Even after justification, one can live either according to the flesh or according to the Spirit. Although God changed the operating system, you still have functional control over your life. Even though you now are in-Christ, a new man, your heart remains active either for or against God. Therefore, we must actively put to death the flesh.

Today in our second post related to putting to death the flesh, we look at eight steps to help you mortify the flesh. Earlier this week in posts, we have already discussed from Romans 8 both the incredible comfort of God’s grace and the call of God’s grace. In part one of this post, we answered the question, “What is the flesh?” Remember, as sinners who are in Christ, we no longer have any condemnation; instead, we have been adopted into God’s family, become a joint-heir with Jesus, and can call God “Daddy.” However, we recognize that although we are accepted into God’s family as we are, God still has an agenda by grace to grow us more into Christ, the process we call sanctification. To do this with the greatest proficiency and effectively as possible, the Apostle Paul tells us to mortify or put to death the flesh. Today, we answer the question, “How do you put to death the flesh?” with eight steps to mortify or put to death the flesh.
How Do You Put to Death the Flesh?
Understanding the difficulty of living consistent with our in-Christ, new man, righteous inner man which is clothed in true righteousness and holiness, Paul explained that we must seek to put to death the deeds of the flesh. As we discussed yesterday, although the power of the flesh is broken, the presence of sin remains. Sadly, even after justification, one can live either according to the flesh or according to the Spirit. Although God changed the operating system, you still have functional control over your life. Even though you now are in-Christ new man, your heart remains active either for or against God. Therefore, we must actively put to death the flesh.
Understanding the Battle
Paul describes the battle between the flesh and the Spirit in Galatians 5.
I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:16-21)
And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Gal 5:24)
Paul describes it as a battle. The Spirit leads you toward righteousness but your own fleshly desires and passions fight against that leading. For this reason, back in Romans, Paul instructs:
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts. (Rom 13:14)
In a similar way to Galatians, he essentially highlights the battle between the Spirit and the flesh. Here, he refers to it as putting on Christ, which simply means to live consistent with your in-Christ, new man, righteous inner man. But, this is only part of the battle. In reference to the flesh, he admonishes us to starve it out or make no provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts. Or, to put to death the flesh
Read More

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Monday, May 9, 2022
But the Finnish military members of 1939-40 have not been the only ones to exhibit exemplary valor in the Scandinavian “land of forests.” In a moral sense, in recent years up to the present day the high courage of two Finnish Christians – Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola and Member of Parliament Dr. Päivi Räsänen – has been the equal of their forebears in the Winter War. The two have been charged with hate crimes for teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.

At the end of November 1939, during a period many Europeans and Americans considered a “phoney war” after the invading, dividing, and absorbing of Poland in September 1939 by Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, the U.S.S.R. attacked its small northern neighbor, Finland. The hardy Finns had enjoyed independence for barely two decades, having been under Russian sovereignty for a century until the 1917 Russian Revolution which gave them the chance to secure their liberty, by force of arms, in 1918. On the surface, the fight in the winter of 1939-40 appeared more uneven than today’s Russo-Ukrainian war, with results equally inspiring to those pulling for the smaller nation.
In 1939, the Soviet Union held more than 100 million subjects; Finland’s population was 4 million. The Soviets had about 3,000 tanks at the outset (the war cost them 1,600); most Finnish soldiers – mostly citizen-soldiers – had never seen a tank. The Soviet air force had some 2,500 aircraft (nearly 1,000 were lost); the Finnish Air Force had not quite 100 machines at the outset, but acquired dozens more from friendly powers during the war, losing about 60 total. Stalin preferred to have a legal pretext for his planned invasion – and following Hitler’s example in Poland – manufactured a border incident intended to depict the Finns as the aggressors. Never mind that the only firing of guns came from the eastern side of the border. Diplomatic initiatives leading up to the unprovoked attack had, unfortunately, dampened the Finns’ preparations for war. When the attack came, a new government was formed immediately, one clearly committed to the nation’s defense.[1]
Ten days after the Soviet attack, foreign minister Molotov – his name soon linked with a homemade, anti-tank explosive later known as the Molotov Cocktail (quite popular in Ukraine nowadays) – claimed in a telegram, with breathtaking dishonesty:
The Soviet Union is not at war with Finland, nor does it threaten the people of Finland with war. . . . The Soviet Union maintains peaceful relations with the Finnish Democratic Republic, whose government on December 2nd concluded with the Soviet Union a treaty of friendship and mutual assistance. This treaty settles all the questions with regard to which the Soviet government had negotiated fruitlessly with the representatives of the former government of Finland, now ejected from office.[2]
If readers are somewhat confused by the treaty of friendship reference, think Donetsk or Luhansk today.
Perhaps the most brazen portion of Molotov’s missive, however, was his reference to Finland’s government being “ejected from office.” As the saying goes, neither Finnish Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, nor his soldiers, got that memo. Although Mannerheim fought against Russians, first in 1918 and again in 1939-40, he had served thirty years as an officer under Tsarist Russia, including participating in the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II in 1896, of which he remained proud all his life.
Under Mannerheim’s leadership in 1939, following the initial shock of seeing tanks in battle for the first time in addition to overwhelming numbers of enemy troops, the Finns fought like tigers, helped by their familiarity with the forests in which many of them worked as loggers and trappers; and their native skills with firearms, severely cold weather, and skiing. In addition, the Finns had the incalculable moral advantage of defending their homeland. Molotov’s communication was revealing, too, in that it presumed the “former government” had fallen – a faulty prediction echoed by a Russian news announcement in late February 2022.[3]
The telegram further illustrated what the noted 20th-century British military historian, Major-General J.F.C. Fuller, wrote concerning the Marxist use of language:
A fundamental principle in Marxian dialectics is verbal inversion. When the accepted meaning of a word or an idea is turned upside down, not only are Communist intentions obscured [to the unsuspecting], but the mind of the non-Communist is misled, and mental confusion leads to a semantic nightmare in which things appear to be firmly planted on their feet, but actually are standing on their heads.
. . . Disarmament to one means one thing, to the other another thing; so also does peace. While to the non-Communist peace is a state of international harmony, to the Communist it is a state of international discord. . . . Communists hold that peace and war are reciprocal terms for a conflict which can only end when the Marxian Beatitude is established; since their final aim is pacific, they are peace lovers.[4]
Thus could Molotov claim unblinkingly that the invading Soviets were not “at war” with Finland, rather, they maintained “peaceful relations” with their neighbor’s government; similar to Russian denials of being at war today. Even closer to home for Americans, however, Fuller’s warning brings to mind the “verbal inversion” and “semantic nightmare” of terms like “systemic racism” that characterizes the madness of neo-Marxist, so-called Critical Race Theory (CRT) – a juvenile, secular religion, not a theory – and its fraudulent, destructive offshoot, Diversity-Equity-Inclusion (DEI). As eminent Professor Thomas Sowell writes, “The mystical benefits of diversity are non-existent, however politically correct it is to proclaim such benefits.” Simply put, if your loved one is to have surgery, do you want the surgeon to have graduated from a medical degree program that pursued diversity or meritocracy? One must choose.[5]
In the Winter War, the Finns held off the Russians during December 1939 and January 1940, during which they achieved stunning, overwhelming victories at difficult-to-spell-and-pronounce place names – at least for English speakers – such as Lake Tolvajärvi (mid-December) and Suomussalmi-Raate (late December-early January).
Tolvajärvi was north of Lake Ladoga which formed the northern border of the strategic Karelian Isthmus. The Finnish commander there, Colonel Talvela, later commented: “In situations like this, as in all confused and hopeless situations, an energetic attack against the nearest enemy was and is the only way to improve the spirits of the men and to get control of the situation.” No wonder Mannerheim thought so highly of him. Talvela was promoted to Major-General.
North of Tolvajärvi, the roughly west-to-east Suomussalmi-Raate Road (Raate was near the Finnish-Russian border), ran across the narrow “waist” of Finland where the Soviets hoped to cut the country in two. In that battle the Russians suffered from temperatures as low as minus 25 degrees C. (likely much lower), to which they were unaccustomed, limited food supplies, and aggressive harassing attacks by the Finns. Russian losses there were estimated at 30,000. News from the Finnish front captured the world’s attention and was the cause célèbre of the day.
Churchill, four months away from becoming prime minister, made a broadcast, stating: “Only Finland – superb, nay, sublime – in the jaws of peril – Finland shows what free men can do. The service rendered by Finland to mankind is magnificent. . . . If the light of freedom which still burns so brightly in the frozen North should be finally quenched, it might well herald a return to the Dark Ages. . . .”[6]
February and early March 1940 were a much different story, however. A new Russian commander, Semyon Konstantinovich Timoshenko, was named and given almost unlimited resources in men and materiel. In his memoirs, Mannerheim described the difference from December-January to February-March: “The enemy’s attacks in December could be compared with a badly-conducted orchestra,” as infantry, armor, and artillery were uncoordinated. By February, experienced and under Timoshenko’s leadership, they had learned to orchestrate their arms. Such improvements, in addition to the willingness to accept massive losses which the Russians could replace but the Finns could not, forced the Finnish government to sign a severe settlement in March, according to which they lost 12 percent of their population and some 25,000 square miles of territory including the Karelian Isthmus. But Finland survived and was to prosper again in years to come.[7]
But the Finnish military members of 1939-40 have not been the only ones to exhibit exemplary valor in the Scandinavian “land of forests.” In a moral sense, in recent years up to the present day the high courage of two Finnish Christians – Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola and Member of Parliament Dr. Päivi Räsänen – has been the equal of their forebears in the Winter War. The two have been charged with hate crimes for teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.
In 2004, Dr. Räsänen, a physician and former Minister of the Interior, wrote a short booklet on the Bible’s teachings regarding sexuality, including a section on homosexuality. Bishop Pohjola’s church published the booklet. In addition, Dr. Räsänen was charged with tweeting a Bible verse in response to the liberal state church’s sponsorship of an LGBTQ parade and for taking part in a debate on the subject in 2019.
Gene Veith writes, “Three years ago, over a decade and a half after the publication of the booklet, the two were charged for inciting hatred against homosexuals,” despite the fact that Finland did not legalize same-sex unions – I will not call it marriage – until 2017. In 2022, finally their case has been brought to trial. By the way, Finland claims to guarantee freedom of speech and religion. If found guilty, the two could face fines and up to two years in prison.[8]
To turn a bizarre case into an even stranger dystopian, yet evangelistic, event, in January the prosecution elected to shift attention away from the two defendants. As Joy Pullmann of the Federalist writes, “Finnish prosecutors described quotations from the Bible as ‘hate speech.’ Finland’s top prosecutor’s office essentially put the Bible on trial, an unprecedented move for a secular court.” In scenes that Bible readers of the Apostle Paul before the likes of Felix and Agrippa (Acts 24-26) might recall, the lead Finnish prosecutor actually read out Old Testament verses, quoting them to the court. When prosecutors then proceeded to question Pohjola and Räsänen concerning their beliefs, the two had the opportunity to proclaim the gospel in the courtroom. Bishop Pohjola and Dr. Räsänen have on multiple occasions “publicly affirmed that they are not motivated by hate, but by love in stating the historic, orthodox Christian faith.” Outside the court, Räsänen spoke to reporters with faithfulness and winsomeness: “The saving gospel of Jesus Christ has been given to us in the Bible. . . . The cross of Christ shows the greatest love for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.”[9]
How ironic that a miniscule number – in this case, only two – spiritual descendants of those outnumbered and outgunned patriots who, for 105 days during the fearful Scandinavian winter of 1939-40, fought heroically to preserve Finland’s independence should, in 2022, find themselves the subject of naked state-sponsored persecution fairly reeking of the very tyranny against which nearly 25,000 Finns gave all against the invading enemy.
Sadly, today Finland is only one of many Western nations, including the United States, in which the few – but steadily increasing – morally courageous stand in contrast to the cowardly majority that embrace, knowingly or otherwise, Fuller’s Marxian Beatitude in its current CRT/DEI/cancel-culture iteration, revealing a weak, sickly body politic and a culture unworthy of their forefathers’ courage and sacrifices.[10]
As the afflictions of aggressive, compulsive, humanistic ideologies are manifested irrespective of locale, tradition, or historical precedent, more and more erstwhile quiet Christians and other principled individuals are determining to “live not by lies.” Rod Dreher writes, “Under the guise of ‘diversity,’ ‘inclusivity,’ ‘equity,’ and other egalitarian jargon, the Left creates powerful mechanisms for controlling thought and discourse and marginalizes dissenters as evil.”[11] As my senior pastor says, the Lord is “gloriously unpredictable.” Moreover, David in the 11th Psalm writes, “If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?” The next verse answers: “The LORD is in His holy temple; the LORD’s throne is in heaven.” His sovereignty rules over all (Psalm 103:19). May today’s followers of Jesus Christ lift hearts in prayer for the upholding of true righteousness, beginning in their own little spheres, in their own little corners of Zion, and ultimately to the ends of the earth. As the prophet Zechariah writes, “These are the things which you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates” (8:16).
On 1 April 2022, the Center for Religious Liberty reported that on 30 March a Helsinki court dismissed all charges against Dr. Räsänen. (The brief report did not mention Bishop Pohjola.) While this was only one spiritual battle in a long conflict, let us give thanks to God. . . .
Forrest Marion is a ruling elder in Eastwood Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Montgomery, Ala.

[1] Eric Lewenhaupt, trans., The Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim (London: Cassell and Company, Ltd, 1953), 365, 369.
[2] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 328; Robert Edwards, The Winter War: Russia’s Invasion of Finland, 1939-40 (New York: Pegasus Books, 2008), 139-40 (Molotov quoted by Edwards), 192. Mannerheim wrote, “In-fighting with tanks was to provide some of the most heroic incidents of the Winter War, for to attack them with only this bottle in one’s hand required skill as well as courage” (328).
[3] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 366; Edwards, Winter War, 157.
[4] J.F.C. Fuller, The Conduct of War, 1789-1961: A Study of the Impact of the French, Industrial, and Russian Revolutions on War and Its Conduct (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1961), 211-12.
[5] Thomas Sowell, Dismantling America: and Other Controversial Essays (New York: Basic Books, 2010 [2002]), chap. 20 (audiobook).
[6] Edwards, Winter War, 152-85 (Talvela quoted by Edwards), 223 (Churchill quoted by Edwards); Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 334-40.
[7] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 350-53; Edwards, Winter War, 204, 228.
[8] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 366; Gene Veith, “Finland Explicitly Puts the Bible on Trial,” The Aquila Report, 4 Feb 2022 (originally in patheos.com, 26 Jan 2022).
[9] Veith, “Finland Explicitly Puts the Bible on Trial,” 26 Jan 2022 (Pullmann quoted by Veith). For additional reading on this case, see Joy Pullmann, “In Case With Global Implications, Finland Puts Christians on Trial for Their Faith,” The Aquila Report, 30 Nov 2021 (originally in thefederalist.com, 23 Nov 2021); [Mathew] Block, “Finnish Bishop Elect Charged Over Historic Christian Teachings On Human Sexuality,” The Aquila Report, 6 May 2021 (originally in ilc-online.org [International Lutheran Council]), 30 Apr 2021; Kiley Crossland, “Finnish Church Embraces Gay Marriage, Loses 12,000 Members,” The Aquila Report, 30 Dec 2014 (originally in wng.org, 4 Dec 2014).
[10] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 365, 370.
[11] Rod Dreher, Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents (New York: Sentinel, 2020), xii. Dreher took his book’s title from a letter of famed Soviet dissident and author, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Related Posts:

To be in friendly cooperation, a church must have a faith and practice that is in step with the BF&M [The Baptist Faith & Message]. Contradicting what the BF&M says about female pastors is by definition not “closely identifying” with the BF&M. Indeed, it’s a direct contradiction of the BF&M.

I have seen a variety of responses to the news yesterday that the SBC has found Saddleback Church to be out of step with “the Convention’s adopted statement of faith” and now no longer recognizes them as a “cooperating” church (Art. 3, SBC Constitution). As many of you know, the presenting issue is Saddleback’s recognition of a variety of female pastors, including one of their new lead teaching pastors. Having female pastors contradicts our statement of faith, The Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M), which says, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
As you can imagine, many of the public responses have been negative. On social media, some of the commentary has been incendiary and dismissive and therefore not worthy of serious engagement. Other critics simply do not like what Southern Baptists believe. Still, there are two objections that I thought it might be worth the effort to answer.
The first objection appears in a social media thread that Rick Warren himself “liked” on Twitter. The author shares a series of quotations from around the time that the BF&M was adopted in 2000 and observes how many SBC leaders at the time said that the BF&M would never be used to “coerce” Baptist churches. He quotes from one 2000 Baptist Press article which has compelling comments from both Albert Mohler and Adrian Rogers:
“We don’t have the right, the authority or the power to limit anybody,” Rogers noted. “We would resist that. What we are stating is what we believe mainstream Baptists believe…It is not a creed. It is a statement of what most of us believe.”
Other media questions focused on the new BFM’s stance against women serving as senior pastors.
“We would never presume to tell another church whom they may call as a pastor or tell another person whether or not they may serve as pastor,” Mohler said. “We’re not trying to force our beliefs on someone else.”
The author highlights these remarks and others like them to show that the BF&M was never meant to be “binding on individual SBC congregations” (source). He concludes from this that the BF&M was never intended to be a “parameter for cooperation” (source). Both of these observations are wrong and represent a serious misunderstanding of our polity.
Right now in 2023, I heartily affirm what both Adrian Rogers and Albert Mohler said 23 years ago. The SBC does not have the right or authority to tell any church whom they may call as pastor. The SBC has zero authority to tell a church what they can or cannot do or what they must or must not believe. How a church governs itself or chooses its pastors is not what this dispute is about.
This discussion is about whether the SBC has a right to recognize which churches are in friendly cooperation with the convention. Our polity says that the SBC does have that right. Furthermore, the SBC Constitution defines some parameters for determining which churches are in friendly cooperation. The Constitution says it this way:
Read More
Related Posts: