Has the Body of Sin Been Removed?

Has the Body of Sin Been Removed?

This childish, thoughtless, frivolous, misleading, fateful doctrine that the body of sin has been removed after you have been set free and have been baptized with the Spirit has led many souls astray in the faith, and it has certainly also been the indirect cause of souls having gone astray even from the faith. For when it becomes evident that something you have defended does not hold water, it is easy for the person to fall in all kinds of temptations—either by seeking cover behind imaginations and dreams, by closing his eyes to the real truth about himself, or by giving up the whole race and surrendering to the power of his lusts.

We have more than enough examples of this—as a dire warning to everyone. I have personally been together with no less than four of the leading preachers in the so-called Pentecostal movement who in spite of their body of sin being removed, in spite of no sinful lusts remaining, fell in adultery and drunkenness—lusts of the flesh—even though they were married men. I have made an effort to correct one of them who stubbornly defended his position that he was completely sanctified before he fell, but I only met with the most determined refusal. When his adultery became known, he was excommunicated.

It would have been far better if one had “excommunicated” the doctrine that can lead people to fall rather than excommunicate the poor man who was led to fall because of the doctrine.

Those men who began to spread this foolish doctrine, and who have presumably long ago realized in their heart of hearts that it is wrong, still have to repudiate their mistake publicly.

In spite of what they have presumably heard and seen for many years, they have still not managed to humble themselves sufficiently, even though it is only an advantage to humble yourself.

Anyone can make an honest mistake in his ignorance. However, it is not honest to draw back from the humiliation that necessarily accompanies admitting one’s mistake and at the same time correcting it.

In these days there are presumably not many of the elders within the “free” assemblies—if there are any at all—who are willing to defend such a doctrine seriously?

They have also found the most insane expression imaginable: “removed.” Not only the expression itself, but also the connotation is completely wrong, making way for a false understanding.

Together with James, I want to ask the assemblies round about: “Where do wars and fights come from among you. Do they not come from your desires that war in your members?” Jas. 4:1. How could your desires war in the members if they were removed??? When everyone maintains his own opinions about the same thing, it is the perfect evidence that we have sin. Disagreement is simply a consequence of sin, and not that the body of sin has been removed!!! If one person takes another to court in order to fight for his rights, is that a fruit of the body of sin having been removed?

When you gladly receive gifts from poor brothers in order to increase your capital, is that a manifestation of the new creation, of divine nature? Perhaps it is a manifestation of brotherly love, or of righteousness, moderation, contentment, godly fear, and self-denial? Or is it mercy? Or perhaps it is supposed to be proof that you have perfect victory over everything that is called anxiety about your livelihood in the future?

When you water down the doctrine of Christ and the truth and flatter one another, seeking to please people, then this should presumably also be manifestations of the above-mentioned qualities?

When you admire the very talented person and pay little attention to the less talented one, someone who is not a good speaker, without a reputation in this world, I wonder if this is a manifestation of the new life in Christ Jesus or of the old stuff inherited from the fathers. I wonder if this proves that the body of sin has been removed or that it has not been removed.

When the “renowned” preachers drive to the tourist hotels between meetings and enjoy themselves with fresh air and a splendid view, feasting on salmon and steak, knowing that in the meantime poor and God-fearing souls who are even paying for their pleasure, are left sitting in the meeting hall where bad air and coffee are their pleasure, this is hardly a manifestation of the new nature? This is hardly a perfect way of following Him who left us an example—He who did not even have such earthly comfort and glory as a fox hole? This is not particularly convincing when it concerns the body of sin being removed!!!

Time and strength permitting, one could mention scores, even hundreds of widely varying examples that prove abundantly and unequivocally the futile folly of such a doctrine and claim.

But now comes the most amazing thing of all: Early and late, in season and out of season, people want to hear about grace and about the atoning blood; and rightly so for unspeakably many and good reasons. However, as soon as anything is mentioned about righteousness and truth, about wisdom and prudence, about godly fear, moderation and judgment—they cry out for grace.

This indicates very clearly that righteousness and truth, wisdom and prudence, the fear of God and moderation, together with judging yourself, are in a bad state. The body of sin is anything but removed! Or—if everything that has to do with sin in every sense of the word and in all degrees has vanished totally, what do you then want with grace?

It is simply ludicrous to speak to a righteous man about grace. It is the crown of all folly! Where sin is exceedingly sinful, there grace is correspondingly abundant. Where sin is less, grace is also less. Where there is no sin, there is of course no need for or mention of grace.

The concept of grace necessarily includes the concept of sin, while absolute righteousness excludes the need for grace.