The Relationship Between the Christian and the Terms “Old Man” and “Flesh”
by David C. Needham
The purpose of this appendix [to Birthright, 1979 edition] is to provide some basis for comparison of the perspective of this book with what would appear to be the most common alternate point of view. In brief, this alternate view holds (1) that the terms “old man,” “old self,” “sin nature,” and “flesh” are synonyms. Consequently, since the New Testament clearly teaches that a Christian still has the flesh, he still has the old man. (2) And since this is so, the “crucifixion” of the old man in Romans 6 cannot be accepted as actual, but rather [only] positional or judicial.
[To affirm the more precise understanding of these terms as distinct from one another] We will … [present] quotations … [that] are in harmony with this book and then conclude with comments concerning several supporting arguments which are used by some to justify the alternate view.
(1) Are the terms “old man,’ “flesh’ and “sin nature” essentially synonyms?…
[The alternate view] YES …
“What then is this ‘old man’? First, it does not mean the carnal nature and all its propensities. Paul is not teaching that our carnal nature with all its propensities was crucified together with Christ. Neither does it mean our moral being previous to our rebirth. Neither does it mean the flesh with its affections and lusts. Neither does it mean ‘old’ simply in the sense of ‘former,’ whereas now I am something different. Why am I so concerned with these negatives? It is because I want to show that if you will identify the ‘old man’ with any one of these ideas you will of necessity be in hopeless confusion in the light of other Scriptures which we have to consider. What then does Paul mean by ‘old man?’ It seems to me to be quite plain if we look at the context of the entire passage which begins in chapter 5 verse 12 [Romans]. The ‘old man’ is the man I used to be in Adam…. It is the man I once was, but which I am no longer.”4
“The Heidelberg Catechism rightly draws a distinction between ‘the old man’ and ‘the flesh.’ The old man is crucified and buried with Him, so that the corrupt inclinations of the flesh may no more reign in us.’ The ‘old man’ is not ‘the flesh,’ he is not the ‘corrupt nature;’ the old man is the Adamic nature, the old
humanity. The ‘flesh’ is ‘the body of sin,’ the body in which sin tends to tyrannize still, the body in which sin yet remains.”5
“The term ‘old man’ does not lend itself to the same kind of usage which we have in the case of ‘sin’ and ‘flesh.’ ‘Old man’ is a designation of the person in his unity, as dominated by the flesh and sin. Though Paul, indeed, identifies himself, his ego, with sin (Romans 7:14, 20a, 25b) and then also with righteousness (Romans 7:17a, 20b, 25a), yet he does not call the former his ‘old ego’ and the latter his ‘new ego.’ In like manner he does not call the ‘sin’ and ‘the flesh’ in him the ‘old man.'”6
“This is an important verse [Romans 6:6], and we must clearly distinguish between ‘our old man,’ ‘the body of sin,’ and ‘we.’ The first of these, ‘our old man,’ means ‘our old self;’ what we were as unregenerate sons of Adam. It must not be identified with ‘the flesh,’ or ‘our sinful nature.'”7
(2) Is the crucifixion of the old man in Romans six judicial or positional rather than actual [spiritual]?…
[The alternate view] YES …
“The old man is the unregenerate man; the new man is the regenerate man created in Christ Jesus unto good works. It is no more feasible to call a believer a new man and an old man, than it is to call him a regenerate man and an unregenerate. And neither is it warranted to speak of the believer as having in him the old man and the new man. This kind of terminology is without warrant and it is but another method of doing prejudice to the doctrine which Paul was so jealous to establish when he said, ‘our old man has been crucified.'”20
“Paul is dealing with the believer’s death to sin. ‘We died to sin’ – this is Paul’s thesis. He is dealing with death to sin as an actual and practical fact, shall we not say existential fact? He brings within the scope of this statement not merely the guarantee or the promise of death to sin, but its realization in the life-history of the believer.”21
“The contrast between the old man and the new man has frequently been interpreted as the contrast between that which is new in the believer and that which is old, the contrast between that which the believer is as recreated after the image of God and that which he is as not yet perfect. Hence the antithesis which exists in the believer between holiness and sin, between the Holy Spirit and the flesh, is the antithesis between the new man and the old man in him. The believer is both old man and new man; when he does well he is acting in terms of the old man which he also still is. This interpretation does not find support in Paul’s teaching; Paul points to something different.”22
“The term ‘crucified’ is that of being crucified with Christ, and therefore indicates that the old man has been put to death just as decisively as Christ died upon the accursed tree. To suppose that the old man has been crucified and still lives or has been raised again from this death is to contradict the obvious force of the import of crucifixion. And to interject the idea that crucifixion is a slow death and therefore to be conceived of as process by which the old man is progressively mortified until he is finally put to death is to go flatly counter to Paul’s terms…. Exegetically speaking, it is no easier to think of the old man as in process of crucifixion or mortification than it is to think of the resurrected Lord as being still in process of crucifixion.”23
“…the figure which Paul is using, namely, that of having put off and of having put on, does not agree with the idea of being both an old man and a new man at the same time.”24
“‘Our old man’ is the old self or ego, the unregenerate man in his entirety in contrast with the new man as the regenerate man in his entirety. It is a mistake to think of the believer as both an old man and new man or as having in him both the old man and the new man, the latter in view of the regeneration and the former because of remaining corruption.”25
“Understand that the ‘old man’ is not there. The only way to stop living as if he were still there is to realize that he is not there. That is the New Testament method of teaching sanctification. The whole trouble with us, says the New Testament, is that we do not realize what we are, that we still go on thinking we are the old man, and go on trying to do things to the old man. That has been done; the old man was crucified with Christ. He is non-existent, he is no longer there… If we but saw this as we should, we would really begin to live as Christians in this world.”26
“We say again, this is … a real fact; not something real in Christ ‘positionally’ in the heavenlies, but real actually on earth. When Paul said, ‘Then were all dead,”Ye are dead’ and ‘We that are dead to sin’ and ‘your old man is crucified with him,’ he meant exactly what he said.”27
“The ‘old man’ ceased to exist at our regeneration, when it was ‘put off.'”28
(3) An analysis of the arguments used to support the positional or judicial concept of the death of the old man [the alternate view].
Before considering some of the common arguments, I think it would be helpful to illustrate the well meaning double talk that this “judicial death” concept of the old self produces. The following quotations are taken from what I would imagine is the most complete recent book which deals exclusively with describing and supporting the judicial death concept of the old man. “God gave up the old nature and killed it” (p. 58). “Consider that the old nature is dead indeed, and keep it in its coffin” (p. 59). “How can the new nature cope with the old nature? The Lord has not left us without answers. The first step, of course, is to be aware that the old nature is present and eager to take over. We must be vigilant. Then the believer should study the personality and characteristics of his old nature and understand how it operates” (p. 49). “The discerning Christian will recognize the awesome power of the old nature in his daily life” (p. 84). “A Christian either must learn to live with his old nature and control it, or it will dominate him. He must adjust – or self destruct” (p. 121). [NOTE: The entire second chapter of this book deals with the various titles for the old nature. Massey considers “old man,” “flesh,” “natural man,” and “carnal” as synonyms for “the old nature.”29
Now we will turn to the arguments.
[Alternate viewpoint’s objection] A. The death cannot be considered actual because Paul states that the sin nature-the “body of sin” (synonymous with the old man) has been made “powerless” or “inactive,” according to Romans 6:6, and that is something short of the full “death” idea.
This argument is illustrated by the following quotation: “This same truth is presented in Romans 6:6, where Paul says, ‘Knowing this, that our old man (you could substitute the words “the sin nature” for “old man” in this verse and do no violence to the text) is (has been) crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed (disannulled).’ The sin nature is not destroyed, as the English text suggests. But the sin nature has been rendered inoperative; it has been disannulled.”30
[Answer] Lloyd-Jones responds to this view by saying, “There are those who teach in their commentaries that this simply means ‘the old man’ again [reference to ‘body of sin’]. They say, ‘the body of sin’; in other words ‘the old man.’ So it amounts to this, that the apostle’s teaching is that ‘the old man was crucified with Christ in order that the old man might be rendered ineffective, or null and void, or inert.’ This exposition is due to one thing only, namely, that the writers have gone astray in their interpretation of the ‘old man.'”31
“I trust that the distinction between ‘the old man’ and ‘the body of sin’ is clear. It is most important. That is why I have contended so much against the idea that the ‘old man’ means the ‘old nature,’ and that the ‘old man’ and ‘the body of sin’ are one and the same thing. If you believe that, you will still be in bondage.”32
“What then does the term ‘the body of sin’ mean? It means the body, our physical body, of which sin has “taken possession … Here is the vital distinction as I see it, the distinction between ‘I myself as a personality’ and ‘my body.'”33
“… sin still remains and is left in our bodies; not in us, but in our bodies. As persons, as souls, we have already finished with it, but not so the body. This body of sin–this body which sin inhabits and tries to use–still remains… sin not only remains in our bodies; but if it is not checked, if it is not kept under, it will even reign in our bodies, and it will dominate our bodies.”34
Murray appears to be in full agreement with Lloyd-Jones by stating, “The expression ‘the body of sin’ would mean the body as conditioned and controlled by sin, the sinful body.”35 By this he clearly meant the physical body. “‘Body’ can well refer in this case to the physical organism. ‘Body’ is certainly used in this sense in verse 12 in the expression ‘your mortal body.’ The same is true in 8:10, 11, 13, 23; 12:1 (cf. I Corinthians 6:13, 15, 16, 20; 2 Corinthians 4:10; Philippians 1:20; 3:21; Colossians 2:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:23). These references suffice to show the extent to which the apostle thought of sin and sanctification as associated with the body.”36
Commenting on the “deeds of the body” of Romans 8:13, he adds,”The physical entity which we call the body is undoubtedly intended (cf. vv. 10, 11) and implies, therefore, that the apostle is thinking of those sins associated with and registered by the body…. ‘The deeds of the body’ are those practices characteristic of the body of sin (cf. 6:6), practices which the believer must put to death if he is to live (cf. Colossians 3:5).”37
Lloyd-Jones expresses, “The teaching of verse 6, then, is that my ‘old man’ was crucified in order that the remaining use of my body by sin might be disannulled, might be rendered ineffective.”38
One final comment by Murray should be added in which he equates the “body of sin” with “body of this death” of Romans 7:24. “‘Body’ in Paul’s usage, as was noted at 6:6, refers to the physical body and there is not evidence to support the view that it is used figuratively. Hence we are constrained to think in this instance of the physical body.”39
Finally W.H. Griffith Thomas states, “The ‘body of sin’ does not mean in our modern terminology, ‘the mass of sin,’ or that sin has its source in the body. It simply means that the body is the seat, or instrument of sin. The ‘we’ of this verse means our real self as united to Christ.”40
At this point you are encouraged to note the degree of emphasis Paul places on the physical body in Romans 6-8, observing especially Romans 6:11-13, 19; 8:10-11, 13, 23. In view of this it would be completely inconsistent of Paul to make Romans 6:6 an exception. Not only is this so, but it would force upon Paul a redundant literary style, quite out of character if the verse were translated, “Knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him that our old self might be made powerless.”
Three final quotations quite clearly express what I believe to be a proper view. Lloyd-Jones, in commenting on the phrase, “your members” of Romans 6:13, says, “The various activities of our bodies, our physical bodies as such, come into this category of ‘members.’ It does not stop at that. The term also includes the mental powers, the power of thought, the power of reason, the power of imagination. It seems to me that in this teaching it is quite clear that the apostle puts all such things under this general heading of ‘the mortal body.’ The natural man has brains, he has understanding, he has mental powers which he can use, he has imagination. All these belong in a sense to the physical man and are parts, therefore, or members of this mortal body. But the term also included the emotions. In other words, the term ‘members’ is a way of describing the functioning of man.”41
“My old self, that self that was in Adam, was an utter slave to sin. That self has gone; I have a new self, I am a new man. The moment I realize that I am a new man I am in a better position to deal with this old nature that remains in my body, in what Paul calls my ‘mortal flesh.’ We shall find the apostle saying in chapter 7, ‘It is no more I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me’ (verse 20). Is not that a marvelous thing to be able to say? I am not doing this or that, it is this sin that remains in my members that does so. Sin is no longer in me, it is in my members only. That is the most liberating thing you have ever heard!”42
“What I am asserting is that sin which formerly governed the whole of my personality is now only governing-or trying to govern-the bodily part of me. I in spirit, I as a soul, I as a personality am delivered; I am dead to sin.”43 What a wonderful fact Paul gives to us! Since the old self has died, that is, the person I was in the truest sense, now the members of my body can be presented as instruments of righteousness to God in complete harmony with who I am now as they become the channels through which divine life-dependent life-is flowing!
[Alternate viewpoint’s objection] B. The death of the old man cannot be considered actual because to do so would be to contradict I John 1:8.
The reasoning which leads to this conclusion is hardly simple. It goes something like this: When the word “sin” occurs in the singular it commonly can be translated “sin nature” and “sin nature” is a synonym for the “old man.”Therefore since John states “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves,” he is really saying, “If we say we have no ‘old man’ we are deceiving ourselves.”
A statement of this view follows: “But the word sin also refers to the basic nature which men have as sinful human beings. The sixth chapter of Romans uses this word a number of times to refer to the quality of a man’s nature, to the kind of person he is apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ… (in Romans 6:6) he is talking about the essential nature [emphasis mine] that is within us, and he uses the word sin to describe the quality, or kind, of nature we possess…. In 1 John 1:8, the Apostle John says, ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.’ John is using the word sin as Paul uses it in the sixth chapter of Romans, to emphasize the fact that we have a sin nature within us that God calls sin, which we can refer to as ‘the sin nature.'” (Note: in this particular work the “sin nature” has previously been defined as “the old man.” Note also that the old man is referred to as one’s “essential nature.”)44
[Answer] If this argument can stand, then of course Romans 6 must be interpreted judicially and I must conclude that my essential nature is sinful. Thus, the person I was before I was born again, I still am (of course, with the addition of a new nature).
Perhaps this apparent problem might best be reconciled by observing the unique way in which the writer John uses the phrase “to have sin.” The following quotation from Robert Law’s comments concerning 1 John 1:8 clarifies a distinctive usage. “The phrase ‘to have sin’ (echein hamartian) is peculiar to St. John, and has quite a definite sense. Thus in John 15:22 our Lord says, ‘If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.’ Here, beyond question, ‘to have sin’ specifically denotes the guiltiness of the agent. In John 9:41, 15:24, 19:11 the sense is equally clear; and those
parallels must be held as decisive for the meaning here.”45
For those who are not at rest with this interpretation I suggest that they carefully evaluate what they actually understand by the term “nature.” What is really meant when someone says “all Christians have a sin nature”? If those who use this terminology meant by it that in a general way Christians because they have not yet received the “redemption of their bodies” have a tendency to produce fleshly sinful behavior out of harmony with their innermost being, I would find no fault with the terminology.46 But is that the way the term is used? Very pointedly Paul in Ephesians 2:3 considered it to refer to one’s essential nature as descriptive of a non-Christian. This usage would appear to be in agreement with at least two of the following dictionary definitions, (1)the intrinsic characteristics and qualities of a person; (2) an individual disposition, “She had a gentle disposition;” (3) the aggregate of a person’s instincts, penchants, preferences.47 In other words, the idea of “nature” seems to be the essence which most adequately describes a person. One’s “nature” in this sense is then not simply something a person “has,” but rather that which a person most deeply “is.” Therefore many who use this term would agree that one’s sin nature is one’s essential nature.
Well then, in view of this, can it be defended that John in his epistle is saying “if we say that our essential nature is not sinful, we are deceiving ourselves?” If that is what he is saying then it is in direct opposition to the overall thrust of 1 John in which the focus is on the righteous nature of the children of God. (See especially 1 John 3:1-9.) In order to get this idea one has to make a major distinction between the “we have no sin” of verse 8 and “we have not sinned” of verse 10, a distinction big enough to make the first passage refer to one’s essential nature and the second to individual sins. There is a difference in the same way there is a difference between saying “I have no cough” and “I haven’t coughed.” But in neither case is one saying anything about his deepest self as a “cougher.” (By using this comparison I by no means am minimizing the seriousness of sin, but rather I wish only to underline that to say “I have something” instead of saying “I have done something” does not require the essential nature idea of the former.) Probably the major distinction in these two verses is not seen in the first half of each, but in the second half anyway.48 (For other occurrences of the singular “sin” which would be inappropriate to relate to one’s nature, see James 1:15; Hebrews 3:15; 1 Peter 4:1; and certainly Romans 6.) To use the singular noun argument either in 1 John or anywhere else as even secondary support of a “judicial” interpretation of Romans 6 is weak deduction at best and is unworthy of consideration in an issue of such major importance.
The practical result of this “judicial” type of terminology is that it tends to produce a strange double talk. On one hand Christians are encouraged as to the importance of having a proper positive self image. Yet in the same context they are reminded of their essentially sinful nature. That’s like describing all the positive qualities of a shark, its skin, sense of a smell, agility, etc., as it dashes around your swimming pool while all the time you are trying to shoot it because of its essential nature. But rather than ridiculing this very popular approach, it is constructive for us to ask why this concept is being pressed upon Christians today. Certainly it is not out of a willful wrong, but rather it is due to the sincere effort of Bible teachers to explain why believers sin without seeing the relationship between sin and the fundamental issue of meaning which grows out of an awareness of identity.
[Alternate viewpoint’s objection] C. The death [of the old man], even if considered actual rather than judicial, does not mean extinction or cessation, but only separation.
Therefore, even though the Bible states that one’s old self has died, one must adjust to the fact that it has not ceased to exist. That old self is still very much “there,” but happily the Christian is “separated from its power.” One writer illustrates this by a comparison with physical death. “Physical death is a separation of the immaterial part of man from the material part. It does not mean that the person has become extinct or that he has ceased to function.”49
[Answer] At first glance this line of thought sounds reasonable until one asks the question. What died at the point of physical death? The answer, the body dies. Does that which actually dies cease to function? The answer, “Yes.” Indeed, the person as a spiritual being continues to live, but that is not what dies in the first place. It seems to me that one may rightly call death “separation,” but it doesn’t change the/act that death in some sense does involve a cessation of function of whatever dies. What then about the “spiritual death” of the unbeliever? Certainly there is no cessation of activity here is there? There certainly is. Spiritual death involves a separation from the life that is in God; therefore, in the unbeliever there is a total cessation of the one entity that is dead-one’s life in relation to God. This is also true of the biblical “second death.” By illustration, one may still react to a dead snake with considerable alarm as though that snake were still alive, but the snake is dead and has indeed ceased to function no matter what one’s reaction may be; so also the old man. A Christian may still think himself to be the old man, or to have the old man, thus reacting as though this is who he is. This happens even though the old man has ceased to exist. A prince may continue to act like a pauper because this is who he thinks he is even though in no sense is he a pauper, though perhaps he once was.
One additional proof of the cessation of activity is the parallel Paul draws between Christ’s death and the death of the old man in Romans 6. There should be no question that there is no continuing activity of sin with Him. Indeed it is correct to say that when a person has passed through the awesome death and resurrection described in Romans 6, the person he used to be has ceased to be and the person he now most deeply is will be forever (even though that person remains housed in unredeemed flesh which may at times provide him with a false and thus sinning identity).
[Alternate view’s objection] D. The death cannot be considered actual due to the fact that the time of the departure of the old man awaits either physical death or rapture.
This view is pointedly expressed in the following quotations, “Being an integral part of a human being, this evil nature cannot and will not be dismissed until the body itself in which it functions is redeemed, or until the separation between the body and the immaterial elements of soul and spirit is achieved by death.”50
“Like physical death, the Adamic nature, which is the perpetuator of spiritual death, is not now dismissed, but, in the case of the redeemed, it is subject to gracious divine provisions whereby its injuries may be restrained. Salvation from the power of sin for the unsaved, depends upon two factors, namely, the divine provision and the human appropriation.”51
“The state of sinless perfection can never be reached until the sin nature is cast out, and this is accomplished only through the death of the physical body or the transformation of the body without death at the rapture.”52
[Answer] It seems remarkable indeed with the total omission of any New Testament scriptural reference to such a departure of the old man (and the parallel terms used by the above writers) that theologians can feel free to be so dogmatic. Though it is true that our bodies will yet know a redemption (Romans 8:23), Paul completely avoids any connection between this fact and the deliverance from the old man. Such a view would seem to teach two deaths of the old man: a death in the sense of power being broken, or activity being controlled, and a death in the sense of total separation involving complete cessation of activity. Nowhere is this taught in the Bible.
The redemption of our bodies will be a marvelous moment for every believer for several reasons. First, we will be released from the heavy limitations of our bodies, to enjoy “conformity with the body of His glory” (Philippians 3:21, NASB). The result of this miracle will be that we will be able to “see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). In our present bodies we could not begin to endure the full frontal impact of the glory of God; our senses, our minds and emotions would indeed disintegrate before such inexpressible brilliance. But in that day “we shall see him as he is!” In that day “/ shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12).
Secondly, our bodies, “bodies in which sin tends to tyrannize still,” (in this sense, “the body of sin”) will be redeemed. This is well expressed by Lloyd-Jones in saying, “The old man has gone. I am no longer that man; I am a new man in Christ Jesus. That is what is true about me. But though that is the truth about me, it is not yet the truth about my body, my mortal body. Sin is still in my mortal body, in my members, working as a ‘law in my members,’ having its effect upon my ‘instruments,’ ‘my members,’ the parts of my body.”54
Enlarging upon this he adds, “There is a day coming, says the Apostle, when even my body shall have been delivered from the final effects and influences of the reign and the rule of sin. Not yet! But it is coming. Even here and now, as I understand this, the evil effect of sin upon my body should be lessening, but finally I shall have a glorified body. I myself, in Christ, am already glorified-‘Whom he hath called, them he hath also justified, and whom he hath justified, them he hath also glorified’ (Romans 8:30). I am glorified, and a day is coming when my body shall be glorified.”55
The “old self (man) was who we were. “Flesh” was the stuff out of which life for us was made–fragile, mortal humanness severed from God’s life and ultimate meaning. As such we “were by nature children of wrath,” living “in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind (literally ‘thoughts’)” (Ephesians 2:3, NASB).
We are now living spirits–living because Jesus’ risen life is our life. Not only have each of us retained all of our unique humanness with its proneness for producing counterfeit life, but we actually value it as the means by which Christ may progressively be seen in this world “in the flesh.” Happily some day we will exchange all that remains mortal about us for total immortality. In that day we will at last know fully “the glorious liberty of the sons of God.”
By no means should this study be considered to be complete in the sense of considering every passage related to this issue. In view of the almost limitless potential of interpreting verses out of context or from a prior prejudice, I doubt if such a study could ever be considered as complete. My earnest desire is that you might praise God with me as we look together at the broad and bright picture of new covenant Christianity.
The fundamental question simply is: As you read the book of Acts and the epistles, what overall conclusion are you forced to draw as to the essential nature of one who has been born again?
David C. Neeham, Birthright: Christian, Do You Know Who You Are? Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1979. 239-264.
Appendix B, Notes
In writing this section I face what is to me an unavoidable dilemma. Since it will be necessary to include a considerable number of quotations, it is fitting that I identify the source of each statement. This then brings to the front the names of the individuals who produced these statements. But I have no wish whatsoever to do this. The important issue is that these statements have been taught and believed among those in the body of Christ. It is not particularly important who has made the statements. The issue is the ideas, not the individuals. In fact it could well be that some quotations no longer represent the present view of the person quoted. (I would be quite embarrassed to be required to defend some statements I made ten years ago!) It also could be true that they did not mean to say what those who read them thought they meant. Some individuals I quote are respected personal friends of mine with whom I find far more to agree with than to call into question. I am eternally indebted to them for their ministry in my life. Therefore, may I urge you, the reader, to respect my concern and to focus on the statements rather than on the individuals. For the sake of the oneness and love within the body of Christ, I will thank you sincerely.
1-3 deleted in this online edition
4. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans, The New Man: An Exposition of Chapter 6 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), p. 62.
5. Ibid., p. 79.
6. John Murray, Principles of Conduct (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), p. 218.
7. W. H. Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), p. 167.
8-19. Deleted in this online edition
20. Murray, Principles of Conduct, p. 218.
21. Ibid., p. 208.
22. Ibid., pp. 211-212.
23. Ibid., pp. 212-213.
24. Ibid., p. 214.
25. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), pp. 219-220.
26. Lloyd-Jones, Romans, The New Man, p. 68.
27. Norman Grubb, Deep Things of God (Ft. Washington, Pa.: Christian Literature Crusade, 1958), p. 31.
28. Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, p. 168.
29. Craig Massey, Adjust or Self-Destruct, A Study of the Believer’s Two Natures (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977).
30. Pentecost, Pattern for Maturity, p. 99.
31. Lloyd-Jones, Romans, The New Man, pp. 68-70.
32. Ibid, p. 78.
33. Ibid., p. 72.
34. Ibid, p. 153. See also pp. 78, 83, 152, 222,