Journal: Grace Theological Journal
Volume: GTJ 03:2 (Fall 1982)
Article: Book Reviews
Author: Anonymous

GTJ 3:2 (Fall 82) p. 287

Book Reviews

Birthright: Christian, Do You Know Who You Are? by David C. Needham. A Critical Concern Book. Portland: Multnomah, 1979. Pp. 293. Paper, $6.95.

“The fundamental concept of this book is that you, as a born-again person, are—in your deepest self—in perfect agreement with the will of God” (p. 137). In maintaining this contention, Needham rightly objects to the old “two-nature” theories which have often used the term “nature” as though it were synonymous with “person.” But, in my opinion, he is painted with his own brush. He comes nearer to making two persons of the believer than the “old” view ever did. He repeatedly refers to what man is in “his deepest self, his truest self,” his “essential” being, his “innermost” being, his “deepest identity,” his “deepest sense of personhood,” his “true self,” “the authentic you,” “the person I now most deeply am,” as never desiring to sin (p. 155)! All this is in contrast with one’s “flesh,” his “mind flesh,” “the outer man,” the “flesh level of personhood,” and the “old flesh,” from which our evil inclinations arise. But these latter are not really and truly me, he says.

And further, Needham says, the “flesh self” and the “old self” must be carefully distinguished. The “old self” no longer exists. The pre-regeneration person no longer exists (p. 113)! One wonders, in this approach, who was saved? It wasn’t me, because the old me does not exist and the present me did not exist. Jesus didn’t really save the “me” that exists now! Is our union with Christ in his death presumed to mean that we are now different persons who did not exist before? (This is in spite of the fact that Christ is not a different person who did not exist before his resurrection—and neither are we because of our union with him.) For Needham, the new man (apparently a new metaphysical entity?) is in reality a member of a new species (pp. 47-48)! All these word games are played without “rules” defining what is meant by such basic concepts as “person,” “nature,” “regeneration,” etc. (there is a brief and inadequate discussion of the word “nature” in an appendix). Since there is no bibliography one may be pardoned for wondering whether Needham has read the good discussions by Relton, Buswell, Showers, and others on these issues.

Why does not the same logic which refuses to allow sin as a real aspect of me, also refuse to allow it as a real aspect of the fallen Adam? After all, it was an intruder in his nature, even more than in mine! In addition to the problem of placing my sin somewhere outside my “truest self,” there are numerous other problems in this book.

For example, Needham argues that the signs...