# Jay Adams' view of the Flesh



## Hilasmos

Snap snot of Adam's view:



> The believer especially comes to grips with his remaining sin as he struggles with sin in his body. Writer after writer tries to avoid the all-too-obvious fact that in chapters 6-8 Paul spoke about the struggle he had with his body. They say that when Paul used the word body he referred to the part as standing for the whole. Similarly, the word flesh is made over into sinful nature …instead of flesh.... And often they ignore the plain and unmistakable words about sin in the bodily members (Adams, Jay: How to Help People Change, pp. 186).
> 
> When Paul speaks of the body as sinful, he does not conceive of the body as originally created by God as sinful (as if he were a Gnostic), but rather of the body plunged into sinful practices and habits as the result of Adams’ fall. There is no ultimate mind/body (flesh) dualism here, but the indwelling of the Spirit in a body habituated to do evil. This leads to an inner/outer struggle. This warfare increasingly is won by the Spirit, Who renews and activates the inner man, who helps the body to put off sinful patterns and to put on new biblical responses. Bodily members are to be yielded less and less to sin and more and more to God (Rom. 6:13, 16, 19). This is possible because Christ has given life not only to the believer’s soul (inner man), but also to his body (Rom. 7:24; 8:10, 11). (Adams, Jay: _A Theology of Christian Counseling_, pp.160)



Ed Welch’s Critique of Adams

Adams’ Response to Welch

After reading Adams’ _How to Help People Change _and _A Theology of Christian Counseling_, his views of flesh and sanctification stood out the most; and, to be quite honest, were crucially helpful in dealing with sin issues in my life. Yet, as Welch comments in his critique, Adam’s view of the flesh is virtually unprecedented. So, of course, I don’t really want to hold to a wrong view of the flesh – despite its apparent usability in my own situation. So…

*Question 1:* Does Adams’ view of the flesh really lack all precedent. Or, does it have any “postcedent,” in that some PB members affirm this view after reading Adams? 

For the sake of argument I began to read Romans 6-8 in light of Adam’s definition of flesh. Frankly, I see why he can make statements like it is “all-to-obvious” that this view of the flesh is right. I get it. Most talk of the “flesh” is often so ambiguous that after it is all done in said I am not any the clearer on what it actually is and is not; Adams’ view can actually make a lot of sense of flesh/spirit battle, but that is not a good criterion of truth no less. Romans 8 took on a new perspective for me. The emphasis on the “solution to Romans 7” as being the resurrection of the “mortal body” makes harmonious sense when the mortal body is the flesh, per Adams. If the problem of Romans 7 was the coexistence of the flesh with the “mind,” then why is the solution a physical resurrection?


7:24: Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 

8:11: If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus[d] from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. 

8:23-24 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.

8:29: For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. [conformed to the first born, i.e. first resurrected) 

Then I read Owen’s book on Mortification and Indwelling Sin, again very influential, and his views of the flesh contravene with Adams – and of course this isn’t minor, this is fundamental to discussions on sanctification. Ultimately Welch’s critique was unsatisfactory, in my opinion, as it maintains that Romans 7 is not talking about a new covenant believer (whether Paul or not) and that walking in the flesh just means living like a Judaizer. From what I gathered, the reason Welch lands on this type of view relates to him wanting to avoid the same thing Adams’ wants to avoid: believing in a duality of the soul. That is, the soul consists of a “sin nature” and a “new nature.” Or, to take Ezk. 36 literally, when God says he will give us a “heart of flesh,” it consists in removing the heart of stone. Adams wants to maintain that there is no duality in our heart; the heart of stone is removed not just added to (or set alongside our new heart). 

*Question 2*: For those that hold that the flesh is immaterial (at least in some aspects), do you also hold to a certain level of duality of nature within the soul itself? 

There is much I could say as it relates to Adams view of habituation and dehabituation and my own experience. Even if misplaced, it really helped me get over the notion that I am being hypocritical if I seek God even when I don’t feel like it. In the past my “not feeling like it” was equated to the “flesh.” And, likewise, the “flesh” is my nature, somehow related to my heart, therefore everything I did while not “feeling it” was doing it from a hypocritical heart, therefore it resulted in a sense of awkward theological passivity waiting for God to “change my heart” so I could obey from the heart. I attribute to Adams’ view of the flesh here as foundational to “getting over” that notion. 

I went on a diet the other month to drop about 15 pounds. As anyone who has dieted can relate, there were certain foods I was habituated on. The immaterial mind/soul, being in some sense one with the body, is no less subject to these habits and the neurological firing that occurs. Dieting (or fasting) can create very real immaterial “sins,” such as anger, frustration, etc… Although flawed, I think this is instructive on just how much our body can afflict the soul. To put some “flesh on the bones” this is how I view Adams talk of habits, and how we still sin from the “heart,” but the locus of the problem is that my brain and flesh craves the sin it has lived with so long. So, to conclude, the objection that there are “sins that could only be done by the heart,” while no less true, doesn’t seem to negate what Adams is getting at.

---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 PM ----------

And, here is a more extended quote of Adam's explaining his view from _How to Help People Change_, if you are interested in more context to the issue. 



> “We have seen that a believer is reckoned perfect in Christ. And it is abundantly clear both from Scripture and from experience (1 John 1:8, 10) that he is not perfect in daily life. We have also seen that all he is in Christ he is commanded to be also in daily living. Moreover, we are told that he is equipped with everything necessary to grow into the stature of Christ (Heb. 13:20-21).
> 
> But how can believer, who are “new creations” [2 Cor. 5:17] and have new hearts of flesh that replace the hearts of stone (Ezek. 36:26), yet sin? ...
> 
> The believer especially comes to grips with his remaining sin as he struggles with sin in his body. Writer after writer tries to avoid the all-too-obvious fact that in chapters 6-8 Paul spoke about the struggle he had with his body. They say that when Paul used the word body he referred to the part as standing for the whole. Similarly, the word flesh is made over into sinful nature …instead of flesh.... And often they ignore the plain and unmistakable words about sin in the bodily members. Speaking about the same experience we all know, Paul was describing a body that often acts contrary to one’s mind. Failure to recognize that has kept counselors from helping many people with what is a universal problem.
> 
> “But,” you may wonder, “if Paul is speaking about the body, doesn’t that involve Christianity in the errors of Greek mind-body dualism?” Not at all. The body is never considered sinful in itself in the Scriptures as it was in Greek philosophy, which called it the prison house of the soul. The body, and not something else, is to take the words at their face value. Paul was not speaking of the body as sinful in itself. But the body is the locus of a problem.
> Before Paul became a Christian, he habituated his body to sinful patterns of living by yielding its members to sin, which led to more sin, and taught the body (including the brain) the very sinful responses he later came to deplore (to return evil for evil, for instance). Because he indulged the body’s desires in various sinful ways, it became habituated to them so that after conversion it was inclined to do what it had always done before. Paul was reaping the fruit of what he had sown in his body. It had been organized against what he as a Christian wanted to do. He was struggling against his own programming (both his conscious sin and others into which he drifted, as do all sinners).
> 
> But the great truth is that the Holy Spirit has come to repattern and remold that body as well as the soul. It is an important though neglected truth that the body is being sanctified, as well as the soul (see I Thess. 5:23; 1 Cor. 6:20). And it is most instructive to learn that the members of the body can be yielded to Righteousness, the new master to whom the redeeming belong.
> 
> So this struggle of Paul in Romans 7 does not always end in defeat; victory over bodily temptation and rebellion is always possible. That is what we are being told throughout. The wonderful fact is that the habituation of the brain and the rest of the body which it controls can be changed now that there is a new impulse in the soul and there is life for understanding, believing, and desiring what God’s Word requires. Romans 8 tells that happier story.
> To walk in the flesh is to walk in the old ways (the old man = the old lifestyle). This body is so organized by sinful patterning that it is like carrying around a weight, dead to the things of God. That is why Paul called it a “body of death” (7:24). Moreover, he repeated this in Romans 8:10, where he said that the body is dead (spiritually) because of sin. But, as Calvin rightly teaches, concerning verse 11, Paul rejoiced that the Spirit of God gives life to those “mortal bodies” as well:
> 
> We hence conclude, that he speaks not of the last resurrection, which shall be in a moment, but of the continued working of the Spirit.
> 
> That is why Paul continued, writing in verse 13, “But if by the Spirit you put to death your bodily practices, you will live.” Thus, the new heart in man, enlightened and strengthened by the Holy Spirit, who dwells within, is in the process of changing and remaking the whole man – including this body, which so stubbornly reacts against what we want to do. There is great hope for change, then, because there is hope even for the change of the habituated body. Though at times it seems a body of death, that death itself can be put to death so that the body begins to live for and serve Righteousness. This happens as one yields his members to Righteousness. (Adams, Jay: How to Help People Change, pp. 186-189)


----------



## MW

Hilasmos said:


> *Question 1:* Does Adams’ view of the flesh really lack all precedent.



There certainly are precedents. I would recommend John Owen on the Mortification of Sin. He presents the typical Reformed and Puritan view of sanctification and anthropology. Here is but one example:



> The body in the close of the verse is the same with the flesh in the beginning: “If ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye ... mortify the deeds of the body,” — that is, of the flesh. It is that which the apostle hath all along discoursed of under the name of the flesh; which is evident from the prosecution of the antithesis between the Spirit and the flesh, before and after. The body, then, here is taken for *that corruption and depravity of our natures whereof the body*, *in a great part*, *is the seat and instrument*, *the very members of the body being made servants unto unrighteousness thereby*, Romans 6:19. It is indwelling sin, the corrupted flesh or lust, that is intended. Many reasons might be given of this metonymical expression, that I shall not now insist on. The “body” here is the same with ... the “old man,” and the “body of sin,” Romans 6:6; or it may synecdochically express the whole person considered as corrupted, and the seat of lusts and distempered affections.



The spiritual quality of the "flesh" is taught because sin is fundamentally a matter of separation from God; yet it is still recognised that the use of the terms "flesh" and "body" are indicative of the power of sin because man's separation from God and rebellion against God is the result of an alliance with the world that lies in wickedness.


----------



## Eoghan

I think the reference may be to "contemporary precedent". On the puritan board we think nothing of looking back some 250 years. I vividly recall one church historian saying particular baptists were extinct. While this may have been true of the circles he moved in I was there to confound his statement.

Context is important and having just bought one of Welch's books I would like to know more...

...oops - found the links to Welch and Jay Adams


----------



## MW

Eoghan said:


> I think the reference may be to "contemporary precedent".



I may have misunderstood the question. My apologies.


----------



## Hilasmos

armourbearer said:


> There certainly are precedents. I would recommend John Owen on the Mortification of Sin. He presents the typical Reformed and Puritan view of sanctification and anthropology. Here is but one example:
> 
> The body in the close of the verse is the same with the flesh in the beginning: “If ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye ... mortify the deeds of the body,” — that is, of the flesh. It is that which the apostle hath all along discoursed of under the name of the flesh; which is evident from the prosecution of the antithesis between the Spirit and the flesh, before and after. The body, then, here is taken for that corruption and depravity of our natures whereof the body, in a great part, is the seat and instrument, the very members of the body being made servants unto unrighteousness thereby, Romans 6:19. It is indwelling sin, the corrupted flesh or lust, that is intended. Many reasons might be given of this metonymical expression, that I shall not now insist on. The “body” here is the same with ... the “old man,” and the “body of sin,” Romans 6:6; or it may synecdochically express the whole person considered as corrupted, and the seat of lusts and distempered affections.



Thank you for posting this, I do remember the "body" being equated to it in mortification, but I thought he made some other comments about it relating to the "mind" as well. What do you think of these quotes from _Indwelling Sin_



> It always abides in the soul—it is never absent. The apostle twice uses
> that expression, “It dwells in me.” There is its constant residence and habitation.
> If it came upon the soul only at certain seasons, much obedience might
> be perfectly accomplished in its absence; yea, and as they deal with usurping8
> tyrants, whom they intend to thrust out of a city, the gates might be sometimes
> shut against it, that it might not return—the soul might fortify itself
> against it. But the soul is its home; there it dwells, and is no wanderer.
> Wherever you are, whatever you are about, this law of sin is always in you;
> in the best that you do, and in the worst.





> Hence, all the actings of this law of sin are called “the lusts of the flesh”:
> “You shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16); “Make no provision for
> the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof” (Rom. 13:14). Nor are these lusts of the
> flesh those only whereby men act [out] their sensuality in riot, drunkenness,
> uncleanness, and the like; but they comprehend all the actings of the law of
> sin whatsoever, in all the faculties and affections of the soul. *Thus we have
> mention of the desires, or wills, or “lusts of the mind,” as well as of the “flesh”
> (Eph. 2:3). The mind, the most spiritual part of the soul, has its lusts, no less
> than the sensual appetite, which seems sometimes more properly to be called
> the “flesh.” *And in the products of these lusts there are “defilements of the
> spirit” as well as of the “flesh” (2 Cor. 7:1)—that is, of the mind and understanding,
> as well [as] of the appetite and affections, and the body that attends
> their service.



Edit: I am not sure if he is still making a distinction between flesh as the body or flesh as the body and sometimes mind.


----------



## MW

Hilasmos said:


> Edit: I am not sure if he is still making a distinction between flesh as the body or flesh as the body and sometimes mind.



I'm working mostly from memory but I can distinctly recall Owen making a difference between the lusts of the flesh and of the mind. The previous quotation from Mortification of Sin concerning the seat of sin in the body is conclusive for me. Again, I'm working from memory but I'm fairly sure he expresses that thought a few times in the book. And this would not be unique to him. This tends to be the usual way of explaining the references to "flesh" and "body" in Puritan literature. It is referring to a moral rather than a physical entity, and something which pervades man's nature, but its seat of power is in the body.


----------



## Hilasmos

Thank you


----------



## Scott1

Can someone explain in one sentence the difference here between the two views (if indeed there are two)?


----------



## Hilasmos

Excluding Owen's input (as I am still not sure how all the passages above reconcile with Adams), Adams says that the term _sarx_ in Romans 6-8 references the physical body (including the brain) and not an immaterial sin-nature.


----------



## Scott1

Hilasmos said:


> Excluding Owen's input (as I am still not sure how all the passages above reconcile with Adams), Adams says that the term _sarx_ in Romans 6-8 references the physical body (including the brain) and not an immaterial sin-nature.



Not including the will and emotions?


----------



## Hilasmos

Scott1 said:


> Not including the will and emotions?



Right, not including the will, as it is a property of the immaterial "new heart of flesh." According to Adams, emotions are bodily states.


----------



## Scott1

Hmmm....
I have great respect for both men and both on cursory reading seem right.

Every aspect of man's being- mind, will, emotions, body is affected by the Fall; the Holy Spirit in the believers gives a new nature yet a remnant of the fall remains in man's faculties (all of them), gradually, though not perfectly in this life, being overcome as God's grace works in that person to will and do His perfect will, conforming him to the image of His Son.

Not sure how this fits into these views.


----------



## moral necessity

I haven't read all of this yet, and therefore can't endorse it, but it seems to pertain to the subject at hand, and I thought you might want to glean over it, as I am not able to right now.

Blessings!


The Great Enemy Within

Here's an excerpt from it:

"...A view that is far better than those discussed above yet not totally biblical is the idea that flesh represents habitual sin patterns acquired through years of sinful behavior. This view says that flesh refers to the human body of a Christian that has been habituated to do evil. This view appears to be that of Christian counselor Jay. E. Adams. He writes:

Unfortunately, the translators of the NIV had a proclivity for settling exegetical questions in their translations, thereby becoming interpreters rather than translators. Among the most serious blunders resulting from this practice was the decision to translate the Greek word sarx ("flesh") by the theologically prejudicial phrase, "sinful nature." This is unfortunate, I say, because this obvious interpretive bias is wrong. The specialized use of the word flesh refers neither to man's sinful nature (i.e., the corrupt nature with which he was born) nor to the sinful self (or personality) that he developed (as some others think), but the sinful body (as Paul calls it in Rom. 6:6). When Paul speaks of the body as sinful, he does not conceive of the body as originally created by God as sinful (as if he were a Gnostic), but rather of the body plunged into sinful practices and habits as result of Adam's fall. There is no ultimate mind/body (flesh) dualism here, but only a tension in believers occasioned by the regeneration of the inner man and the indwelling of the Spirit in a body habituated to do evil. This leads to an inner/outer struggle. This activates the inner man, who helps the body to put off sinful patterns and to put on new biblical responses. Bodily members are to be yielded less and less to sin and more and more to God (Rom. 6:13, 16, 19).[12] 

Although Jay E. Adams= contribution to Biblical counseling has been unsurpassed, his view of the flesh does have its problems. Adams wants to avoid an "ultimate mind/body dualism" which is commendable; but, what does he mean when he speaks of the inner man being regenerated and having to deal with a body habituated with sin? Does this mean that man's soul or spirit is renewed and then must deal with a sinful body (flesh)? Apparently Adams has taken an interpretation of body (soma) from Romans 6:6 and used it to interpret the term flesh (sarx) in other sections of Scripture. 

Although it is true that Christians must struggle against habitual sin patterns Adams= understanding of the term flesh is too narrow. Adams= interpretation of "the body of sin" in Romans 6:6 is also probably too restrictive. Charles Hodge writes:

1. Some say it means the sinful body, that is, the body which is the seat and source of sin. But it is not the doctrine of the Bible, that sin has its source in matter; it is spiritual in its nature and origin. The body is not its source, but its instrument and slave. Moreover, the design of Christ's death is never said to be to destroy the body. 2. Others say that soma means the physical body, not as the source, but as the appurtenance of sin, as belonging to it, and ruled by it. But this is subject in part to the same objection.[13] 

As Cranfield observes, "Others have taken the phrase to mean the body i.e., the material physical body, as controlled by sin. But this is too narrow an interpretation in view of other passages where soma is used and of Paul's understanding of man generally. The phrase denotes rather the whole man as controlled by sinY"[14] James Fraser concurs, "Plainly, as the expression in the preceding clause, the old man is figurative, so is this other, the body of sin, and doth not mean the human body, but that whole system of corrupt principles, propensities, lusts, and passions, which have since the fall possessed man's nature, and is coextended and commensurate to all the human powers and faculties."[15]



Jay E. Adams= understanding of the flesh is a departure from the classical Reformed understanding of the term. The Bible teaches that all sinful lusts, affections, passions and appetites have their seat and root in the human hart. This obviously includes the soul or spirit of man. There is no question that the sinful body with its evil habits and appetites has an influence over the mind but is it not the mind which instructs the body to sin? And are there not many sins that have nothing to do with the body such as pride, hatred, malice, envy and deceit? When the apostle Paul lists the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21 does he not list a number of sins that have little to do with the body such as: "hatred, contentions, jealousies...dissentions, heresies, and envy"? Hormones in the body may strengthen hatred but they do not cause it. That occurs in the mind. Paul writing to Christians recognizes that both the flesh (i.e. the physical body) and the spirit are polluted. "Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor. 7:1b). Furthermore, if sinful habits had their root solely in the body would not the souls of men cast into hell be more pure than believers= souls on earth? The souls of the wicked are completely separated from their evil bodies at death yet in hell their evil lusts, hatreds and so forth remain. It is true that Christians must struggle against sinful habits which become second nature to the body. But, the corruption that believers must deal with is much more extensive than habitual sin patterns or bodily appetites. Corruption still remains in the hearts of believers. If this was not true one could expect to encounter sinless Christians. John wrote, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, ad the truth is not in us" (1 Jn. 1: 8)..."


----------



## Hilasmos

Scott1 said:


> Hmmm....
> I have great respect for both men and both on cursory reading seem right.
> Every aspect of man's being- mind, will, emotions, body is affected by the Fall; the Holy Spirit in the believers gives a new nature yet a remnant of the fall remains in man's faculties (all of them), gradually, though not perfectly in this life, being overcome as God's grace works in that person to will and do His perfect will, conforming him to the image of His Son.
> Not sure how this fits into these views.



I have great respect as well, I have been counseled through his books and they have helped tremendously. As far as fitting into his view, I believe that after regeneration (and we have a new heart) we are like Paul who affirms that with the body we serve the law of sin and with the mind the law of God. With Adams, I struggle to see how a new heart doesn't mean a new heart (not just a heart of stone with a heart of flesh added to it). Yet, because this new heart still exists as a duplexity with the body, and the body afflicts and influences the soul tremendously, we end up with the type of inner conflict described in Romans 7. Great sins can flow from the heart as it is intoxicated by sin within the flesh.

---------- Post added at 09:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------

Thank you Charles, good example of the anti Adams view I was expecting when I originally posted. 

From the last paragraph:



> Corruption still remains in the hearts of believers.



This is one of the issues I am struggling with, and what Adams and Welch wanted to avoid -- some kind of duality in the nature of the heart. I would suggest that there is a difference between the heart acting corruptly and the heart being partially corrupted itself. Likewise, after outlining our great struggles with sin and the flesh, the solution provided in Romans 8 is not a 2nd regeneration of the spirit (to remove that residue of sin), but for the Spirit to also give life to our mortal bodies.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

It seems to me, the issues are "how much change overall has been achieved in regeneration?" and "what is the quality of the change?"

If there is a new principle of "life" at the very deepest point, which is working its way "outward," enlivened by the outside-source of Holy Spirit's presence brought inside, then the answer to the second question is absolute quality. This does not mean that we have to imagine that there is a "minimum" or "maximum" *heart* that has experienced the transformation. The transformation _IS_ the _HEART_ changed.

The answer to the first question follows, that "sufficient" change has been achieved in the initial work of salvation, that we can say a _definitive_ work has been accomplished, an "irreversible" change which is thoroughly penetrated by the life-giving Spirit. No remaining corruption or death can work its way "upstream" to the new Spirit-fed font at the heart.

So then, what remains to be transformed is that which is "outlying" from the center, and nothing at all rivals "the Meat" (Flesh) of who we are as that description. It makes sense to largely (though surely not one-for-one) correlate "Body" (soma) with flesh. The body/flesh is exactly that outer, this-worldly presentation of ourselves--the part that is both visible and still subject to corruption. Obviously, the two words/thoughts present different aspects, however, Paul does speak of "the body of this death" that he desires deliverance from. But still, we are to "glorify God in our bodies," and present those bodies as "living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God," our reasonable service. "Flesh" on the other hand implies "sin" far more often than not (if ever).

It is outward vs. inward. But also dead vs. alive. The sin in the outward man is driven by its impulses and habits, and not by a "spirit" of mine anymore. It has "the old mind" or "a mind of its own" but that mind is zombie-like. Not that "I" can escape responsibility for MY SINS. It is still my old desires and habits that move me, that give me temporary pleasure. But (as Paul puts it) I cannot delight (really) in that stuff anymore. The "real" me hates that dead stuff still hanging around.

Sin "resides" where the Spirit's work has not expelled it. This transformation _of the flesh_ does not go "part-by-part," as if we could identify bits of our physical selves as having been sanctified, versus other bits that are not (right eye vs. left eye? please...). The work is more akin to the power of chemotherapy (to stick with physical analogies), a thorough-work, but one that goes after the whole invasive corruption. Of course, this is a *spiritual* work, and not a physical one; it just so happens that our spirits do not "reside" in a corner of our brain, or some other physical organ, but occupy "the body." So, the spirit-transformation eventually cannot even abide in a "mortal body" that was corrupted by sin. That too must be "transformed," either at Resurrection or "in the twinkling of an eye," so that the new-spirit will have an appropriate vehicle

Holy Spirit's work in this life goes more slowly than our life passes. No one ends up fully sanctified in this life. And who would want to stay here anyway, once his spirit was renewed as much as it could be--and was held down by the body of death? In this sense, death really is that inevitable sloughing off of that carcass. None of us get to that point--probably not even close to the point--where this body is just holding us down. Long before then, we are set free historically, and are prepared for the new body by leaving the old one behind. In heaven, are only the "spirits of just men made perfect."



I don't pretend to have done the analysis of Adams vs. anti-Adams or non-Adams. I think he has a tremendous amount of good insight, and historically consistent (in the main) with Puritanism. No doubt, he can be improved upon. He'd probably be the first to admit it. He's wrong about some things (he's non-Sabbatarian!). It strikes me that he is (or can be read as) too simplistic on some of his points. But he should be allowed his rightful place within the Reformed/Puritan tradition.


----------



## JBaldwin

How does Adam's view differ from Gnosticism?


----------



## Hilasmos

Thank you Rev. Bruce. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> It is outward vs. inward. But also dead vs. alive. The sin in the outward man is driven by its impulses and habits, and not by a "spirit" of mine anymore. It has "the old mind" or "a mind of its own" but that mind is zombie-like.



It is this concept that I have personally found Adams' view most helpful with. I equated my sin struggles with an immature heart that needed more "growth." That is, I found myself thinking that sin in my heart was afflicting the impulses of my body, rather than the impulses of a habituated body/flesh afflicting my spirit. If the problem is still sourced deep within the new heart, and only God can change the heart, I was left with a sense of passivity waiting on God to change me. Any attempt to resist these sinful impulses would be hypocritical and "performance based," since it would be an honoring of God with my lips and not my heart -- supposedly just as bad or worse as not resisting sin to begin with. It seems to me that sanctification is always approached, in non Adams circles, as needing to deal with the "heart." For whatever that does or does not mean, for me the phrase leaves me with the concept that it is pharisaical to focus on bad habits unless the heart is in it first. Which leads to the question, for a regnerate person is their heart ever "not in it?" Not sure if that makes sense or if it is off base.

---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 AM ----------




JBaldwin said:


> How does Adam's view differ from Gnosticism?



Because the body itself is not inherently evil. It is the body molded by sin, which becomes flesh, that poses the problem. The solution, moreover, is not the eradication or escaping the body, but the eradication of the flesh (the body habituated with sin), through a "ressurrection" dehabituating process. Putting off the habits and putting on the new. He points to Calvin and Romans 8:11 meaning that the ressurection starts in this life now and will be consumated at the final ressurection.

Likewise, Romans 6:19...so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. Our very sanctification is a habituating of the body towards righteousness, not a doing away with it.


----------



## moral necessity

Hilasmos said:


> It is this concept that I have personally found Adams' view most helpful with. I equated my sin struggles with an immature heart that needed more "growth." That is, I found myself thinking that sin in my heart was afflicting the impulses of my body, rather than the impulses of a habituated body/flesh afflicting my spirit. If the problem is still sourced deep within the new heart, and only God can change the heart, I was left with a sense of passivity waiting on God to change me. Any attempt to resist these sinful impulses would be hypocritical and "performance based," since it would be an honoring of God with my lips and not my heart -- supposedly just as bad or worse as not resisting sin to begin with. It seems to me that sanctification is always approached, in non Adams circles, as needing to deal with the "heart." For whatever that does or does not mean, for me the phrase leaves me with the concept that it is pharisaical to focus on bad habits unless the heart is in it first. Which leads to the question, for a regnerate person is their heart ever "not in it?" Not sure if that makes sense or if it is off base.



But, I don't think your dillemna is entirely resolved yet, because, scripture says that we must still "clease ourselves from every defilement of flesh and spirit." Hence, the heart and all of our faculties are still impaired by sin. It being so does not make your actions hypocritical, just imperfect and tarnished. If your conscience argues that you are being hypocritical, just correct it by saying it is being hypocritical just as equally in the other direction. You sin, but your heart is not entirely in that direction, and you are hypocritically sinning. You are really a child of God being hypocritical in the other direction. 

Adams' approach seems to make you have to convince yourself that you really don't still desire sin with your heart and your affections any more, when you really do. And, it tends to limit sin to external, bodily behaviors, rather than the promptings within your heart towards such behaviors. And it doesn't really address the external, bodily sins of omission, let alone the lack of promptings in our hearts towards such good behaviors. It leaves out concupiscence, as well as the lack of desire towards the ways of God. If our hearts are entirely restored, they we must not need the command any more to love God with all of our hearts, soul, mind, and strength. Only "strength" would perhaps be lacking because it is might be bodily. It seems much easier to describe our inner workings like a faucet that now runs a mixture of hot and cold water simultaneously, whereas before it only ran cold. I don't love God with all of my heart, but I do love him with an impaired heart, whereas before I couldn't even say that. It's not duality, but impairedness and limping. We are regenerated (brought back to life), but we are still very much ill throughout. I find it hard to deny this if we honestly evaluate the motives and impulses of our hearts according to the measure of perfection. We obey little because we love little. Yet, we obey little. Hence, our obedience is imperfect.

Blessings!


----------



## Hilasmos

moral necessity said:


> Adams' approach seems to make you have to convince yourself that you really don't still desire sin with your heart and your affections any more, when you really do.



Well, I think the distinction Adams would make is that you still do desire sin with your heart, but it is because your heart is still joined to your flesh in a very intimate way. These "affections", in this world, are unintellibile oustide of their relation to the physical. 



moral necessity said:


> And, it tends to limit sin to external, bodily behaviors, rather than the promptings within your heart towards such behaviors.



I know what you mean, but at the same time (in this world) I cannot even imagine a prompting of the heart that is distinct from its connection, and independent of, my flesh (or brain). All promptings of the heart are promptings of the soul, that is, the immaterial and material in duplex relation. Can the mind form a thought without interacting with the brain (in this world)? 



moral necessity said:


> But, I don't think your dillemna is entirely resolved yet, because, scripture says that we must still "clease ourselves from every defilement of flesh and spirit." Hence, the heart and all of our faculties are still impaired by sin.



Yea, I agree, but saying that the heart is impaired (or does corrupt things) is not the same as saying the substance of a regenerate heart, viewed distinct from the body, is the seat of sin. The problem is that we cannot view ourselves as distinct substances, what is true of the body becomes true of the soul, and vice versa.


----------



## moral necessity

Granted that our bodies become conditioned to perform sinful behavior. But, how would we explain the continual sin of angels and of Satan who have no body, and are only spirit creatures?


----------



## Hilasmos

moral necessity said:


> How then would we explain the continual sin of angels and of Satan who have no body, and are only spirit creatures?



Are these demons regenerated spirits? Adams makes a distinction between the two. While in our unregenerate state our hearts were under the dominionion of sin. And, while living in this state, we habituate our bodies and brains into sinful patterns. Adams never suggests that unregenerate hearts do not sin; in fact sin flows from it, it is all the unregenerate heart can do (it is desperately wicked, from the heart flows XYX...), and it is the very reason our bodies are so messed up now. 

Following this, he takes heart circumcision more literal than most. After regeneration we have a new heart, we have the "mind of Christ." There is no duality in it, a little bit of spritual life mixed with death in the same spirit. Yet, this same mind of Christ still exists as a soul in union and dependent on a physical body that has not been redeemed yet. It leads to statements like "with my mind I serve the law of God but with my body the law of sin; who will deliver me from this body of death?" The use of "mind" in Romans 7 loses its contrasting force with body/flesh if mind itself is still a property of flesh. That's how I am understanding him at least.


----------



## moral necessity

I understand what you are saying. I just differ in opinion. I thought the verse regarding the need to still be cleansed from every defilement of flesh and spirit would be persuasive. Regeneration and a new heart does not mandate the entirety of it as being instantaneous, just new in that it is defferent from the old. Adams differs much from Calvin and others on this, I would figure.

Have to go for now...

Blessings!


----------



## Hilasmos

moral necessity said:


> I understand what you are saying. I just differ in opinion. I thought the verse regarding the need to still be cleansed from every defilement of flesh and spirit would be persuasive. Regeneration and a new heart does not mandate the entirety of it as being instantaneous, just new in that it is defferent from the old. Adams differs much from Calvin and others on this, I would figure.
> 
> Have to go for now...
> 
> Blessings!



Right, I hear you. I am positing how I understand Adams for the purpose of discussion. The reason I created this thread was to first see if Adams is just way out in left field according to most on this thread; and if not, what do verses like 2 Cor. 7:1 mean and/or what does it mean to "renew the mind" in Rom. 12 etc., because quite frankly I am uncertain. Nonetheless, to the issues...


2 Cor. 7:1. What does cleanse yourself mean and how does Paul expect them to do it? The prior context on which this verse seems to rest, from chapter 6:



> "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers...
> 
> What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,



It would seem, then, that the defilements are the external associations with unclean things that defile our body and spirit. Thus, the defilement is not really speaking to a sinful quality of the spirit's nature, still existing after regeneration, but rather the association of the temple of God with external unclean things -- stay away from these unclean things, cleanse yourselves.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

moral necessity said:


> If our hearts are entirely restored, they we must not need the command any more to love God with all of our hearts, soul, mind, and strength. Only "strength" would perhaps be lacking because it is might be bodily. It seems much easier to describe our inner workings like a faucet that now runs a mixture of hot and cold water simultaneously, whereas before it only ran cold. I don't love God with all of my heart, but I do love him with an impaired heart, whereas before I couldn't even say that. It's not duality, but impairedness and limping. We are regenerated (brought back to life), but we are still very much ill throughout. I find it hard to deny this if we honestly evaluate the motives and impulses of our hearts according to the measure of perfection. We obey little because we love little. Yet, we obey little. Hence, our obedience is imperfect.



It was my intent (above) to offer a kind-of solution to this very ordinary and real-world observation. I think the mistake is to think of the WHOLE inner man as "the heart" of man. The heart is a synecdoche for the whole spiritual inward-part (as the organ may be in the case of the physical body), and the vital core of it. This is what I meant when I wrote of that part that IS regenerated as being THE heart.

Is the "living principle" of the _regenerated_ heart native or alien? It surely is alien, even the Holy Spirit. And where he has taken up residence and hold, it goes without saying that sin cannot also be present at that point of entry. Jesus used this imagery of the "font" or "spring" of the heart out of which flow rivers of living water, Jn.7:37-39, and he explicitly ties this reality to the indwelling of Holy Spirit. So the Spirit is the _locus_ where "spiritual-chemo" is inflowing.

We can speak of the expanding effects of the Spirit's work as "enlarging the heart." But we can also acknowledge that in another sense, the WHOLE inner man can be seen as "the remainder" of the heart that is undergoing regeneration. Thus, we can surely speak properly of the reality of our *divided* heart. But in the deepest sense, there is no division where the source of regeneration has entered, and is pouring forth an unstoppable stream of sin-killing life-serum.


----------



## MW

I've had an opportunity to read both articles and I must retract what I said about the precedents of Dr. Adams' view. I think Dr. Adams is reflecting the reformed understanding to the extent that he sees man as having one nature. Dr. Welch's "two nature" reply is indefensible. There is only one mind, one will, etc. The individual person has only one human nature. To this extent Dr. Adams reflects reformed anthropology. His concern with the "locality" of sin in the physical body, however, cannot be sustained. This is quite different from what Owen and the Puritans would teach with respect to regeneration and indwelling sin. They viewed this as being "throughout," in the whole man. In contrast, Dr. Adams is teaching a spirit-body dualism with regards to the locality of sin. His preoccupation with sinful behaviour and "habits" is perhaps driving his exegesis and theology, which is not helpful.


----------



## JBaldwin

armourbearer said:


> I've had an opportunity to read both articles and I must retract what I said about the precedents of Dr. Adams' view. I think Dr. Adams is reflecting the reformed understanding to the extent that he sees man as having one nature. Dr. Welch's "two nature" reply is indefensible. There is only one mind, one will, etc. The individual person has only one human nature. To this extent Dr. Adams reflects reformed anthropology. His concern with the "locality" of sin in the physical body, however, cannot be sustained. This is quite different from what Owen and the Puritans would teach with respect to regeneration and indwelling sin. They viewed this as being "throughout," in the whole man. In contrast, Dr. Adams is teaching a spirit-body dualism with regards to the locality of sin. His preoccupation with sinful behaviour and "habits" is perhaps driving his exegesis and theology, which is not helpful.



This is why I ask "what is the difference between what he is teaching and Gnosticism?

---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------

By the way, I ask this because I've heard some folks in my circles accuse of Adams of having gnostic leanings when it comes to his view on this.


----------



## MW

JBaldwin said:


> This is why I ask "what is the difference between what he is teaching and Gnosticism?



He starts with the assumption that Gnosticism is false and the body was created good. This assumption gives rise to the question as to how the body comes to be enslaved by sin and leads to his distinctive answer. If anything, his position is one of overt anti-Gnosticism.


----------

