# Nature of the believer



## Infralap (Dec 8, 2004)

How many natures do we have as a believer? 1 or 2 and why?


----------



## turmeric (Dec 8, 2004)

One nature being renewed. We still have indwelling sin but it's not a separate personality. I believe this notion is an artifact of dispensationalism.


----------



## pastorway (Dec 9, 2004)

I would answer one new nature. We have taken off the old man and put on the new, we are a new creation in Christ.

We do still live in a fallen fleshly body, but the flesh is not our nature.

Phillip


----------



## turmeric (Dec 9, 2004)

so depravity is located in our bodies?


----------



## pastorway (Dec 10, 2004)

our flesh is not limited to the physical body - but the body is indeed fallen.

Are we still depraved after we are saved? Fallen? Yes. Sinners? Yes. But depraved? 

I thought we were regenerate and redeemed. Waiting for the completion of the work that has begun, the corruptible putting on incorruption.

Paul in Romans 7 and 8 refers not to being in the flesh but the flesh being in him!

Phillip


----------



## andreas (Dec 10, 2004)

We still have a sinful nature,the difference being that, prior to regeneration we were blind and could not see ,and after, we are given the eyes to see our sinful and corrupt nature.The more I walk in the light of God, the more plainly can I see the wiliness of the flesh within me, and there will be an ever-deepening abhorrence of what I am by nature. 

"For to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not" Rom. 7:18

andreas.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 10, 2004)




----------



## Infralap (Dec 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> We still have a sinful nature,the difference being that, prior to regeneration we were blind and could not see ,and after, we are given the eyes to see our sinful and corrupt nature.....abhorrence of what I am by nature.
> 
> andreas.



If we have a sinful nature after regeneration and now we can see it ... them we are not trully redem and we could still go to HELL?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 15, 2004)

I. They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.[1]

1. Phil. 1:6; II Peter 1:10; Rom. 8:28-30; John 10:28-29; I John 3:9; 5:18; I Peter 1:5, 9

II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;[2] upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ,[3] the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them,[4] and the nature of the covenant of grace:[5] from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.[6]

2. Psa. 89:3-4, 28-33; II Tim. 2:18-19; Jer. 31:3
3. Heb. 7:25; 9:12-15; 10:10, 14; 13:20-21; 17:11, 24; Rom. 8:33-39; Luke 22:32

4. John 14:16-17; I John 2:27; 3:9
5. Jer. 32:40; Psa. 89:34-37; see Jer. 31:31-34
6. John 6:38-40; 10:28; II Thess. 3:3; I John 2:19

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve his Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]

7. Exod. 32:21; Jonah 1:3, 10; Psa. 51:14; Matt. 26:70, 72, 74
8. II Sam. 12:9, 13; Gal. 2:11-14

9. Num. 20:12; II Sam. 11:27; Isa. 64:7, 9
10. Eph. 4:30
11. Psa. 51:8, 10, 12; Rev. 2:4; Matt. 26:75
12. Isa. 63:17
13. Psa. 32:3-4; 51:8
14. Gen. 12:10-20; II Sam. 12:14; Gal. 2:13
15. Psa. 89:31-32; I Cor. 11:32


----------



## turmeric (Dec 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Infralap_
> If we have a sinful nature after regeneration and now we can see it ... them we are not trully redem and we could still go to HELL?



Correct me if I'm wrong, Webmaster; We are being progressively sanctified, this does not happen entirely at conversion. It is a benefit of justification which is worked out slowly throughout the rest of our lives.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Infralap_
> ...



 yet again!


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 22, 2004)

i am currently a part of a mens bible study at my church. my church is not reformed...just me. the book we are going through mainly just as a spring board for discussion is "waking the dead" by john eldredge...yes yes i know but this question of 2 natures or 1 and if 1 what exactly is that nature is hovering over the group...mainly becasue eldredge says we have a heart that is "good" therefore he unwisely concludes that the sin we have is not the real us...and the thing that totally drives me nuts is that the guys in this group are totally buying this stuff

help me!!! 

joy,
ryan


----------



## turmeric (Dec 22, 2004)

This is called perfectionism. It came into dispensationalism via the latter's early close association w/the Keswick holiness movement in the late 1800's. I'm still getting that stuff out of my system! We are sinners yet justified. Quick Reply isn't showing me the headbang smilie, so visualize it here.


----------



## pastorway (Dec 22, 2004)

Romans 7 would apply I think. 

Phillip


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> our flesh is not limited to the physical body - but the body is indeed fallen.
> 
> Are we still depraved after we are saved? Fallen? Yes. Sinners? Yes. But depraved?
> ...



I have referred to Romans 7 again and again for sanctification. That last sentence, Philip, is a nice, succinct way of stating it.


----------



## Infralap (Dec 31, 2004)

The question is, in keeping with proper theology, when we are born we have a sinful nature. if we die in this state we will go to hell. Then for those of us who are born again, do we keep the old nature and have now a both an old (sin) and a new (spiritual) nature? or do we exchange our sinful (born in Adam) nature for the new nature (new man in Christ) finishing the act of double imputation?

 or


----------



## turmeric (Dec 31, 2004)

Guys, tell me if this is right...still recovering from perfectionism a la Dispensational.

Sin is an offense against an infinite and holy God and must in justice be punished. This requires either that we spend eternity in hell, or that a substitute be punished in our place. When Jesus died on the cross, our sin was imputed (accounted) to Jesus and he was punished in our place. His righteous life while on earth was accounted to us. Our penalty was paid, and we have a positive balance of righteousness, which was actually performed by Christ.

As sinners, we naturally hate God and want nothing to do with His rule and laws. This is called spiritual death. When we are regenerated, the Holy Spirit gives us a new orientation toward God that is one of love & obedience. So we don't have 2 of us living inside, one good, one bad. We have one personality which now wants to follow God, but is still very weak & diseased.


----------



## pastorway (Dec 31, 2004)

we have put off the old man and put on the new; however, the new man is living inside fallen flesh - the corrupt body that we wait to put off and put on incorruption! We are new inside and will soon be new outside as well.

When we are converted, part of the "transaction" that takes place is that where we were dead we are now alive. The old is gone and we are new. What old? What new? The inner man, the nature.

One day the new nature will be unfettered of this fallen flesh - and what GLORY that will be.

Phillip


----------



## andreas (Dec 31, 2004)

***The question is, in keeping with proper theology, when we are born we have a sinful nature. if we die in this state we will go to hell. Then for those of us who are born again, do we keep the old nature and have now a both an old (sin) and a new (spiritual) nature? or do we exchange our sinful (born in Adam) nature for the new nature (new man in Christ) finishing the act of double imputation?***

Nature is not something you can lay your hands on,or you can sink your teeth into.It is purely a principle of operation.At school we learn that it is the nature of gravity to pull,remember the apple falling on Newton's head?It is the nature of fire to burn,and so on.After Adam, we aquired a sinful nature.Nothing taken away but something new added.SIN.This has permeated avery fibre of our being,the same way that water permeates a sponge.SIN takes possession,and we are under the authority of sin. John 8:34. As such we can do nothing to please God. Romans 8:8. At regeneration,we become spiritually alive,and a new nature is introduced which is spiritual and holy.The old sinful nature is still there,but now we have a new nature, a new principle of operation added.The two natures hate each other, hence the strugle of Paul in Romans 7.

andreas.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 1, 2005)

two natures in man? one corrupt and one "saved"? one black dog and one white dog inside and the one who wins is the one we feed the most?

Why then does the Scripture use the terms "put off" and "put on" if you are really putting one on over the other like a clean shirt over a dirty tee shirt? 

You put off the old man when you are saved. It is gone. All that remains is this fallen flesh in us. The flesh fights the spirit, but *the flesh is not our nature*. It is the enemy within, that which suffers defeat upon defeat as we are sanctified and will be finally conquered in glorification. If our fallen flesh was our nature then we would not ever desire to do what is right. Your nature determines what you are and what you do! And when the new nature has no fallen flesh to contend with any longer then we will not even desire to do what is wrong at all.

Old heart out, new heart in. Old man off, new man on. All things new. A new creation in Christ. It is either-or, not both-and.

Believers have one new nature that is contending with fallen flesh until we are glorified.

Phillip


----------



## turmeric (Jan 1, 2005)

Flesh isn't nature? Help! I need definitions!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 1, 2005)

Let me give a jab at it. Our old nature was dead in sin. Our new nature is regenerate or alive in Christ and dead to sin. John Owen wrote that we still have a law of the Flesh to reckon with. You could substitute the word principle in the spot ot law. Our Flesh is at emnity with God but we who are in Christ put to death the deads of the flesh. They do not have dominion over us any longer. We are set free and can live in righteousness. We are the same person with a new principle working in us. Our old nature fought against God. Our new nature fights against sin.


----------



## andreas (Jan 1, 2005)

***two natures in man? one corrupt and one "saved"? one black dog and one white dog inside and the one who wins is the one we feed the most?

Why then does the Scripture use the terms "put off" and "put on" if you are really putting one on over the other like a clean shirt over a dirty tee shirt? 

You put off the old man when you are saved. It is gone. All that remains is this fallen flesh in us. The flesh fights the spirit, but the flesh is not our nature.***



In the christian there are two natures,the flesh and the spirit.Gal.5:17.The two natures are nothing but two diverse principles of operation.We read in Romans 7:23,"I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind".These two natures result in conflict.We still carry the sinful nature and we will continue to carry it, till we get our new bodies. The principle of sin, the "flesh" is not eradicated. This is clear from Romans 6:12, "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof": 
That exhortation would be meaningless if there were no indwelling sin seeking to reign, and no lusts demanding obedience.

andreas.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 1, 2005)

So between Paul and Andreas we either have 1. a sinful nature that is being replaced/renewed, or 2. a sin nature called the flesh and a new nature called the spirit fighting it out inside us.

Neither of these views can be accurate. 

As for the first, our nature, the essence of who and what we are, is no longer sinful once we are saved. We are a new creation in Christ. We are still sinners, but we do not have a sin nature, we have a new nature, one that Paul describeds in Romans 7 as desiring to do what is right while his flesh often prevails and he does the things he hates. If he had a sinful nature, no matter how sanctified, he would not desire NOT to sin. The sin nature only desires to sin. For this first view, we need to define the difference between a nature and the flesh. They are not the same thing.

As for the second view, the 2 nature view, this also brings us to the point of asking what we desire. As believers we desire to please God - and at the same time our flesh desires to please itself. That is where sin comes from - when the flesh draws us away from what we really want. (James 1:14). What ultimately drives the believer? What does a believer _really_ want? Because of hrace, and being given a new nature, he now desires to please God. This desire will battle the desires of the flesh, but that in no way means that we have two natures. We are either depraved, or we are redeemed and waiting final glory where all the remnants of what we once were (the flesh) is gone forever. 


So what is a nature? And what is the flesh?

Phillip


----------



## turmeric (Jan 1, 2005)

Nobody's arguing that we have indwelling sin - we're just trying to find the right word for it.

You must be aware of the black dog/white dog teaching rampant in most dispensational circles - which is why most of us like the one-nature thing. Are you talking about 2 personalities - or two principles?

Philip, Andreas, et al; please define the term "nature" It sounds like andreas is saying it's a principle and Philip is also saying sin is a principle but calling it flesh instead of nature.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



Come on Paul, that isn't what Paul said. You added sinful nature.
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. Romans 7:18a


----------



## turmeric (Jan 1, 2005)

Recovering Dispensational-Keswick

So the black dog is the flesh, the white dog is the spirit?

I'm really getting confused -again.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Then both terms, flesh as well as spirit, belong to the soul; but the latter to that part which is renewed, and the former to that which still retains its natural character. 2



So is he saying he is a trichotomist?

Is he saying that the soul is the meeting place (or bonding point) for the spirit and the natural character?

Sometimes Calvin doesn't make sense. 

What is nature?

What is essence?



[Edited on 1-2-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## turmeric (Jan 1, 2005)




----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 1, 2005)

Ok,

First, "sinful nature" is a horrible NIV translation of the Greek sarx. That is why no other major translation translates sarx as "sinful nature":



> ESV Romans 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.
> 
> NKJ Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
> 
> ...



That gets us off on the wrong foot immediately. Man does not have two natures, he has _indwelling sin_, which is different, but enough to refute perfectionism. Sin in man before conversion *reigns*, after conversion it may *rage*, but it cannot ever reign again.

Thus Calvin in loc:


> 18. For I know, etc. He says that no good by nature dwelt in him. Then in me, means the same as though he had said, "So far as it regards myself." In the first part he indeed arraigns himself as being wholly depraved, for he confesses that no good dwelt in him; and then he subjoins a modification, lest he should slight the grace of God which also dwelt in him, but was no part of his flesh. And here again he confirms the fact, that he did not speak of men in general, but of the faithful, who are divided into two parts -- the relics of the flesh, and grace. For why was the modification made, except some part was exempt from depravity, and therefore not flesh? *Under the term flesh, he ever includes all that human nature is, everything in man, except the sanctification of the Spirit*. In the same manner, by the term spirit, which is commonly opposed to the flesh, he means that part of the soul which the Spirit of God has so re-formed, and purified from corruption, that God's image shines forth in it. Then both terms, flesh as well as spirit, belong to the soul; but the latter to that part which is renewed, and the former to that which still retains its natural character



And the Larger Catechism Q78, referring to this as the remnants of sin:


> The imperfection of sanctification in believers ariseth from the remnants of sin abiding in every part of them, and the perpetual lustings of the flesh against the spirit; whereby they are often foiled with temptations, and fall into many sins, are hindered in all their spiritual services, and their best works are imperfect and defiled in the sight of God



So the problem is solved, I believe, by admitting Paul's main point, namely, that the Christian is not perfect, and struggles against sin in himself, with ultimate hope of victory. But man is not made of two natures.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Sorry Paul, I was ready to accuse you of Isogesis. I don't own an NIV and couldn't reference it. My mistake..

[Edited on 1-2-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I don't say we have two natures--never have-- but ONE nature that is being RENEWD. This solves the dilema.



Exactly. Our one nature still afflicted by sin. That is what I said and I agree with you completely. I think there was some semantics at play here - partly because dispensationalist do play up that we have two natures. The whole "two dogs, which one will you feed" junk.


----------



## andreas (Jan 2, 2005)

In Romans 7:21-25, we have two egos,two laws,two cries , two slaveries,and two conflicts.

I find this law at work,when i want to do good,evil is right there with me-21.There is I, that wants to do good and I, beside which evil lies.

There are two laws,I delight in the law of God-22,but i see another law,a very different law,waging war against the law of my mind,and making me its prisoner-23 ,so the law of my mind which delights in God's law and the law of sin.

We have two cries,What a wretched man that i am. Who is going to deliver me?The other cry is thanks to God.

There are two slaveries.Slave to God's law,but in my Sarx,my fallen self,uncontrolled by the spirit,i am a slave to the law of sin.

Finally we have two conflicts,the conflict between my renewed mind,and my unrenewed sarx.

There are two principles of operation at play.A renewed mind by the spirit of God, and an unrenewed sarx.

andreas.


----------



## Infralap (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ***two natures in man? one corrupt and one "saved"? one black dog and one white dog inside and the one who wins is the one we feed the most?
> 
> Why then does the Scripture use the terms "put off" and "put on" if you are really putting one on over the other like a clean shirt over a dirty tee shirt?
> ...



You are confusing our sinful tendencies /habbits (or the flesh) with natures. Sin nature (remember the tulip) goes to hell, Born again (new nature) goes to be with the Lord in heaven


----------



## turmeric (Jan 4, 2005)

This is all giving me a huge pain in the Nee! Hee,hee!


----------



## Augusta (Jan 4, 2005)

The way I think of this with my simple mind is that we inhabit the same body and the same mind is in it. Our spirits were dead and now have been raised from the dead and our hearts have also been changed from hearts of stone to hearts of flesh. We are no longer slaves to sin but desire Christ now because our hearts have been changed and our spirits made alive in Christ. We do however still have the same mind that is now being renewed. Like Infralap mentioned, our old habits and tendencies have to be brought into line with the changed parts. That is going to take time and the sanctification process. We still have our crappy, icky minds to contend with but our hearts are changed and we desire God thus we hate what our minds spit out. It wasn't a zap and you are completely different person. We are the same person/mind inside. It is only through trial by fire that the old icky habits will be burned away and we will come forth as gold. I don't know the theological terms for all this. And anyone correct anything I screwed up because I am still learning too. 

Job 23:10 But he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 4, 2005)

I believe we have 1 nature, a redeemed child of God.
What is left corrupted is our flesh. And although it is part of us, i don't think it is our "nature". We have a new nature now, and in the resurrection we will also have a resurrected body.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 4, 2005)

What is the difference between 'flesh" & "body"? What kind of thing is "indwelling sin"? I really don't know, though I know it's there.


----------

