Latest / Reformed Thinking / Born of the Flesh, Born of the Spirit | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

Born of the Flesh, Born of the Spirit | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reformed thinking. Today for our deep dive, we are
0:04
wrestling with one of the most stark and frankly uncomfortable
0:09
doctrines in the New Testament, and that's the concept of the
0:12
flesh. The sources you shared with us,
0:14
these notes on Pauline theology, detailed observations from
0:17
Jonathan Edwards is exegesis of John 3.6, Romans, Corinthians,
0:22
they all require us to go way beyond any kind of superficial
0:26
modern understanding of that word flesh.
0:28
Yeah, that's exactly it. Our mission today is very
0:31
focused. We need to define flesh or sarks
0:34
in the Greek and its theological counterpart, the Spirit or
0:37
pneuma, and we need to see how they're presented in the Apostle
0:41
Paul's writing. But more than that, we have to
0:43
establish, based on this material, the core logical
0:46
reason why Christ said the new birth is absolutely necessary.
0:50
And it all seems to hinge on this one sentence, doesn't it?
0:52
The one Christ delivers to Nicodemus in John chapter 3,
0:55
verse six. That which is born to the flesh
0:58
is flesh. That's the linchpin for the
1:00
entire argument, right? And we have to solve this, this
1:04
fork in the road right from the start.
1:06
When the Bible uses the word flesh there, what are we talking
1:09
about? Is it an innocent human body and
1:12
soul? A constitution that just needs
1:14
some good guidance? A moral nudge?
1:16
Or is it something else entirely?
1:18
Or does it signify a state of, well, moral ruin, a
1:21
comprehensive corruption, and even active enmity toward God?
1:25
And the difference between those two interpretations, it defines
1:28
the entire scope of the gospel. I mean, if the flesh is just
1:31
innocent, then salvation is basically instruction and
1:35
amendment. Just trying harder.
1:37
Right. But if the flesh is ruined, then
1:38
salvation has to be recreation. It has to be regeneration.
1:42
And that is the theological chasm we're trying to bridge
1:45
today, using the evidence Paul gives us.
1:47
Before we can even touch Christ's statement in John, we
1:49
have to establish Paul's working definition of these terms.
1:52
And the sources suggest we start in First Corinthians because
1:55
Paul, he essentially gives us a cross reference there.
1:58
It's like a dictionary entry for the state of the unconverted
2:01
person. He uses these two terms that
2:03
seem different on the surface, the natural man and the carnal
2:06
man, but he uses them interchangeably.
2:08
This is a vital starting point. It has to be because it deals
2:11
with the very ability of a natural person to even process
2:15
spiritual truth. So let's look at that opposing
2:18
distinction Paul draws in First Corinthians 2.
2:20
He sets up a contrast, right? The natural man versus the
2:24
spiritual man. The natural man is described
2:26
using the Greek word saikos. And when we look at saikos, it's
2:31
not just a generic unspiritual It's directly related to the
2:35
word phuc, the soul of the life force, the principle of natural
2:38
life. So the Sakikos man is the
2:41
soulish man. He's the person operating
2:43
entirely by the power, the rationale and the capabilities
2:46
of his own inherited nature, his physical and intellectual self.
2:49
Precisely. And what does Paul say about
2:51
this person, this naturally endowed Saikos man in First
2:55
Corinthians 2.14? Well, he says, this man
2:58
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are
3:01
foolishness unto him, foolishness.
3:02
And not only that, but neither can he know them because they
3:05
are spiritually discerned. So spiritual realities are just
3:08
seen as utter nonsense. That is a statement of total
3:12
inability when it comes to spiritual things.
3:14
This isn't just about a person refusing to listen, it's a lack
3:18
of receptivity. The spiritual man has the
3:21
faculty, the pneuma, the spirit to discern spiritual things.
3:25
The natural man lacks that principle entirely.
3:28
He's only equipped with the sushi, and while that sushi is
3:31
capable of amazing things, philosophy, math, art, building,
3:34
cities, it's structurally incapable of grasping divine
3:38
truth. The source material calls this a
3:41
deep seated spiritual blindness. And Paul establishes that this
3:44
blindness isn't, you know, a temporary problem.
3:47
It's the default state. Now, here is the crucial
3:49
connection we need to make for our deep dive.
3:51
OK, Paul uses the term carnal cirquinos in the Greek
3:55
immediately after defining this Psychicos man, showing their
3:58
equivalent descriptions of the same condition.
4:00
That transition happens right at the start of chapter 3, doesn't
4:03
it? He's just finished defining the
4:05
spiritually blind Psychicos man. And then he turns to the
4:09
Corinthians who are supposed to be Christians.
4:11
And he says, And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto
4:16
spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
4:20
It's a seamless move. It's deliberate.
4:22
He was talking about natural versus spiritual in Chapter 2,
4:25
and then he applies the label carnal or sarkinos to the people
4:29
he's talking to. He's using it as the equivalent
4:31
negative contrast to spiritual. So carnal is clearly being used
4:36
as a synonym for natural. Yes.
4:38
The person defined by their natural first birth state is a
4:41
person in a carnal, sinful condition.
4:43
In this synonym, it's really the first necessary step for us.
4:45
The natural man isn't morally neutral, he's a carnal man.
4:49
And we can see just how broad and comprehensive this carnal
4:52
state is by looking at why Paul calls the Corinthians carnal in
4:56
chapter 3. Because often when we hear
4:59
carnal, we instinctively think of obvious physical sins.
5:03
Sure. Drunkenness, sexual license,
5:05
that sort of thing. Exactly.
5:06
But that's not what Paul lists here.
5:08
Not at all. No, the vices he cites are
5:10
subtle. They're internal, and they're
5:12
corporate. Paul identifies their carnality
5:15
by their envying and strife and divisions.
5:18
He's talking about that petty but toxic partisan loyalty.
5:22
Believers were fracturing the body of Christ by saying things
5:25
like I am of Paul or I am of Apollo's.
5:28
That detail is critical. These are sins of the intellect,
5:32
sense of pride, of moral judgement, of factionalism.
5:35
They show a lack of charity, a lack of unity.
5:38
A preference for human leaders over the unifying spirit.
5:41
Right. And if carnal only meant sensual
5:43
sins, these kinds of spiritual pride and division wouldn't even
5:47
qualify yet. Paul says they absolutely
5:49
qualify. And that proves that carnal
5:51
refers to the whole corrupt nature, including all these
5:54
subtle vices of the mind and heart.
5:56
It lines up perfectly with the definition the sources give for
5:59
the natural man who is wholly a stranger and enemy to true
6:03
virtue or holiness. It's a comprehensive moral
6:05
assessment. Then it's not just about
6:07
behavior, it's about the entire condition.
6:09
The entire condition. So if we step back, the
6:11
conclusion of this first part is that the man born of the 1st
6:14
first birth, the natural man, is structurally and morally defined
6:19
by a carnal disposition, and that disposition is hostile
6:22
towards spiritual truth, and it even shows up as subtle vices
6:26
like pride and division. And that sets the stage
6:29
perfectly for Christ's declaration.
6:31
So now we can move back to that central statement from Christ in
6:34
John 3.6. That which is born of the flesh
6:37
is flesh, the sources. They really insist that this is
6:40
the proper and true reason Christ gives for why renovation
6:43
is necessary. The entire doctrine of the new
6:45
birth. It all hinges on the moral
6:47
character of what this resulting flesh actually is.
6:50
And we find that the theological community, especially back in
6:53
Edwards's time, was really divided over what this verse
6:56
meant. So let's look at interpretation
6:58
A. This is the view defended by
7:00
Edwards and the traditional Protestant divines.
7:02
OK, this interpretation understands born of the flesh to
7:05
mean that natural generation produces human nature in a
7:09
debased and corrupt state. The resulting flesh signifies
7:13
man as he is of himself, without anything divine in him.
7:16
So it's not a neutral entity. Not at all.
7:19
It is the transmission of depraved, debased, sinful,
7:23
ruined man. The implication there is
7:26
immediate and absolute. If the nature you get in the
7:29
first birth is defined as this flesh, then therein dwelleth no
7:34
good thing. That's the cornerstone.
7:36
If you get that, you get why total regeneration is necessary.
7:40
The resulting nature is intrinsically flawed.
7:43
It's utterly unfit to enter into the Kingdom of God.
7:46
It lacks the necessary spiritual principle to even desire the
7:49
holiness that's required for that Kingdom.
7:51
OK, so now let's contrast that with interpretation B.
7:54
This is the alternative reading that Edwards was arguing
7:57
against. It was often associated with
7:59
certain 18th century rationalist theologians he called Doctor T.
8:03
Right. This view suggested that born of
8:05
the flesh simply yields a man consisting of body and soul.
8:08
So the basic human package. The mere constitution and powers
8:11
of a man in their natural state. That sounds much more palatable
8:15
to the natural mind. Of course it does.
8:17
It's just the flesh. Our natural makeup is innocent.
8:19
It's a neutral shell. It just needs to be restrained
8:22
and kept in proper bounds by reason, education and moral
8:25
persuasion. It suggests that man is
8:27
fundamentally good, or at least salvageable, he's just prone to
8:30
excess. And this is where the
8:32
confrontation happens, because if interpretation B were
8:35
correct, if the flesh were just a neutral constitution, then the
8:39
problem of sin is behavioral, not constitutional.
8:41
And Edwards argued vehemently that this reading completely
8:45
demolishes the entire superstructure of Pauline
8:47
theology and the radical doctrine of grace.
8:49
So how does that alternative view the idea of a neutral
8:53
constitution? How does it fundamentally
8:55
contradict the need for a new birth?
8:58
Well, think about it. If the issue is just our
9:00
physical constitution, why would God demand a spiritual complete
9:04
recreation? If the flesh is innocent, then
9:07
moral failure is a matter of poor choices or bad habits,
9:11
Things you can fix, things you can correct through willpower or
9:13
training or external law. Regeneration would be a massive
9:17
overreaction. But Edwards argues that Christ
9:19
declaring you must be born again proves that the nature acquired
9:23
by the 1st birth isn't just insufficient, it's actively
9:26
disqualified. So the sources then use Paul's
9:29
letters, specifically Romans and Galatians, as the critical
9:33
evidence to resolve this conflict.
9:35
Yes, they assert that Paul treats the flesh not as some
9:38
neutral or innocent thing, but as a moral entity that is, in
9:42
his words, altogether evil. So the burden of proof now
9:46
shifts to Paul's powerful theological framework in Romans
9:50
8. Romans 8 really is the great
9:52
manifesto for this conflict. Paul sets the flesh sarks and
9:55
the spirit pneuma in diametrical opposition.
9:58
He uses this language of conflict almost like 2 opposing
10:01
military agents or persons residing within humanity to
10:04
define the unconverted state. And the defining characteristic
10:08
of this natural carnal man is revealed through what Paul calls
10:11
the mind of the flesh, or frenoma to sarcos.
10:15
We need to pause there on that word frenoma.
10:17
It is not the typical Greek word for mind, which would be knows.
10:20
Knows being the intellectual faculty.
10:22
Right, the intellect Frenoma is much stronger.
10:24
So what does that distinction tell us about the nature of this
10:26
corruption? It tells us the corruption is
10:28
not just intellectual, it's dispositional.
10:31
Feronima conveys the inclination, the orientation,
10:34
the attitude, the set bent of the will and the affections.
10:37
It's the entire moral direction of the person.
10:40
So to be carnally minded isn't just to think wrong thoughts.
10:43
No, it's synonymous with being viciously and corruptly minded
10:46
in the deepest sense. It's the way the natural man is
10:49
set to operate. OK, so let's detail this
10:51
staggering threefold condemnation that Paul delivers
10:55
against the fronto sarcos in Romans 8.7 to 8.
10:59
The first major point is that this mind is declared to be
11:02
enmity against God. Not just distant from God, not
11:05
slightly uncomfortable with God, but enmity.
11:08
The Greek word there denotes absolute active hostility and
11:11
hatred. Wow.
11:13
The carnal mind is fundamentally at war with its creator.
11:16
The sources argue this means a natural person is an utter enemy
11:19
to God and His law. This isn't just about certain
11:21
behaviors, it's about a relationship of moral warfare.
11:24
If God commands righteousness, the flesh opposes it.
11:27
If God commands submission, the flesh rebels.
11:29
OK, but this is often the hardest point for a modern
11:32
person to accept. How can Paul logically say that
11:35
their core phornima is enmity against God when a natural
11:40
person is capable of great acts of kindness, self sacrifice,
11:43
civic virtue? It is difficult.
11:45
It's difficult because we often define goodness relationally,
11:48
how we treat our neighbors. But Paul defines it
11:51
theologically, how we relate to God and his sovereignty.
11:54
The good acts performed by the carnal mind are still rooted in
11:58
self love, self glorification, or some kind of temporal
12:01
motivation. The enmity is rooted in the
12:03
refusal to acknowledge God's absolute right to rule.
12:07
It's the desire to be 1's own God.
12:09
I see. So even acts that look virtuous
12:11
on the surface are fundamentally stained by the hostile
12:14
disposition of the heart that performs them.
12:16
The second condemnation reinforces this hostility.
12:19
Paul says this mind lacks subjection to the law of God.
12:23
It is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
12:27
And this is the doctrine of moral inability.
12:28
Paul doesn't just say the carnal mind will not submit, though
12:31
that's true. He says it cannot submit.
12:33
It's an inability. The disposition itself is a
12:35
perfect inconsistency with subjection to God.
12:38
Submission to God's law requires a holy principle, a delight in
12:41
goodness and affection for God's character.
12:44
Since the flesh is defined as hostile, it's structurally
12:47
impossible for it to produce genuine submission.
12:50
So this is the difference between, say, physical inability
12:54
and moral inability. A physical inability would be
12:58
not being able to fly. A moral inability in this
13:01
context is the inability to love what is perfectly holy because
13:05
your very moral structure is corrupt.
13:07
Exactly. The natural man has the physical
13:09
and intellectual ability to read the law, to understand the
13:12
command, and even to try to perform the behavior, but he
13:15
lacks the moral disposition to submit.
13:17
Out of love for God and holiness, he cannot change his
13:19
own fundamental direction of will.
13:21
That power rests outside his natural capacity, which is why
13:24
the sources insist it requires a new divine principle.
13:27
And the third and most sobering implication is the outcome,
13:30
inability to please God. They that are in the flesh
13:33
carnal cannot please God. This just wraps up the argument.
13:36
If the disposition is enmity and the will is incapable of
13:40
submission, then the resulting life cannot please God.
13:44
It is impossible to find favor or acceptance when the agent,
13:48
the SARKS, is fundamentally opposed to the one being served.
13:51
The source material is definitive on this.
13:53
It is while in their natural state it is impossible they
13:56
should have or do any good thing in the eyes of a holy God.
14:00
And if we were to go back and accept Interpretation B from
14:03
Doctor T, the one that claims the flesh is just the innocent
14:06
human constitution, then Paul would be declaring that a sound
14:11
normal human constitution is enmity against God and cannot
14:15
please him. That would suggest God creates
14:17
people in a state that is condemned before they ever make
14:19
a choice. And that would make the text
14:21
truly nonsensical. It would force us to conclude
14:23
that Paul must be talking about a morally and spiritually
14:26
corrupt nature inherited through the fall, not just a neutral
14:29
human machine. He's talking about the quality
14:31
of the person, not just the components.
14:34
And Paul even provides this explicit condemnation of the
14:37
whole nature in his his own internal struggle back in Romans
14:40
7.18. He says I know that in Emmy that
14:44
is in my FL ish ish dwell is no good thing.
14:47
That's a declaration of total corruption.
14:50
Total corruption residing within the moral entity called flesh.
14:54
The flesh is identified as the seat of total depravity.
14:57
The source material states it unequivocally.
15:00
This flesh is altogether evil, without any good thing dwelling
15:03
in it or belonging to it. It utterly refutes the idea that
15:06
the flesh is an innocent or neutral component just waiting
15:09
for instruction. Yes, it's direction is set
15:11
toward death and utter destruction.
15:13
So we've established the nature of the flesh, this carnal
15:16
hostile disposition, and the consequence, the inability to
15:19
please God. But we need to be sure we
15:21
understand the full scope of that corruption.
15:23
It extends far beyond the comic conception of just sensual sin.
15:26
That is a crucial clarification to make.
15:28
The Word flesh has been so diluted in modern vernacular to
15:32
just mean physical indulgence. But in Pauline theology, flesh
15:35
means the whole body of sin. This corruption encompasses
15:39
every single form of moral depravity, spiritual and
15:42
physical. And Paul uses Galatians 5 to
15:45
illustrate this dual corruption in, well, stunning detail.
15:49
He gives a list of the works of the flesh, and he proves that
15:52
the flesh produces lusts that are most subtle and farthest
15:56
from any relation to the body. We can group these works into
15:58
two clear categories. First you have the vices
16:01
vulgarly called carnal. The bodily sins that fit the
16:04
common stereotype. Exactly.
16:06
Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
16:10
which is wantonness, licentiousness, these are the
16:13
sins of the appetites. But then Paul pivots and he
16:15
delivers this list of subtle spiritual vices, sins of the
16:19
inner life that require no physical body to commit.
16:22
Let's look at that specific list from Galatians 5.
16:24
The list is devastatingly comprehensive.
16:26
You have idolatry, witchcraft or sorcery, hatred, variance or
16:30
discord, Emulations which is jealous, rivalry, wrath, strife,
16:34
seditions which are divisions, internal fractures.
16:36
Erases and and beings. Right.
16:39
Notice how far removed these are from simple blutney.
16:43
Heresies are intellectual sins. Hatred and envy are sins of
16:47
disposition. Strife and seditions are
16:50
corporate sins. It seems like the common thread
16:53
here is the assertion of the self that for Noma does sarcos
16:57
against God against one's neighbor.
16:59
Idolatry is replacing God with a creature.
17:01
That's a sin of pride. Heresy is inventing a personal
17:05
truth instead of accepting revelation.
17:07
That's a sin of intellectual arrogance.
17:08
Exactly, and the sources point out that Paul had already
17:11
flagged these in First Corinthians 3.
17:13
Division, strife, and envying these spiritual vices are proof
17:17
of carnality. So this means the man who is
17:19
morally upright, generous to the poor, yet harbors secret envy
17:23
toward his neighbor or promotes disruptive factionalism within
17:26
the church. He's just as thoroughly defined
17:28
by the flesh as the drunkard or the adulterer.
17:31
We see these spiritual vices reinforced elsewhere too, like
17:34
in Colossians 2.18, Paul warns against being vainly puffed up
17:38
by his fleshly mind, the mind of his flesh.
17:40
Pew Pride a spiritual advice that seeks self exaltation and
17:44
This is why the sources stressed the necessity of understanding
17:48
the devil's proof. The devil himself provides the
17:50
ultimate demonstration that this corruption is not dependent on
17:53
the physical body or external senses.
17:56
That's a fascinating sharp point.
17:58
The devil, lacking a body and external senses to gratify, is
18:01
incapable of physical lusts like gluttony or fornication.
18:05
Correct. Yet he possesses these spiritual
18:08
vices. Malice, envy, hatred, pride in
18:12
the highest, purest and most comprehensive degree.
18:15
In that observation, it just clinches the case.
18:17
It does. The flesh, when it means
18:19
corruption, is a moral and spiritual depravity inherent in
18:22
the natural state of man, entirely independent of the
18:24
physical body. It is a corruption of the moral
18:26
nature itself, inherited from the Fall.
18:28
So when Christ says that which is born of the flesh is flesh,
18:33
He is stating that the result of natural generation is a person
18:35
whose entire moral orientation, intellectual, volitional and
18:39
spiritual, is corrupt, hostile to God, and manifest through
18:43
every type of sin, whether it's subtle spiritual pride or
18:46
obvious sensual indulgence. That's the complete picture.
18:49
And because this entity is so wholly defined by corruption,
18:53
Paul uses a specific figurative language to represent it, which
18:57
sets the stage for the radical remedy that must follow.
19:00
To really grasp the severity of the problem, we have to look at
19:03
to how Paul talks about the flesh.
19:05
He doesn't describe it as a mere tendency or an error.
19:08
He personifies it. He treats the flesh as a person,
19:11
an agent or a hostile subject that is actively operating
19:15
within us. This use of personification is
19:17
very agreeable to Paul's overall rhetorical style.
19:20
When he's describing the fallen nature, the flesh is given
19:23
active agency, aligning it with other synonymous scriptural
19:26
terms for the unconverted state. Like what?
19:29
Like the old man, the body of sin and the body of death, all
19:33
these terms denote A comprehensive, active and
19:35
corrupt entity residing within the human being.
19:38
In Romans 7 and 8, the flesh is set up is this distinct internal
19:41
enemy. It's desiring, acting, having
19:44
lusts and performing works. Yes, and it's the root of the
19:47
law of sin that dwells in the human body and mind.
19:49
So why is the figurative language necessary?
19:52
Why not just call it a sinful tendency?
19:54
Well, because Paul is defining the source of the corruption.
19:57
If Christ had simply meant a natural human quality, he might
20:00
have chosen a different term. But by.
20:02
Using flesh sarks as the subject that is born and produces A
20:06
moral entity, the figurative language becomes essential.
20:09
The sources explain this beautifully.
20:11
They say it's incongruous to speak of equality as a thing
20:14
born. You don't give birth to equality
20:17
like laziness. Therefore, flesh signifies man
20:21
as in his whole nature corrupt. The resulting entity, the person
20:25
born, is defined entirely by that corruption.
20:28
This personification, it highlights the moral
20:30
responsibility in the act of opposition of the natural state.
20:32
Yes, the flesh is the agent that actively serves the law of sin,
20:37
as Paul laments in Romans 7.25. With the flesh, the law of sin,
20:41
the carnal mind is represented as having an entirely contrary
20:45
mind to the Holy Spirit, as if they are two opposing conscious
20:47
parties. And because the flesh is
20:50
personified as this hostile, evil internal agent, one that
20:55
the sources have defined as altogether evil without any good
20:58
thing dwelling in it, Scripture demands A radical course of
21:02
action. It demands Total War.
21:04
It demands the requirement for total destruction, not mere
21:07
cleanup or behavioral modification.
21:09
Right. If the flesh were simply
21:11
innocent, Doctor TS suggestion of just restraint would be
21:15
enough. But Paul demands more.
21:17
The flesh must be treated as an enemy scheduled for execution.
21:21
And what does that execution look like in Pauline terms?
21:23
Scripture calls for its entire destruction.
21:25
We are called to crucify the flesh with the affections and
21:28
lusts. In Galatians 5.24 we are told
21:31
the old man must be put off entirely.
21:34
Crucifixion isn't a renovation project, it's a death sentence.
21:37
Is a violent radical intervention applied to the
21:39
entirety of that corrupt moral structure so.
21:42
The demand for crucifixion really reinforces the argument
21:45
against that innocent constitution theory, as you
21:48
don't crucify neutral qualities, you crucify enemies.
21:51
The requirement for total destruction confirms that the
21:54
nature we inherit in the first birth is an irreconcilable foe
21:58
to all goodness, requiring external divine intervention to
22:02
be fully eradicated and replaced by a new nature.
22:05
If we only try to amend the Flesh, we would still be
22:08
building on an inherently corrupt foundation.
22:10
It's a building doomed to collapse because its entire
22:13
moral substructure is rotten. The Doctor of the Flesh dictates
22:16
that only a supernatural substitution can suffice.
22:19
OK, so we've completed the full theological the autopsy of the
22:22
natural condition. The first birth yields only
22:25
flesh, which is defined as total moral corruption, active enmity
22:29
against God, and is incapable of submission to the divine law.
22:32
And this hostile agent must be crucified.
22:35
So now we arrive at the culmination of the argument.
22:37
Why then, must we be born again? The necessity is rooted in the
22:40
complete impossibility of the natural person achieving
22:43
reconciliation or holiness on their own.
22:46
Since the natural man is synonymous with the carnal mind,
22:49
he is in a state of constitutional impossibility
22:52
regarding salvation. He cannot receive or discern
22:55
spiritual things because he lacks the principle of the
22:57
Spirit. Let's go back to First
22:59
Corinthians 2.13. Man in this state receiveth not
23:03
the things of the Spirit of God. And why?
23:06
Because they are discerned only by a principle that is divine,
23:10
something introduced by the grace of God's Holy Spirit,
23:12
which is above all that is natural.
23:14
The natural man may have a conscience, he may have reason,
23:17
social morality, but he lacks the moral sight and the
23:21
disposition necessary to apprehend God's truth as
23:23
something precious or holy. The sources are clear that the
23:27
natural man is totally corrupt, wholly a stranger, an enemy to
23:30
true virtue or holiness. So the solution is not more
23:34
teaching or a better environment.
23:35
The problem is the moral material itself, right?
23:38
It's like trying to make light shine out of darkness.
23:40
The capacity just isn't there in the natural structure.
23:43
That's where the analogy of total corruption becomes so
23:45
helpful. If you have a plant that is
23:47
entirely poisoned at its root, not just a few leaves, you can
23:51
prune and trim the bad leaves, and that's what moral
23:55
reformation tries to do. But the fundamental nature of
23:57
the plant is still death. You will only get poisonous
24:01
fruit. The issue is the source, not
24:03
just the symptom. The only way to get a healthy
24:06
plant is a radical intervention, introducing a new seed, a new
24:10
route, an entirely different nature.
24:12
Or consider the analogy of a stone ship.
24:15
Imagine a massive, beautifully carved ship build entirely out
24:18
of granite. You can Polish the granite.
24:20
You can try to amend its shape. You can paint it beautifully.
24:23
You can even preach sermons to the passengers about the virtue
24:25
of buoyancy. You could, but the fundamental
24:28
nature of the material, heavy, dense stone makes it utterly
24:32
incapable of sailing. It will only sink, and that's
24:36
the flesh being enmity against God.
24:38
It is fundamentally incapable of pleasing God or entering the
24:41
heavenly Kingdom. It requires a new nature, and
24:44
this transformation wrought by the Spirit of God is the new
24:47
birth. The new birth results in a man
24:49
becoming a new creature. Paul says that when 1 is in
24:52
Christ, all things are passed away and all things are become
24:56
new. This isn't an amendment, it's a
24:58
complete spiritual production. This introduction of the
25:00
spiritual principle, a holy and divine nature, is what makes the
25:03
person meet for the heavenly Kingdom.
25:06
The necessity of being born again is Christ's necessary
25:10
prescription, because the first birth yields only the flesh,
25:13
which is a comprehensively corrupt, hostile, and condemned
25:16
nature. And this final conclusion, it
25:19
vindicates that traditional view of the divines.
25:21
John 3.6 provides the proper and true reason for renovation.
25:25
Man, born of the flesh, is depraved, sinful and ruined, and
25:29
utterly unfit for the Kingdom of God.
25:31
And so salvation requires a holy and divine principle imparted by
25:35
the Spirit, replacing the nature that is enmity against God.
25:39
We've established the theological definition of the
25:40
flesh, proving its corruption is comprehensive, dispositional,
25:44
and total. Let's just summarize the key
25:46
conclusions from the source material.
25:48
OK, first we verified the Pauline synonymy.
25:51
The natural man is the carnal man.
25:54
This shows that the issue is the quality of the soul we inherit
25:57
at birth. Second, the flesh or Sark's is
26:00
not an innocent constitution that needs guidance.
26:03
It's a comprehensive whole body of sin.
26:06
It includes spiritual vices like pride, heresies and envy.
26:09
And it's personified as an evil agent, the old man. 3rd This
26:14
fronimat ties sarcos. The mind of the flesh is defined
26:17
by its state of enmity against God, and this shows up as a
26:20
total moral inability to submit to divine law or genuinely
26:24
please God. And finally, because the flesh
26:27
is altogether evil and fundamentally contrary to God,
26:30
Scripture requires its total destruction, its crucifixion.
26:33
This necessitates radical regeneration.
26:35
The new birth to introduce a divine principle rather than
26:38
just relying on simple reform or amendment.
26:41
And since we know that the natural mind, the carnal mind,
26:44
cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God, and in fact views
26:46
those things as foolishness, it leads us to a crucial question
26:50
for you to reflect on. Consider the hostility that's
26:52
inherent in the carnal mind. What current secular ideas or
26:56
philosophies which seem reasonable, charitable, or even
26:59
morally superior to the average natural person might actually be
27:03
the greatest manifestations of the carnal minds rebellion
27:06
against the divine order. That's a challenging thought.
27:09
If the carnal mind seeks to divide, establish pride, or
27:12
assert self sovereignty, even when it's cloaked in the
27:15
intellectual jargon or social justice language, it is still
27:18
the fornoma to sarcos in action. The spiritual battle isn't just
27:22
external, it's inherent in your own thinking and reasoning apart
27:26
from the spirit. Thank you for joining us for
27:28
this deep dive into the nature of the flesh.
27:30
Until next time on reformed thinking.