Arthur Pink
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6); "The flesh
lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and
these are contrary the one to the other" (Galatians 5:17). These and similar
passages, clearly connote that there are two distinct and diverse springs of
action in the Christian, from which proceed, either evil and good works. The
older expositors were accustomed to speak of these springs of action as
"principles"—the principles of evil and holiness. Modern writers more
frequently refer to them as "the two natures in the believer." We
have no objection against this form of expression, provided it be used to
represent Scriptural realities—and not human fancies. But it appears to us,
that there are not a few today who speak of the "two natures" and yet have
no clear conception of what the term signifies, often conveying a faulty
idea to the minds of their hearers.
In ordinary parlance "nature" expresses, first, the
result of what we have by our origin: and second, the qualities that are
developed in us by growth. Thus, we talk of anything bestial or devilish as
being contrary to human nature—alas that the beasts so often put us to
shame! More distinctly, we speak of a lion's nature (ferocity), a vulture's
nature (feeding on carrion), a lamb's nature (gentleness). A "nature," then,
describes what a creature is by birth and disposition. Now the
Christian has experienced two births, and is subject to two growths. Two
sets of moral qualities belong to him: the one as born of Adam, the other as
born of God. But much caution needs to be exercised at this point, lest on
the one hand we carnalize our conception of the new birth—or, on the other
hand, dwell so much on the two natures, that we lose sight of the person who
possesses them, and thus practically deny his responsibility.
In the interests of clarity, we must contemplate these
two natures separately, considering first what we are as children of men—and
then what we are as children of God. In contemplating what we are as
men, we must distinguish sharply between what we are by God's
creation, and what we became by our fall from that uprightness in
which we were originally made—for fallen human nature is radically
different from our primitive condition. But here, too, great care
must be taken in defining that difference. Man did not lose any component
part of his being by the Fall: he still consists of "spirit and soul and
body." No essential element of his constitution was forfeited, none of his
faculties were destroyed. Rather was his entire being, vitiated and
corrupted, stricken with a loathsome disease. A potato is still a potato
when frozen; an apple remains an apple when decayed within, though no longer
edible. By the Fall, man relinquished his honor and glory, lost his
holiness, and forfeited the favor of God; but he still retained his human
nature.
It cannot be insisted upon too strongly, that no
essential part of man's complex make-up, no faculty of his being, was
destroyed at the Fall—for multitudes are seeking to shelter behind a
misconception at this very point. They suppose that man lost some vital part
of his nature when Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, and that it is this loss
which accounts for all his failures. Man imagines he is far more to be
pitied than blamed. The blame, he supposes, belongs to his first
parent, and he is to be pitied because deprived of his capability of
working righteousness. It is in such a manner, that Satan succeeds in
deceiving many of his victims, and it is the bounden duty of the Christian
minister to expose such a sophistry and drive the ungodly out of their
refuge of lies.
The truth is, that man today possesses identically the
same faculties as those with which Adam was originally created, and his
accountability lies in the use he makes of those faculties, and his
criminality consists in his abuse of the same.
On the other hand, there are not a few who believe that
at the Fall, man received a nature which he did not possess before, and in
his efforts to evade his responsibility he throws all the blame of his
lawless actions on that evil nature. Equally erroneous and equally vain, is
such a subterfuge. No material addition was made to man's being at the Fall,
any more than that some part was taken from it.
That which entered man's being at the Fall was sin, and
sin has defiled every part of his person—but for that we are to be
blamed—and not pitied. Nor has fallen man become so helplessly
the victim of sin that his accountability is cancelled! Rather does
God hold him responsible to resist and reject every inclination unto evil,
and will justly punish him because he fails to do so! Every attempt to
negate human responsibility, must be steadfastly resisted by us.
The youth differs much from the infant, and the man from
the immature youth; nevertheless it is the same individual, the same human
person, who passes through these stages. Men we are, and shall ever remain.
Whatever internal change we may be subject to at regeneration, and whatever
change awaits the body at resurrection, we shall never lose our essential
identity, as God created us at the first. Let this be clearly understood and
firmly grasped.
At the outset: we are the same people all through.
Neither the deprivation of spiritual life at the Fall—nor the
communication of spiritual life at the new birth, affects the reality of
our being in possession of what we commonly call human nature. By the
Fall we did not become less than men; by regeneration we do
not become more than men. That which essentially constitutes our manhood was
not lost—and no matter whatever is imparted to us at regeneration, our
individuality is never changed.
If the above distinctions are carefully borne in mind,
particularly between what our nature essentially consists of and what it
"accidentally" became by virtue of the changes passing upon it—then there
should be less difficulty in our understanding what is signified by the
Lord's assuming our nature. When the Son of God became incarnate, He took to
Himself human nature. He was in every respect true Man, possessing spirit
and soul and body: "in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His
brethren" (Hebrews 2:17). This does not explain the miracle and mystery of
the Divine incarnation, for that is incomprehensible; but it states the
fundamental fact of it. Christ did not inherit our corruption, for that was
not an essential of manhood. He was born and ever remained immaculately pure
and holy; nevertheless, He took upon Him our nature, intrinsically
considered.
Reverting for a moment to our opening passage: "that
which is born of the flesh is flesh." Here "the flesh" is the name
given to human nature as fallen—it must not be restricted to the body (as in
a few passages it is)—but understood (as generally in the New Testament) of
the entire human constitution. In affirming, "that which is born of the
flesh is flesh," Christ reiterated the basic and unchanging
principle—repeated no less than nine times in Genesis 1—that every creature
brings forth "after its kind." The quality of the fruit—is determined by the
nature of the tree which bears it: an evil tree cannot bring forth good
fruit. Man's fallen nature cannot yield that which is sinless. No matter how
much fallen man may be educated, civilized, or religionized, in his natural
state he cannot produce that which is acceptable to the thrice holy God. In
order to that he must be born again—a new and sinless nature imparted to
him.
"But that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
A new, a spiritual life is communicated, from which the grand moral change
in its subject proceeds. This communication of Divine life to the soul is
viewed in the New Testament under various figures.
It is likened to the implanting of an incorruptible
"seed" in the soul (1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 3:9); to a cleansing of the heart,
a "washing of water by the Word" (Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26); to a renovation of
the will—or a writing of God's Law in the mind (Hebrews 8:10). The figure of
the "seed" conveys the idea of a subsequent growth; the washing of water,
suggests a process of cleansing only commenced; while that of God's writing
His Law in our minds, intimates the durability and permanence of His work of
grace. It is from this new life or nature, imparted by the Spirit, that all
spiritual life proceeds.
We have no desire to belittle the marvel and miracle of
the new birth: so far from it, we freely accept our Lord's declaration that
it is a mystery beyond man's power to solve (John 3:8). If the communication
of natural life is an enigma to human understanding, much more so is the
impartation of spiritual life. Thus, in our efforts to simplify one
aspect of regeneration, we seek to guard against falsifying it at
another.
What we wish to make clear is, that at the new birth no
new faculties are added to man's soul, no addition is made to his essential
threefold constitution. Previously, he possessed a spirit and soul and body;
he does not now have a fourth thing bestowed upon him. It is the man himself
who is born again. As at the Fall, his person was vitiated—now his person is
regenerated— the full effects of which will only appear at his
glorification.
Having thus considered, very briefly, the two natures in
the Christian, we must now distinguish sharply between them—and the
individual in whom they reside. A nature and a person are in many respects
widely different. Whether unconverted or converted, the person is
constitutionally the same: it is the one who was dead in trespasses and
sins—who has been Divinely quickened. It is identically the same individual
who formerly was a child of disobedience, under condemnation, who is now
justified and sanctified. And, my reader, it is to the person—and not
to his nature—that accountability attaches. Deeds belong to the
individual, and not to his nature. No amount of quibbling can
gainsay the fact that in his heart, even the unregenerate is conscious that
he is responsible to act and live contrary to his fallen nature, and that he
is justly culpable if he yields to his depraved inclinations. It is
on this very ground that God will judge him in the Day to come, and so
self-evidently righteous will this be, that "every mouth will be stopped"
(Romans 3:20) and God "will be clear when He judges" (Psalm 51:4).
Plain and simple though it is—yet we feel we must labor
the point a little further. How many professing Christians today speak of
"the flesh," in themselves and in others, in such a way as if its being
an exhibition of the flesh, thoroughly explained matters. Were one to
rebuke another for conduct inappropriate for a child of God, and he replied,
'Yes, that is the flesh working in me,' such language would plainly evidence
an attempt to escape responsibility. If evil deeds by a Christian were
excusable on the ground that the flesh still remains within him, then by
parity of reason every sinner on earth could excuse himself—and how then
could God judge the world? In point of fact the unregenerate do, everywhere,
fall back on their sinful nature to escape condemnation, whereas if they
listened to conscience, they would certainly know that their nature never
compelled them to commit a single sin. It inclined them—but they
were responsible to control and resist it, and the essence of their guilt is
that they did not.
It is the man, then, who sins—and is the sinner.
It is the man who needs to be forgiven and justified. It is the
man who is responsible to walk not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. It
is the same person all through. It is the man who is born again, and
not a nature. True, at the new birth he receives a new life or
nature, so that he now has two natures, and his responsibility is to mortify
the old nature—and feed, strengthen, and be governed by the new nature. The
flesh is in no way improved by the presence of the "spirit," any more than
weeds are bettered by planting flowers in their midst. The flesh and the
spirit are contrary to each other, and my responsibility lies in making no
provision for the former—acting according to the dictates of the latter!