Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I heard something recently and was curious what you guys thought.
Justification question
- Thread starter Notthemama1984
- Start date
- Status
The first sentence is correct.
The rest of the quote seems to be wrestling with the doctrine of sanctification.
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."
The rest of the quote seems to be wrestling with the doctrine of sanctification.
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."
Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.
Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
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.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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''.
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''.
dudley
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
Pastor Klein wrote:
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!
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!
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.
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.
Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
In a short answer. No.
ac7k
Puritan Board Freshman
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
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
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.
Believers have one nature polluted with sin.
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
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:
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?
- Status
