Ern Baxter on "The Old Man"

I found this very interesting transcript from one of Ern Baxter's series of sermons; "The Adam/Christ Analogy". During the sermon he spoke about the "Old Man" from Romans. Why do I quote him? I don't even presume to imagine that Ern Baxter is seen as an authority who will persuade those who doubt Rob Rufus's stand on the issue. However for me it serves to personally amaze me at the similarity in theology and teaching between these two heroes of mine and to men of God. Here's what he said;

"Our 'old man' is not something that is in us, it is something in which we are".

You don't have an 'old man' in you. Having said that, I have to prove it don't I? Well what does this have to do with the corporate? We will get to that. You have to realize how important the Corporate is. You see this whole matter of unity isn't just something nice. It's something mandatory! We have to come at it from God's side not our side. Not from holding ecumenical meetings. We have to find out what it is all about from God's Word.

In Romans 6:6, let's assume for a minute that you have got an "old man" in you, dirty, rotten, nasty fellow in there. He's in you! It says; "Our old man was crucified". In the English, we do not have a corresponding tense to the Greek aorist tense. The Greek aorist tense is simply this;

"It declares that something happened in time, once for all, never to be repeated - the effects of which continue".

Our old man was crucified! Now whatever that old man was; whenever it was crucified; it was crucified once for all - never to be repeated. Now let's be very logical about this; if that "Old Man " in you was crucified, at sometime back there, "he" was crucified! When a person was crucified, what happens to them? They die! If you have an old man in you - and there was some point in time when he was crucified - he's dead! Very dead! Right? If he was dead, dead then you don't have an old man in you because he's dead! He isn't there!

But the fact of history and the fact of experience is, whatever makes people sin, continues with us and it's something that we have to deal with. Therefore if that "old man" is in me and he's supposed to be dead - who's that other guy in there giving me trouble?

"Our old man was crucified with him that the body of sin (this is in the aorist tense) might be destroyed. Now if the body of sin is destroyed or made ineffective (and that's my physical body) - because that's what people say; "I have an old man in me and he makes me sin and he sins through my body!" - but the Bible says that old man was crucified, so he's dead and the body of sin has been destroyed, so I don't have a body?"

And if we are Christians we would all be in the grave! If you take it without looking at it closely, it becomes ludicrous; silly. If the body which is spoken of here is your body through which sin manifests itself then then the Bible categorically states that at some point in your past your old man was crucified and your body was "destroyed". Now your body is not destroyed, you are sitting here - unless I'm looking at a mirage - you are here. So what does it all mean?"

"Let me be autobiographical for a moment. I was raised under the teaching that I had an "Old Man". And when I became converted, I had - me. Then there was my "old man" which is seperate from me, which is my sin nature. It is not really me, it is my sin nature. Before I was converted it really dominated me. Now when I became a Christian, I got a "new nature". So now there is three of us in here. I know this because I was taught this. I am concerned because it kept me in semi-defeat for about 20 years of my Christian life even in the ministry!

I was taught that I had this "old man" plus me and then the "new man". Three of us in there. And I am the neutral umpire who decides who operates. And my old man is a disreputable, scandalous, vile, foul, vicious thing living in there - but I got converted and now I got a new man and he lives in there too. One of them wants me to do something wrong and one of them wants me to do something right and I am in the middle here and I kind of arbitrate between the two. So I am caught in this everlasting dichotomy; this on-going tension. Now I believe this, every one in a while to prove my orthodoxy that I have to let this "old guy" have some sort of expression, just to prove I am sound.

I was raised to believe it was not possible to really have complete victory in life and only in death would I have complete victory".

One day I was researching Romans chapter 6 and I decided to look into a commentary. I really didn't like this commentator because he didn't hold to my theological views. I decided I would look at him anyway on Romans 6. As I was reading him, he said;

"Many of my brethren feel that the article of physical death has more power to deliver Christians from sin than the Cross of Christ".

And I slammed the book shut and said; "I never liked him anyway". But the hook was in my jaw. I began to laugh and I saw the logic of what Adam Clark said. Everybody believed that when we die - we are going to move into instantaneous sanctification. I was sitting in my study and I said; "Come quickly terminal cancer that I may enter into sanctification!". You know the more I ridiculed the view that I held, the more I began to see the truth.

That I was saying that terminal cancer or a heart attack could do more to me in terms of sanctification than the Cross of Christ! And I saw how ridiculous this way. I saw how I was constantly downgrading the accomplishment of Calvary and I was imputing to the act of physical death a power that it didn't have.

"In fact - death is the last enemy - it is not my friend at all! It is not a sanctifying power; it's an embarrassing power! It's going to be done away with!"

Well to a cut a long story short ... and a very long story ... I discovered that I didn't have a seperate person in there called an "Old Man". And I tell you something else that does. It gets you off the hook of moral responsibility. I do something wrong and I can say; "It wasn't my fault - it was my old man". So what do I do? I cope out of moral responsibility as a responsible person and I say; "It was my old man!". Now I am doing exactly what Adam did in the beginning. So what are we doing? We are saying; "God it is Your fault! If I didn't have this "old man" then I wouldn't be doing this bad thing". I've got news for you.

"You are not going to be able to blame Him again because you don't have it! You don't have an "old man"! You are in, by nature, the "old man" but there is no "old man" in you! In fact what ever old man is in you is just as old as you. Your old man is you, not something seperate from you".

See when God came to save us, He came to save me not replace me. He didn't come to replace me. He didn't come to put someone beside me and call that "me". That isn't fair. There is just me in there. He came to save MY soul. He came to regenerate MY spirit. To renew MY mind. The Holy Spirit has come into MY life, not seperate from me. For the Bible said; "If anyone be joined to the Lord, he is one spirit with him" (1 Corinthians 6:17).

"Now it is very important that you see that we are members by nature of an Adamic body. And that the "old man" that was crucified was not something in you, but something in which you were and furthermore that the crucifixion of the old man and the destruction of the body of sin is a legal, judicial act which God performed in the Cross".

Rob Rufus on Indwelling Sin

Sometimes I get questioned on why my particular "bug-bears" in theological discussion are as they are. Subjects such as the meaning of the Song of Solomon, biblical manhood and womanhood and the baptism of the Holy Spirit are all guaranteed to get me going! Why so? Because I think each of these subjects have got the potential to cause great harm and damage - or taught rightly great blessing to the body of Christ. Indwelling sin is a more recent topic of discussion mainly since my days within SGM but has become equally important in thinking through.

I'm deeply indebted to Ryan Rufus's book; "Do Christians still have sinful nature?" for helping me to re-think through the correct Biblical perspective on this. It actually DOES matter how we view our new standing and nature in Christ! So I was greatly encouraged to hear Rob himself address the issue while speaking at the Sydney "Glory and Grace Conference". Here's what he had to say;

"Let me deal with this question of whether Christians have a sin nature or not ... I do not believe that Christians have a sin nature anymore. Under first Adam and law, you did. Rob are you saying that a Christian can't sin? You shouldn't even have to ask that question. Of course a a Christian can sin but that is not sin nature.

A sin nature is a nature that hates God and loves sinning and hates anything to do with God. A sin nature loves sinning, desires and wants to sin. We are telling Christians when you are born again and now have a new righteous nature that doesn't want to sin but you have got a sin nature as well and they are fighting each other and the one you feed the most will win the fight.

We don't have a sinning nature! We can sin but we are not under the control of a sinning nature".

I've had some quite recent very helpful dialogue with Janelle Phillips on this (about which we differ a bit in our views!). The key issue of course is that we are all seeking to become as Christ-like as possible and we all have a desire to grow in holiness! However I have been quite surprised at some Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones quotes that show a slight differing from the classic views on holy living that are being circulated at the moment (but at the same time, Dr Lloyd-Jones sounds so similar to Rob Rufus!) For example;

"When we sin, we should not feel that we are back under the wrath of God, but that we have hurt a loving Father. What a difference! "There is no condemnation" but we have wounded and hurt a loving Father. So we go back to Him as the prodigal son did, and find that all is well".

Not the breaking of rules! But the breaking of a heart. What a far greater incentive to not sin. I think Terry Virgo said something similar at the Brighton Leaders Conference in 2005. But the quote that really surprised me was this one;

"No one has ever been cured of immorality by reading books on the control of sex - never has been, never will".

I must admit I never read "Not Even a Hint: Guarding Your Heart Against Lust". I wonder if any who have can vouch that they have made major strides in the battle to get their minds pure. But the overall emphasis of the Rob Rufus quote to me is that we needn't worry that we are "feeding" some sin nature that may grow or get weaker depending on how strictly we adhere to the spiritual disciplines. That was all triumphed over at the Cross! We now stand in resurrection newness of life.

(PS: After this quote Rob went into some quite graphic descriptions of the meaning of circumcision and it's relevance here. If the comments and debate gets too heated - I will post it to make the emphasis a bit clearer! Be warned!).

How We View Ourselves Really Matters

I must admit this time last year I would never have come to realise how much this question of "indwelling sin" or not really does matter to how we live the Christian life - in victory or in defeat as a result of a never-ending losing battle this side of eternity.

This whole issue was revived in my mind when two of my wonderful lady friends from the Americas (Julie and Lydia) pointed me to a sermon preached by a guy in Covenant Fellowship Church and he made this statement;

"The One who fulfills the Law for us demands uncompromised righteousness from us".

It sounds pretty "evangelical" doesn't it? But the one word that bothers me is the word "demands". Maybe it was a bad choice of words by a young preacher. But I have looked through the Bible and although the word "demand" was used rightly in the context of the Law, it was only ever used in a negative context in the New Testament and under the New Covenant. Rob Rufus made the best reply to that statement in his recent sermon; "Invading the Impossible Part 5". He was commented on Philippians 2:5 and said;

"What does 'being made in human likeness' mean? It means being made just like us! But He was righteous all the time! So are you in Christ. If you hesitate and say 'I am not righteous all the time' then you are still living dominated by Old Covenant mentality because the Old Covenant righteousness was demanded (there is the word "demanded" again) through keeping law perfectly. One failure nad the glory will fade. In New Covenant, you are righteous all the time as a gift therefore the glory never need fade".

So am I picking at straws? Someone help me here. What was Jared Mellinger trying to get at? Was he just preaching a sincere sermon and yet used a bad choice of word? Or was he really implying that we are actually no better off under the New Covenant and an even more perfect righteousness is still demanded of us ... and let us be honest here - none of us, not Jared Mellinger, not even C J Mahaney, not I, not you - can meet that perfect righteousness that is demanded. As Rob Rufus said - righteousness is given as a gift that is how we can fulfill it! Righteousness not produced of our own merit (for if we did indeed manage to produce it - we would become proud in our own efforts) but HIS righteousness.

I managed to find an interesting clip from the "Life on Wings" interviews where Ern Baxter deals with this vital issue. He too recognises that the modern evangelical view seems to teach some kind of pluralism that we are condemned to - an life-long struggle only ended by death - with our "sinful inner man". It's worth watching.

Here's the transcript of what Ern said:

Ern Baxter: "Now what I have in me is not an old man and a new man with me in the middle. Then I’ve got some kind of plurality in here. All I’ve got in here is me. And the Holy Spirit who is working on me.

I’m being saved – not replaced.

When I became a child of God someone else didn’t come in there called the new man. Hopefully I was made the new man but lets not confuse that with the new man that Paul was talking about because he was talking about the corporate. So that its me that’s being saved, its my soul that’s being saved … its me that’s being saved!

And when I sin, I can’t say “Oh – that’s not me – that’s my old man”. And when I do something right I cant say, “Oh – that’s not me – that’s my new man”. It’s me. It’s all me. I’m the only one living in here with the Holy Spirit and He is working on me.

You see that old chorus was so accurate; “All my nature refine”. My nature has not been destroyed; my nature has not been replaced. My nature has been redeemed. And so now the Holy Spirit through the Word is changing me into the image of Christ from glory to glory by the Spirit of the Lord.

Dewey Friedel: So my sin is not the result of the old man’s nature still being in me – my sin is the baby in me that’s carnal, not growing up.

Ern Baxter: That’s one way of putting it. It’s what remains in your nature that has yet been sanctified. That tendency – you see?

Now the Corinthian accommodates it and we call him in theology “Antinomian”. The Galatian gets into bondage about it and gets religious about it. The Christian says, “I don’t want anymore to do with that and I’m going to walk in the Spirit”.

So he goes down the road speaking to himself in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs – singing and making melody in his heart unto the Lord – see? Now the average evangelical gets a bit unhappy with us at that point and they say, “Look at that guy going down the road talking to himself – well he must be crazy!”.

Well, I’d rather be crazy and victorious than sane and walk in bondage!".

So I repeat - I do believe that this is worth fighting for and discussing. Rather than coming up with techniques and strategies (which may not be wrong in and of themselves but without the power of the Holy Spirit they are useless) we can simply change the way we are thinking. Since I have been exposed to Rob's teaching on righteousness and our true standing in New Covenant life, I have never felt so encouraged, so motivated with a desire to live holy because I am in relationship with Almighty God and He accepts me because of the imputed righteousness of His Son. WHATEVER I do or do not do, God looks at me through His Son and I am accepted on high!