Birthright achieves an excellent balance between the theological and the practical. Birthright Looking for More Great Reads? A Christian is not simply a person who gets forgiveness, who gets to go to heaven, who gets the Holy Spirit, who gets a new nature. Open Preview See a Problem? Needham is professor of theology at Multnomah Bible College in Portland, Oregon, where he has taught for over thirty years. My library Help Advanced Book Search.

Author:Kelrajas Kigazragore
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):13 January 2014
PDF File Size:1.39 Mb
ePub File Size:13.41 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

To MacArthur, the old man is the same as the old, Adamic, sin nature. Is the old man really the same as the old nature? This is not technically correct. For example, a pig has a pig nature but you would not want to say that a pig is a pig nature.

The old man has an old nature but it is not accurate to say that the old man is an old nature. Those who are born of Adam have an Adamic nature; those who are born of God have a divine nature. We would not want to say that a child of Adam is an Adamic nature or that a child of God is a divine nature.

Every believer bears a relationship to Adam by way of his natural birth; every believer bears a relationship to God by way of his new birth. The new birth makes it possible to have a brand new relationship to God, based upon the shed blood of Christ.

Positionally our relationship to Adam has been canceled, via our death on the Cross Gal. The new birth, however, does not kill or remove or eradicate or altar the Adamic nature and the honest believer must still acknowledge that "evil is present with me" Rom.

Our condition does not yet perfectly match our position as long as we are in this body , and yet the more we claim the facts of our position by faith "reckoning"--Romans , the more the Spirit of God will make these facts a reality in our condition our walk in time.

MacArthur too would acknowledge the presence of evil and sin in the believer, but he attributes this to our "humanness" and to our "flesh" and to our "unredeemed body" rather than to our old, sinful, Adamic nature.

The old man has been crucified and is dead and gone. The believer is a new person, a new creation. And yet, it will now be demonstrated that MacArthur actually teaches that the believer still does have the old man. As we have already seen, John MacArthur teaches that the old man is crucified and has been "put off" once and for all.

But he also teaches repeatedly that the believer has a problem with "the flesh" because he is in "the body. What is his humanness? He calls it his "unredeemed humanity" and that which is in the believer which is "unrenewed" that unrenewed, unredeemed part of the believer. But here is the key point. Though this has already been documented, let us look at these quotes again since this is such an important point: Dr. It taints all the facets of the total person—including our mind, emotions, and body.

Commenting on this same verse in a different tape he says, "he Paul always puts sin in the members, the bodily parts is what it refers to. That does not just mean the flesh, that means the mind, the thoughts, the emotions, all that goes with our humanness" Tape GC , Side 2. On this same tape he says, "Your members, your humanness includes your mind and your emotion, your feeling, your body and all those things. A person is one who thinks and chooses and feels.

Intellect, will and emotions are essential to personality. What MacArthur is describing is more than humanness, it is human! So what is MacArthur saying? He teaches that our humanness is the unredeemed, unrenewed part of the believer. Thus the believer has an unrenewed mind, an unrenewed will and unrenewed emotions.

But since these three elements go to make up a person we must say that the believer possesses an unrenewed person! This is not the new self or the new man, so it must be the old self, the old man, the unrenewed person.

He has an unrenewed part "humanness" which contains all the elements of personality. This unrenewed part is more than just the physical body. It is the mind and will and emotions. If this unrenewed person is not the old man, who is he? If the above argumentation is valid, then MacArthur is forced to say that a believer possesses an old nature.

Why is this so? He repeatedly equates the old man with the old nature such as in Romans , etc. The problem is that MacArthur teaches against this position in his published writings and on his public tapes. He teaches a one nature position. He needs to publicly affirm a two nature position which he has not done. We would hope that John MacArthur might recognize the implications of his teachings and that he would stop denying in his published writings and public tapes what his teaching, if carried out to its final conclusion, seems to affirm.

The teaching that the believer has but one nature, the new nature in Christ has been popularized in the book by David C.

Multnomah, Is there any connection between Dr. Both men deny that the believer possesses an old nature a view which is contrary to the IFCA doctrinal statement, Section 1, Article 8. Both men teach that sin has its base of operation in the bodily part of the believer not the soul or spirit of the believer see Birthright, pp. Both men use the term "humanness" frequently see Birthright, pp.

Both men would agree that the believer "temporarily exists as a redeemed spiritual being joined with an unredeemed mortality" Birthright, p. Both men stress Lordship salvation Needham devotes a chapter to this in his book; MacArthur has written a book on this. Is there any other connection between these two men and their "one nature" emphasis? In both places he refers to his book Birthright. See also Romans , p. I wrote to David Needham on Nov.

MacArthur about these things since their views seemed so similar. On Nov. Though the two of us have not personally visited together, I have been told that he has recommended Birthright from his pulpit. From this I have assumed that our views in this area are to some degree parallel. Also, though I have not read his latest book on Lordship, I understand he also has favored the emphasis I gave to that issue.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the great London preacher. Lloyd-Jones taught, as does MacArthur, that the believer has but one nature. In his commentary on Romans 6, page 63, he writes, " Bill Gillham , and is also dated October Instead of reckoning the indwelling Adamic life to be judicially, positionally dead, it is instead considered to be actually crucified, and therefore eliminated.

In the older tape MacArthur seems to present a two nature view. For example he makes this statement: "Your fallen nature is still your problem just like it was before you were saved. Your desires are different but you still have a fallen nature.

Sin is there. Also in the older tape on Romans 7 MacArthur identifies the man who is struggling as "a Christian trying to do it on his own, trying to live his own life in his own way, apart from the Spirit" GC In his more recent tape on Romans 7 he says this: "Do you know what kind of Christian this is? This is the most mature, spiritual Christian there could ever be! Every believer needs to be willing to amend his thinking in favor of what God has said in His Word. MacArthur says things which seem to contradict his "one nature" teaching.

Sometimes our fallen nature tempts us to sin, and we give in. If the believer only has a new nature and does not have an old nature, then how can he have a "fallen nature" which tempts him to sin? If Dr. MacArthur is going to teach "one naturism" it seems he should at least be consistent. What can the "fallen nature" be except that old, corrupt, fallen, Adamic nature which MacArthur says the believer does not have?

But in the same book he says, "There is no such thing as an old nature in the believer I believe it is a serious misunderstanding to think of the believer as having both an old and new nature" pp. This is contradictory. On the one hand the believer does not have an old nature, but on the other hand he has a carnal, fleshly nature! And though he does not have an old nature, yet he has a fallen nature see above paragraph.

It seems much more logical and Biblical to understand the old nature as being that carnal, fleshly, fallen nature which believers still possess.


Follow the Author

To MacArthur, the old man is the same as the old, Adamic, sin nature. Is the old man really the same as the old nature? This is not technically correct. For example, a pig has a pig nature but you would not want to say that a pig is a pig nature. The old man has an old nature but it is not accurate to say that the old man is an old nature.


Birthright : Christian, Do You Know Who You Are?





Related Articles