"You have made know to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore." ~Psalm 16:11
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Hot Topic!
It seems like this week many folks want to discuss whether we have a sinful nature or not, so check out on the blogs on the list to the right, Grace Flood, and Voice of Grace and check out their links as well. Good stuff!
Indeed, it's quite the hot topic! I offered a certain point of view over at Grace in Flood, in which I essentially said that while I lean a certain way, I'm not settled in any one point of view. :) Would I make a great politician or what?! LOL
But seriously, I believe that by the 'nature' of the word 'nature,' we can only have one nature. It's impossible for anything to have two natures. Sugar is sugar. Tea leaves are tea leaves. Water is water. Mix them together and you don't have a new entity with three natures. You have something that has a brand new nature (one nature) that is not water, is not sugar and is not tea leaves. You have iced tea!
I believe that scripture makes it clear that in order to be married to Christ, "we" had to die. So we died and we became a brand new being, with a brand new nature - the nature of righteousness. I believe all of this has taken place in our spirit.
Where it gets "iffy" for me is when the topic moves to indwelling sin. To me, that's a different subject. I believe whole-heartedly that sin cannot dwell in our spirit. So, sin cannot indwell "us," that is, who we are as a spirit-being that has been made one with God's Spirit.
However, along the lines of what I brought up over at Grace in Flood, I can see scripture being used both ways... both to "prove" that sin indwells the Christian's body and also to "prove" that it doesn't! :) The "body" is not who we are and plays no part in our actual nature, so I have no problem understanding certain words of Paul to be referring to sin dwelling in the human body. But I can also see how his words about "flesh," "body," "members," etc, can each be taken to mean something different, according to individual translations and uses of the words.
So, I personally haven't been convinced of either way of looking at it. I do hope others pipe in, because I always love to hear what others have to offer on this subject.
1 comment:
Indeed, it's quite the hot topic! I offered a certain point of view over at Grace in Flood, in which I essentially said that while I lean a certain way, I'm not settled in any one point of view. :) Would I make a great politician or what?! LOL
But seriously, I believe that by the 'nature' of the word 'nature,' we can only have one nature. It's impossible for anything to have two natures. Sugar is sugar. Tea leaves are tea leaves. Water is water. Mix them together and you don't have a new entity with three natures. You have something that has a brand new nature (one nature) that is not water, is not sugar and is not tea leaves. You have iced tea!
I believe that scripture makes it clear that in order to be married to Christ, "we" had to die. So we died and we became a brand new being, with a brand new nature - the nature of righteousness. I believe all of this has taken place in our spirit.
Where it gets "iffy" for me is when the topic moves to indwelling sin. To me, that's a different subject. I believe whole-heartedly that sin cannot dwell in our spirit. So, sin cannot indwell "us," that is, who we are as a spirit-being that has been made one with God's Spirit.
However, along the lines of what I brought up over at Grace in Flood, I can see scripture being used both ways... both to "prove" that sin indwells the Christian's body and also to "prove" that it doesn't! :) The "body" is not who we are and plays no part in our actual nature, so I have no problem understanding certain words of Paul to be referring to sin dwelling in the human body. But I can also see how his words about "flesh," "body," "members," etc, can each be taken to mean something different, according to individual translations and uses of the words.
So, I personally haven't been convinced of either way of looking at it. I do hope others pipe in, because I always love to hear what others have to offer on this subject.
Post a Comment