comit sin" etc .....
Have a wonderful day, here's it's getting late already (approx 9:45 pm)
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Yes, the truth is always simple, but gathering the whole picture isn’t always brief. When the apostle Paul visited the various areas the Epistles are addressed to, he did a lot more teaching than we ever do in a weekend seminar. Most of the seminar wouldn’t be necessary, though, were it not for previously held misconceptions. I can give you short easy answers. I just can’t combat past doctrine in 25 words or less.
You asked, “In what regard are we "dead" to sin?” I can answer that, and I can prove it reasonably briefly. But my answer, if thought through to its logical conclusion, will contradict past teaching. I can respond to all the objections that you, or more probably others, are likely to bring up because of what they have been previously taught. But I cannot do that briefly. That’s what takes a whole weekend (or a bunch of articles), and that’s why I have endeavored to respond to your questions without making more statements than necessary for which I have not yet offered the full picture with complete documentation in future planned articles. (But you keep asking for more specifics :-) )
We ARE dead to sin, right? That’s what God’s Word says in Romans. (1Peter 2:24 says dead to sins. There is no distinction being made here between “sin” and “sins”.) You know you can still commit sin so what can it mean? There aren’t many options left, are there? I’ll bet you can answer the question yourself. Think about it. Here is a hint, far from all the evidence that can be given:
Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute [reckon, count] sin….
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
What do the Church Epistles say about forgiveness of sins? (There is no distinction in God’s Word between the word “forgiveness” and the word “remission.” They are just two different translations of the same Greek word.) Check it out. Let me know what you find.
Bless.
Ken
thank you for commenting further and endeavouring to answer my questions .... As you most likely know, I am quite aware of how those verses in Romans and other passages in Scripture concerning our topic read, and my question(s) aim not so much at quoting the verses as an answer but to help understand those verses. Your comments at the end of your above post are thus more in that direction.
Over the years, I have become quite a bit more simple when it comes to trying to understand what the Scriptures teach (due to getting older, perhaps?) ... As I am trying to put myself in the shoes of a believer at Rome who gathered with other saints one day and an epistle from the apostle Paul was read, I am wondering if the intent of Paul while writing those passages you mention above was that the believers would understand what he wrote or if he meant to somehow indicate to them that there would be a weekend seminar following for those interested in which what he wrote would be explained from the Greek and Hebrew and scope and structure, etc? I tend to think that what was written of necessity could be understood by those who heard it read to them when it was read to them (recognizing that in those days, folks did not have their own copies to read and study at home, but rather these epistles were read out loud and folks just listened ....sure, there were some who understood perhaps less than others .... but the intent of the Author and the writer would not have been to write in such a complicate way that seminars were necessary before one could understand things ...?
So then, when Paul writes about "dead to sin" ... what does that mean? You mention "you no longer have any relationship to sin whatsoever. This is true even though it is possible to let your body act like it isn't ..." Well, if I sin, I do have some kind of "relationship" to sin ....else I would not sin in the first place, or? In what regard are we "dead" to sin?
It seems obvious that this expression involves a figure of speech, whether I want to call it that or not ... .same as an expression like "crucified with Christ". Arriving at the true understanding seems to me not to be the question of whether I as reader or hearer want to call it something or not, but what did the Author and writer MEAN with what is said and written?
Sure, you can say "I prefer to just say what God's Word says and leave it at that" ... and then what? The eunuch from Ethiopia could have done that as he was reading Isaiah and Philip could have told him "it means what it says, I just read you the verse again so I am sure I stick with the exact wording in God's Word and leave it at that" .... what would have happened? Understanding is expressed in one's own words ... and when I understand something correctly and put it in my words (as Philip apparently did with the eunuch, when he explained the meaning of the passage in Isa to the eunuch) am I then not saying what God's Word says"? Coming back to our initial topic in our exchange, I continue to ask and would say - in light of the above - what does God's Word say (mean) when we read "old man", "dead to sin", "crucified with Christ", etc ... To what does "old man" or "new man" in these expressions refer? How, in what regard, have we "died to sin" and "are dead to sin" and have "(already) put off the old man" and yet encounter situations where sin may still enter our life, even though in general we avoid it and manage quite well to not fall for temptations?
Let's say we were sitting in that assembly at Rome and the epistle had been read and you understand what it means while I heard those words but somehow am not "getting it", how would you in a few simple words explain your understanding to me?
Continuing my earliy morning thoughts here .... don't have much time during other times of the day at the moment :-)
Again, thanks for writing and sharing
may you have a great day to be blessed by Him
Wolfgang
It is hard to handle the old man/new man thing, dead to sin, etc very briefly without dealing with the whole subject in detail. I do that in a seminar I’ve taught on the gift of righteousness. I plan to be reasonably comprehensive about it in a series of postings on this site, but I’ve only just begun those. The articles I’ve posted so far have not yet approached the subject of the old man/new man. The good news is that since the Bible is God’s Word, not mine, I don’t have to be able to explain it all before we both know that whatever it means is true. :-)
Whoever or whatever the old man is (or was) is dead. That much is clear from Romans 6. 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified [perfect tense, a completed action] with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
I think it is explained very well in the next few verses:
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Is it not clear that it is YOU that died, not some part of you or some nature that affects you or whatever? Thus, your old man is you. It is the man you were before being crucified with Christ.
You are now sitting at your computer reading this so obviously you are not dead. What, therefore, can this mean? Again, we look at the context. Romans 6:2 says WE are dead to sin. This truth is repeated in verse 11 above, “reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin.” Incidentally, “reckon” is translated from logizomai, which is used in God’s Word only of that which is true. We reckon ourselves “to be dead indeed unto sin” because we are (as Romans 6:2 states). We are not being told in verse 11 to think of it this way even though it isn’t really true. OK, we were crucified with Christ (as Paul says of himself in Galatians 2:20). Verse 7 states that he that is dead is freed from sin. We died unto sin and we are freed from it (this appears in verse 18 also).
Romans 7:1 and following is illustrative of what it means to be dead to something. In this case, it is explaining being dead to the law.
Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
From the illustration we can safely conclude that when we are “dead” to something, we have no more relationship with it. You are dead to sin. You no longer have any relationship to sin whatsoever. This is true even though it is possible to let your body act like it isn’t. You and sin are like oil and water. They don’t mix. God says you are dead to sin and so you are, whether you act like it or not.
I guess you could call being dead to something an idiom if you want to and you could view being Crucified with Christ as an expansion of the idiom. I pefer to just say what God's Word says and leave it at that.
I am well aware that this is going to bring up even more questions. Like I indicated before, the subject we are only just touching on here is part of a whole package that needs to be looked at in its entirety.
I hope this helps answer your questions.
Bless,
Ken
thank you for replying to my earlier comment above. You mentioned I had asked if you could perhaps define what you understand under "old man" and "new man", to which you replied with the above . Now, my question remains .... what is/was "the old man"? You say, "the person he was before being born again no longer exists" ... ok. so what exactly does that mean? As I read the records of Paul's conversion in Acts and various passages from his writings where he makes reference to this event, it is obvious to me that the person Paul that existed before the conversion very much existed after the conversion, in fact it was the same identical person. Did Paul die on the road to Damascus or did he continue to live on? The answer should be obvious .... So then, what do you mean with "the person he was before he was born again"? Who or what and in what regard to that human being known to us from the Scriptures as the apostle Paul died?
When a person believes on Christ and "converts" (for lack of a better term that I can think of at the moment) from being an unbeliever to becoming a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, is there some instant change (as one would expect from the use of the term "dead" (as in "old man" died) where the person no longer would even be able to have anything of the old man be present in his "new creation" life?
Is the use of the terms "old man" and "new man" in the scriptures a reference which is meant to be understood literally? or dies the use of these expressions involve a figure of speech and must be understood as such? I am reminded of what you mentioned above "the person he was before being born again" ... are you speaking about the literal person, the human being himself? or are you speaking about "how that person was" (that is, his character, his behavior, his walk of life, his personality, etc) ?
I have pondered about these things for years .... and have not found some really good (that is, easy to be entreated, simple, reasonable) answers which could really serve well in teaching people in a very practical way what such passages in Scripture do mean and how we all can then live as followers of Christ in that which is taught in Scripture by the use of these terms. Now, reading your blog, I decided to comment and ask my questions, because I pray that perhaps with some exchange we all can arrive at a better understanding of this topic.
Have a wonderful day,
Wolfgang
Let's say for example, team A played team B in soccer (forgive the americanism). Team A accomplished 50 shots on goal, but never scored. Team B acheived only three shots on goal but one of them went in. Team A lost to team B by 0-1.
You could truthfully say that as concerning shots on goal, team A slaughtered team B. But the term "slaughter" here is ONLY as pertaining to shots on goal. Team A did not slaughter team B.
I hope this clears up this point for you.
Bless.
Great to hear from you. Old man/new man is not your behavior, nor is it a "nature" of some kind inside. In Galatians, Paul said: I am [was-perfect tense, already completed] crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me[2:20]. He did not say his old nature died with Christ. He said HE did. The person he was before being born again no longer exists. That man died. Paul is now a new creation, a new man. I have written an article on the old man being dead, handling the scriptures in detail on this. I need to tweek the article a bit before posting it.
Incidently, I know that what I have said is contrary to what Walter Cummins wrote in his jounal article (about 8 years ago) on the new man. Walter handled the Colossians record as a present tense continuing action (putting off, putting on). This, of course contradicts Romans. When I spoke to Walter about it he said he had no choice due to the present indicative in the Greek. I told him he was mistaken on that. He checked it and said I was right. He said he wrote what he did because he thought it was a present indicative. I am not, however, aware of him having ever publicly made the correction.
The old man is dead. We are exhorted in God's Word to act like it. We are dead to sin. We are exhorted to not let our body parts ("members") act like it isn't true. But it is true whether we act like it or not.
Bless,
Ken Delete Comment
You all may want to consider this aspect of scripture:
Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
2 Cor 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Both of the words "transformed" and "are changed" are the same Greek word. They are both in the passive voice which means that the subject is acted upon. We are changed, we don't do the changing of ourselves. We behold the truth of our new identify in Christ which is the gospel message preached by Paul and as we do this we allow ourselves to be changed into that same image of Christ. God gets the glory, not our great ability to change ourselves.
We have been identified with Christ, the ascended Christ who is at the right hand of God Almighty. We have the joy of seeing ourselves this way. As we think of ourselves this way, we will walk this way.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next