How To Win The War Within-by Elliot
Miller
The apostle Paul says that the law
of sin dwells "in [our] members" (Rom. 7:23) and further exhorts
us not to let it reign in our mortal bodies (Rom. 6:12), suggesting
that it is present there. If the principle of sin remains with
us, and the term sin nature refers to this principle, then how
can Neil Anderson maintain that Christians no longer have a
sin nature?
Anderson gets into theological trouble
because of his inadequate understanding of what the term nature
means. Nature here refers to one's disposition, inclination,
or bent - the principle or law that governs one's behavior.
When Anderson writes that "no person can consistently behave
in a way that is inconsistent with how he perceives himself,"1
he fails to recognize that it is not one's self-perception but
rather one's nature with which one cannot behave inconsistently.
If Christians had only a Christlike nature they could only behave
like Christ.
The reason Christians are capable
of both righteousness and sin is that they have two natures
from which to draw. Now, there is another, larger sense in which
the term nature is used that refers to an entity's collection
of defining attributes. In this sense, all human beings have
only one nature that includes one moral faculty that is capable
of both good and evil. Using the narrower sense of the term
nature (disposition determined by principle or law), this moral
faculty takes the form of the sin nature when it is governed
by evil and the new nature when it is governed by good.
In addition to the orientation around
the interests of self that all mortals possess, Christians are
given an additional orientation around the interests of God.
The new orientation inclines them toward good and thus wages
war with their original orientation, which inclines them toward
evil. The New Testament clearly describes Christians in a state
of inner conflict in which they must deny one set of natural
inclinations or the other (see Gal. 5:16-17; Rom. 7:15-25; James
4:1-3; 1 Pet. 2:11).
It isn't as though Christians start
out with three-fourths of the original nature and one-fourth
of the new and must work to decrease and increase the respective
percentages. The old nature is still there in its full strength
and ugliness - but they are no longer slaves to it. They can
and must choose daily which orientation they are going to "clothe"
themselves with or "put on" (Rom. 13:14; Eph. 4:22-24; Col 3:1-14).
Sanctification consists of increasingly learning to live according
to the new capacity, which is accomplished as the Word of God
is applied to every area of one's life2 (e.g., Ps. 119:11, 105;
James 1:22-27; Heb. 4:2; 5:12-14; 1 John 2:4-5).
The Bible calls the old nature sin
or the flesh. The new nature is referred to as the spirit, and
the individual as determined by these natures is identified
either as the old man (self: NIV, NASB) or the new man. The
spirit is the moral nature of Christ, just as the flesh is the
moral nature of Adam after the Fall that he passed on to his
descendants. Christ is the second man, the last Adam (1 Cor.
15:42-50). All human beings are identified with Adam by birth
and thus do by nature the things that Adam would do. Those who
are identified with Christ by faith and second birth have transferred
from the headship of Adam to that of Christ (Rom. 5:12-21),
and now, by the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ, have a second
nature to do what He would do. In the next world, this will
be the only possibility. But in this world, sin remains "in
my members." By this, Scripture is teaching that the very fact
of human mortality carries with it not only physical corruptibility,
but moral corruptibility as well.
It is because of the spiritual corruptibility
that is inseparable from the mortal body that Paul cries, "Who
will rescue me from this body of death?" (Rom. 7:24), and that
believers, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, "groan inwardly"
as they eagerly await the redemption of their bodies from mortality
to immortality (Rom. 8:23). As long as we remain in our mortal
state we will also remain vulnerable to the tendencies to corruption
that define mortality.3 Anderson's insistence that mortal believers
no longer have a sin nature is therefore as much a non sequitur
as the insistence of "faith" teachers that mortal believers
should live perfectly free of sickness and physical deterioration.
This inextricable relationship of
the sinful nature to our mortal bodies is why Paul calls the
sin nature the "flesh." It is human nature apart from the redeeming
influence of the Spirit of God, and thus Paul can say, "I know
that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh" (Rom. 7:19).
Since sin remains "right there with" every believer (Rom. 7:21),
he or she must make a conscious choice to walk according to
the new nature and mortify in his or her day-to-day life that
which forensically and ultimately was put to death on the cross
(Rom. 8:13; Gal. 5:24; Col. 3:5). 1 John 1:8 specifically states,
"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and
the truth is not in us." Note that John speaks of having sin,
not committing sin. The term sin in its singular form is frequently
used in the New Testament to refer to a principle or law that
results in acts of disobedience rather than specific acts of
disobedience themselves (John 8:34; Acts 8:23; Rom. 5:12-21;
6:2, 6-7, 10-23; 7:7-27; 8:2; Gal. 3:22; Heb. 12:1, 4).
Anderson responds to this observation
by arguing, "'Having' sin and 'being' sin are two totally different
concepts."4 Indeed, they are. But those who argue that Christians
still have a sin nature do not claim that Christians are sin.
If Christians were sin they would be incapable of anything but
evil. But if they have sin it means that they possess a disposition
toward evil that must be counteracted by the new disposition
toward good they've received in Christ. Only if sinning is rooted
in natures they will continue to possess for the rest of their
lives does the apostle John's statement make sense. If, as Anderson
teaches, sin is merely rooted in conditioning that can be changed,
it is theoretically possible to stop sinning permanently - which
would contradict 1 John 1:8.
The Bible does generally call Christians
saints and not sinners (believers are called sinners in 1 Timothy
1:15, James 4:1-9, 5:19-20, and Galatians 2:17) because the
term sinner usually connotes someone whose life is characterized
by unrepentant sin (e.g., 1 Tim. 1: 9; 1 Pet. 4:18). The apostle
John referred to this kind of sin when he affirmed that someone
who is born of God does not sin (1 John 3:9). But it is no more
unbiblical for us to say we are sinners than it was for Paul
in 1 Timothy 1:15,5 for "nothing good lives in me, that is,
in my flesh."
Anderson makes a gallant attempt to
reconcile his doctrine of sin to one of its most difficult biblical
challenges - Romans 7: "Notice that there is only one player
in these two verses [15-16] - the 'I,' mentioned nine times.
Notice also that this person has a good heart; he agrees with
the law of God. But this good-hearted Christian has a behavior
problem....He agrees with God but ends up doing the very things
he hates." After quoting vv. 17-21 Anderson asks, "How many
players are involved now? Two: sin and me. But sin is clearly
not me; it's only dwelling in me....Do these verses say that
I am no good, that I am evil or that I am sin? Absolutely not.
They say that I have something dwelling in me which is no good,
evil and sinful, but it's not me."6 Paul's dissociation of himself
from the evil within him is not to deny that that evil is part
of his own nature (see, e.g., vv. 14, 17, 18, 21). His point
in Romans 7 is rather to illustrate the crisis the child of
God eventually reaches where, even after his or her mind has
become fully possessed by desire for the things of God, still
he or she cannot break the shackles of sin (see, e.g., v. 18).
Such experiences demonstrate the principle
that sin is fused into his or her very mortality and, therefore,
will power is insufficient to bring deliverance. Paul discusses
the Christian's only recourse in the larger context of Romans
6:1-8:4: to identify by faith with Christ. Because they have
judicially been executed for their sin in the person of Christ
and are therefore no longer under the law of God (which excites
the sin nature into action), their lives need and should no
longer be dominated by sin, but rather by the grace of God (Rom.
6:1-8:4). As Paul triumphantly concludes, "The law of the Spirit
of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin
and of death" (Rom. 8:2).
In Victory Anderson never explains
exactly who this second "player" that is not "me," but dwells
"in me," is.
His answer is provided in Released
from Bondage:
I personally believe that the word
sin in Romans 6:12 is personified, referring to the person
of Satan . . . . Satan is sin: the epitome of evil, the prince
of darkness, the father of lies. I would have a hard time
understanding how only a principle (as opposed to an evil
personal influence) would reign in my mortal body in such
a way that I would have no control over it. Even more difficult
to understand is how I could get a principle out of my body.
Paul says, "I find then the principle that evil is present
in me, the one who wishes to do good" (Romans 7:21). What
is present in me is evil - the person, not the principle -
and it is present in me because at some time I used my body
as an instrument of unrighteousness. (emphases in original)7
When we examine the previously cited
New Testament passages referring to sin in the singular, we
see that it is implausible to interpret them as referring to
Satan. In fact, the word sin is sometimes used interchangeably
with the phrase law of sin, showing that the subject is a principle
and not a person.
The fact that Anderson has a hard
time understanding this is exactly the heart of his problem.
Whether we are dealing with impersonal sin or the personal devil
determines our response. If we are combating an inner disposition
toward evil, we respond to it by identifying ourselves with
the crucified and risen Christ and aligning ourselves with His
will (Rom. 6:5-14). On the other hand, if we are combating an
alien personality working within our very beings, we will focus
our response directly on him - as does Anderson's entire approach
to spiritual warfare. But the former response is the biblical
response, for although Satan uses the world and the flesh to
tempt us, it is our own sinful choices that actually get us
into trouble. Our own tendency toward sin therefore is what
needs to be dealt with directly, not the devil.
As will become painfully clear in
Part Two, Anderson's inadequate view of the flesh has led him
to an exaggerated view of the devil. It's not that Anderson
denies that sin can originate from the Christian's own mind.
But his definition of the flesh as merely the "residue of your
negative conditioning"8 is inadequate to account for the gross
evil Christians often encounter within themselves. To explain
this, only the devil will do.9
In fact, Anderson reasons that it
is harmful for Christians to attribute truly evil thoughts to
themselves:
Assure the counselee that any thoughts
which do not "joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner
man" (Romans 7:22) are from Satan.10 She replied, "Sometimes,
when I go to church, I think these awful thoughts about God
and dirty thoughts go through my mind." "That's not you,"
I assured her. Half an hour later she understood the origin
of those thoughts and Satan's tactics; the thoughts were gone
and so was her fear.
If those thoughts had been her thoughts,
then what could she have concluded about her nature? "How
can I be a Christian and have those kinds of thoughts?" she
reasoned, and so do millions of other well-meaning Christians.11
(emphasis added)
Those who say a demon cannot influence
[read: control] an area of a believer's life have left us with
only two possible culprits for the problems we face: ourselves
or God. If we blame ourselves we feel hopeless because we can't
do anything to stop what we're doing. If we blame God our confidence
in Him as our benevolent Father is shattered. Either way, we
have no chance to gain the victory which the Bible promises
us.12 [A woman named Anne wrote to Anderson in the middle of
one of his conferences:] "I didn't know what it meant to take
every thought captive. I tried to do this once, but I was unsuccessful
because I blamed myself for all this stuff. I thought all those
thoughts were mine and that I was the one who was doing it.
There has always been a terrible cloud
hanging over my head because of these issues. I never could
accept the fact that I was really righteous because I didn't
feel like it. Praise God it was only Satan - not me. I have
worth!"13 There is a biblical basis for saying some of our evil
thoughts are provoked by Satan (e.g., 1 Chron. 21:1; Matt. 16:23;
John 13:2; Acts 5:3), but there is no biblical basis for saying
all of them do (James 1:14; 4:1; Rom. 8:7; 1 Pet. 2:11; Gal.
5:17). Anderson fails to recognize that evil can originate from
ourselves (our flesh) and yet we can still gain victory over
the power and guilt of sin through Christ's cross and indwelling
Spirit (see, e.g., Heb. 9:13-14; Gal. 5:16-25). His desire to
protect us from responsibility for the evil in our hearts contradicts
his own emphasis that we should take responsibility and not
fall into a "devil made me do it" mentality.
This is a serious error. The biblical
answer to what Anne was experiencing is first to agree with
Paul that "nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh"
(Rom. 7:18) and then to see that her righteousness is entirely
in Jesus Christ. Only after one reaches the point of utter self-despair
that cries out with Paul, "What a wretched man I am! Who will
set me free from this body of death?" (Rom. 7:24) can one experience
the deliverance that also proclaims with Paul, "Thanks be to
God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom. 7:25). So, Anderson
inadvertently perpetuates the very bondage he wants to free
people from by feeding rather than confronting that fleshly
concern to feel worthy in and of oneself. Christians can never
stand before God with total confidence until they find their
righteousness strictly outside of themselves, in the imputed
righteousness of Jesus Christ ( Phil. 3:3-9; 1 Cor. 1:30; Rom.
10:3-4).
Only then will Christ's imparted righteousness
take shape in their lives (Gal. 6:14-15; Rom. 8:1-4). As soon
as they begin to consider that imparted righteousness as their
own righteousness they will find themselves walking after the
flesh again (Gal. 1:18-2:14; 2 Cor. 3:5; 1 Cor. 10:12; Prov.
16:18; Rev. 3:17-18). Therefore, it really does not matter whether
a thought originates from Satan or the Christian, because the
Christian should not be making any claims to personal righteousness
before God in the first place. - Elliot Miller
NOTES 1. Dr. Neil Anderson,
Walking in the Light (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992),
178-79. 2. This is primarily a spiritual exercise of faith and
obedience rather than a psychological reconditioning process,
as Anderson portrays sanctification (see accompanying article).
3. Nonetheless, in the true believer the new nature ultimately
prevails over the old (e.g., 1 John 3:9; 5:18; Phil. 1:6). 4.
Neil T. Anderson, Helping Others Find Freedom in Christ (Ventura,
CA: Regal Books, 1995), 72. 5. Anderson argues that Paul "was
referring to his nature before his conversion to Christ." (Neil
T. Anderson, Victory over the Darkness: Realizing the Power
of Your Identity in Christ [Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1990],
72; emphasis in original.) Paul's exact words, however, were
"I am (Greek: eimi, present tense) the chief of sinners." No
doubt Paul's preconversion sins qualified him to be chief among
sinners, but it was his ongoing possession of a sin nature that
qualified him to be presently ranked in that category. 6. Victory,
82-83. 7. Dr. Neil Anderson, Released from Bondage (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993), 123-24. 8. See, e.g., Victory,
167. 9. Ibid. 10. Neil T. Anderson, The Bondage Breaker (Eugene,
OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1990), 227-28. 11. Released, 13-14.
12. Bondage Breaker, 174. 13. Released, 41. This article first
appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 21, number
1 (1998) as a companion to the feature article The Bondage Maker:
Examining the Message and Method of Neil T. Anderson, Part One:
Sanctification and the Believer's Identity in Christ, by Elliot
Miller. For further information or to subscribe to the Christian
Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
