# Justification question



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 10, 2010)

I heard something recently and was curious what you guys thought.




> When man is justified he is not morally changed. His nature is still of the flesh. He also does not receive a second nature based upon Christ's righteousness that battles with the flesh. If this was the case, then we would have to admit that at times the flesh nature overcomes the Spirit nature. This could never be because the Divine Nature can never be overcome or defeated. The believer's mind is renewed to the point that he now sees the difference between good and evil and desires the good. His nature will not allow him to be good. The believer recognizes this and prays out to God for help. It is only through the Spirit's working that man can ever do anything "good."


----------



## Andres (Dec 10, 2010)

I would agree with it, but what do I know.


----------



## KMK (Dec 10, 2010)

The first sentence is correct. 



> WSC 32 What is justification?
> A Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.



The rest of the quote seems to be wrestling with the doctrine of sanctification.



> WSC Q 35 What is sanctification?
> A: Sanctification is the work of God's free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.



Assuming the author is speaking of sanctification and not justification, I have to wonder what he means when he says, "he does not receive a *second* nature." If he means that the sanctified man does not have two natures dwelling in him, then he is correct. But if he means that the sanctified man does not have a _new_ nature, then he is wrong. The sanctified do have a new nature. However, righteousness is not infused into that new nature, but, to quote James Fisher, "it is on him as robe." 



> Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 10, 2010)

I am pretty sure the guy was talking about two natures inside at the same time. 

Pastor Ken,

How would we describe the new nature, if we are not morally changed?

PS. Thanks for the responses. I am working on filling in holes in my theology.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 10, 2010)

Ken is right. I too am wondering if he was referring to justification by itself, or whether he was referring to the issue of whether or not a believer is inwardly changed at all. If he is only talking about justification, then he would be correct. The problem is that he seems to be talking about the entire Christian life in the rest of the quotation, in which case I would say he is generally wrong. No one is justified who does not _also_ receive a new nature by the power of the Holy Spirit in sanctification. Justification and sanctification are inseparable yet distinct benefits of salvation.


----------



## KMK (Dec 10, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I am pretty sure the guy was talking about two natures inside at the same time.
> 
> Pastor Ken,
> 
> ...


 
The believer is renewed in the whole man, but is not in any part of him _wholly_ renewed. There remains in his nature two contrary principles, grace and corruption.



> LBC 13:2 "This sanctification is throughout the whole man, yet imperfect in this life; there abides still some remnants of corruption in every part, wherefrom arises a continual and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh."


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 10, 2010)

KMK said:


> The believer is renewed in the whole man, but is not in any part of him wholly renewed. There remains in his nature two contrary principles, grace and corruption.



I apologize for the questions. It just isn't clicking with me yet. 

How could a believer be renewed and have a new nature, but not morally changed? Are morals and nature distinguishable aspects of a person? I am not sure how they could be because Paul describes the nature of the flesh and the nature of the Spirit by pointing out their morals.


----------



## KMK (Dec 10, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > The believer is renewed in the whole man, but is not in any part of him wholly renewed. There remains in his nature two contrary principles, grace and corruption.
> ...


 
I am not sure what you mean by 'morally changed'. The believer is united with Christ and therefore 'walks not in the flesh but in the Spirit.' However, he does not have any righteousness in and of himself. Whether the righteousness of justification or the righteousness of sanctification it is Christ's righteousness alone.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 10, 2010)

My thinking of "morally changed" is that when I was in the flesh, my default position was sin. In order to do anything earthly good or right, I had to go against my nature to do this. In my mind to have a new nature of the Spirit, my default position is the way of the Spirit and thus I would have to fight against this nature to sin.

But in my life I still feel that I have to fight my flesh to peform good deeds. I don't feel that it is my default position. 



KMK said:


> he does not have any righteousness in and of himself. Whether the righteousness of justification or the righteousness of sanctification it is Christ's righteousness alone.



I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.


----------



## KMK (Dec 10, 2010)

The battle between the Spirit and the flesh is not a battle of two natures, but the battle within one nature consisting of (this side of glory) two competing principles. I was looking at the issue from an objective standpoint, which is what the author of the quote seemed to be doing. The subjective experience of the believer is a different matter.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 10, 2010)

The believer is morally changed at regeneration of course. The Bible says that he receives a new heart. (e.g. Ezekiel 11:19; 18:31; 36:26)

Before he was converted he had no motive at all to love the true God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength. All his ''goodness'' did not have this motive, whatever else was commendable about it.

Now his deepest motive even deeper than his worst ("every day") sinning or even backsliding is that he would be completely free of sin, and thus honour God perfectly.

E.g. Romans 7:14-25.

If his deepest motive as an unregenerate person has been taken out and replaced with another one, that new motive represents who the believer is. 

He has a new nature with the ongoing presence of sin. He doesn't have an old nature with the ongoing presence of common grace. 

We're disappointed by our sinfulness but we shouldn't think of the Christian having sin and holiness, the Devil and Christ, the remains of the old nature and the new nature, the flesh and the Spirit, equally poised in his heart. 

Maybe that's how the Evil One would like us to think because such thinking robs us of the spiritual strength we should derive from contemplating our true position in Christ, and contributes to a "self-fulfilling prophecy''.


----------



## KMK (Dec 10, 2010)

The flesh of the regenerate man, in which there remains corruption, includes his will and reason. 



> 1 Thess 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## dudley (Dec 11, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I heard something recently and was curious what you guys thought.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bolivar, I agree completely with the above and I would add to it that Christians are not basically good; we are totally depraved, just like all humanity. God could not ignore our sin, so He sent His Son as a propitiation. It is by God’s grace, not our works, that we are saved. It is God’s GRACE !

In Romans 3:24-26 (New International Version, ©2010) it says:
24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.


----------



## Sola Fide (Dec 11, 2010)

Pastor Klein wrote:


> The battle between the Spirit and the flesh is not a battle of two natures, but the battle within one nature consisting of (this side of glory) two competing principles.



I have heard it said that this is an area of difference between the Reformed and the Lutherans. I would be interested if anyone could comment on this question of two natures or one. Is it largely a semantic issue ("nature" versus "principle") or were there genuine theological debates over this? Hope I'm not going off on a tangent here!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 11, 2010)

One way of looking at it is thralldom. Prior to regeneration, a man in Adam is enslaved to sin. He obeys, in all parts, the enslavement of his nature. The regenerated man still battles indwelling sin but it is no longer his master. He is reminded in the Scriptures that he is united to Christ and is a bondslave to righteousness. 

It is not so much that the believer is called to look within, at his nature, for strength in the battle against sin but Paul, in Romans 6, enjoins us to _consider_ ourselves dead to sin. The spirit of Christ abides with us and we have status as being united to Christ in His death such that we are dead to sin (and its power) . We are likewise united to His indestructible life. Thus, we must live unto Him and consider the _reality_ that the battle is ultimately won. 

The Kingdom of God is among us but it is not yet consummated and so we battle sin and even experience death and misery in the hope that Christ will put it all under His feet one day.


----------



## jogri17 (Dec 11, 2010)

Is it possible for any justified person to have no sanctified grace to any extent?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 11, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> Is it possible for any justified person to have no sanctified grace to any extent?


 
In a short answer. No.


----------



## ac7k (Dec 11, 2010)

Holiness (Abridged): Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots (Moody Classics):Amazon:Books

This is the Amazon link to Holiness by Ryle.

I am currently reading this and does a real good job in my opinion in explaining the differences in justification and sanctification in layman terms. I highly recommend it. I hope that helps.

Eric


----------



## KMK (Dec 11, 2010)

Sola Fide said:


> Pastor Klein wrote:
> 
> 
> > The battle between the Spirit and the flesh is not a battle of two natures, but the battle within one nature consisting of (this side of glory) two competing principles.
> ...


 
I am not aware of any who claim that believers have, like Christ, two natures. There is human nature and there is Divine nature. Christ has both. How can one person have two human natures? Maybe the Trichotomists argue in favor of two natures, I don't know.



> LBC 19 Paragraph 6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned,13 yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;* discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives,* so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin;14 together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.





> WLC Q. 95. Of what use is the moral law to all men?
> 
> A. The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; to convince them of their disability to keep it, *and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives*: to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.



Believers have one nature polluted with sin.


----------



## Sola Fide (Dec 17, 2010)

Pastor Klein,
Thanks for this. I haven't been able to find any Lutheran statements on this issue (still looking); but I have come across evidence that some in the Dispensationalist and Baptist traditions do speak in this way. E.g. see the following interesting article which mentions Warfield's critique of Chafer on this matter:
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1997/nature.pdf


----------



## KMK (Dec 17, 2010)

Sola Fide said:


> Pastor Klein,
> Thanks for this. I haven't been able to find any Lutheran statements on this issue (still looking); but I have come across evidence that some in the Dispensationalist and Baptist traditions do speak in this way. E.g. see the following interesting article which mentions Warfield's critique of Chafer on this matter:
> http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1997/nature.pdf


 
From pg. 86:



> So, it may be concluded, contrary to Packer, there is nothing illegit-
> imate about using nature, especially as a theological term, to refer to
> those characteristics, both good and bad within the believer—the new
> and old natures.



Even if we grant its legitimacy, how is it helpful? Why redefine theological terms that have been in use for thousands of years? Why do people fight so hard to define Christianity differently than the church through history? Whats wrong with the definitions already in use?


----------

