The discussion is not so simplistic as the ADMIN at 5 Point Salt contends. Let's tackle a few of the questions Morey asks:
Isn’t it true that the two-nature theory actually puts forth three individual forces in the Christian?
No more than Christ's dual nature makes him filled with three individual forces.
Who then is forgiven?
The person. Paul repeatedly says I in Roman 7. He does not relegate the different aspects of his person to separated realms of distinct personhood. Rather, though he personifies sin, he takes full responsibility for it being his, part of who he is as person. It is an absurd rejection of literary device to discount as unreal what is being discussed simply because anthropomorphic terms are employed.
The old man will never be saved while the new man doesn’t need saving. Who then shall be saved?
Again, the person. It is to make a false dichotomy, a category error, to claim that different attributes constitute different persons. The old man and the new man constitute one person, Simul Iustus et Peccator.
The new man is perfect so he never sins. And neither am I responsible for sin for I do not do the sinning, but the old man does it. Who then is responsible for sin?
Again, the person. Same bifurcation error as above.
Morey makes the same errors repeatedly. What he ends up doing is destroying the concept of personhood and by fiat the hypostatic union of Christ. For, who was rewarded with a kingdom? The Son of Man, with a human nature, or the Son of God, with a divine nature, or the person of Jesus? What the theory does is to confuse why Paul would say that he beats his person into submission? Why? If there is no contest within? If there is no struggle? If there is no old nature, no new nature, but just a new creation, what is Paul's instruction touching upon? But Paul does characterize it as a struggle against a nature. The reality is that there is a struggle and it is against a nature prone to wander. So it must be answered: From where does sin come from in the new creature if indeed all things have passed away and all things have become new according to such an understanding? In the comment thread is a tongue-in-cheek, but not very adroit, reference to the fall. If it were true that Adam and Eve had concupiscence within them, then God is Yin and Yang, both good and evil, for they were created in his image. That sidesteps the issue. From where does sin come in the new creation, if what is meant by that is that we no longer bear within our bodies sin, if not that there remains a principle still active within man that is contrary to the nature in us, i.e., a new mind, recreated in the likeness of the Son?
I think part of the confusion comes from the reality of what is said here about the corporate nature of the passages in question about the new man, and that individual experiential reality of Christian life that Paul is referring to in Romans. Much of what Paul is saying concerns relationships in the church. Then, what does Romans 6 have to do with Romans 7? To simply state that there are not two natures suggests that there are not two forces as the 5 Point post indicates. However, it is the confusion of terms as noted in Herrick. What is meant by nature? What is meant by forces. What is meant by old man, new man? Because in the experiential reality of sanctification we experience what Paul is describing individually.
Simply, if there were no contest, we could dismiss altogether the terms. But, we need some words to describe what is going on within the believer. Paul's personification doesn't need to indicate a dual nature as in there being twin ruling principles. But, we need some words for what it is we fight against. Should we describe it as forces opposed to one another? Again, Paul's description elsewhere is that of a contest, beating down the flesh with purpose as if engaged in battle with a real personal enemy. How then should we define it? With what words? The fact remains that within every believer there resides the remnants of the effects of sin. Namely, that we have temptations of mind and of body that are evident in the experiential life of every believer. Can we say that it is not me who sins? Paul did. But, Paul was also quick to point out that it was he who needed to be set free from the compulsions of the flesh. Paul's juxtaposition is not, then, that it was not he, the person, who did not sin. Rather his desire was not to sin. He then was disavowing any association with sinful desire as being in opposition to himself. His claim is that Christ has set him free from that bondage that he was formally under. He is not saying that force no longer abides in him or that it no longer exerts any influence. He says:
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Is in perfect accord with what he is saying in the previous chapter. His mind is fixed on Christ in contrast to the mind still fixated on the flesh. He goes on:
But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
What? The body is dead? Paul makes no pretense that the body of sin that he lives in has been done away. In fact he further says:
...we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh...For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
If there is no potential of debt to the flesh, if it is no longer a threat, if Paul no longer lives in it, why the admonition? Why the appeal to patience? Why is it only firstfruits and not the whole harvest? Why the suggestion that the body is not yet redeemed if by meaning that it has been put away, it in no sense is still hanging on? That is because it is a hope, the not-yet that is. The status of all believers this side of the grave or the parousia is that we still find this law working in us, the law of sin and death, in our bodies, that is the flesh, but that through Christ we have been set free from the condemnation of the acts that our flesh, which all too often defeats us. So that, we are more than conquerors, unable, even by the sin we commit to be separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. It is the condemnation then, and not the force within that has finally been put away in the now while we remain until his appearing when we shall finally be like him and the flesh is redeemed. So that, in the end the old man will be save as the new man, one person.
And there I go again. Should I have said compulsions of sin warring against the mind of Christ in my members? See, the language of a personification is a literary device to help explain the condition. One might ask with Paul, do I serve sin, or do I serve Christ? How can one not then begin to see sin as personified? Then, we are justified in calling it a nature just as if it were a person.
Above I mentioned the hypostatic union of Christ's natures. There is a likeness of that when we say that Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit from conception forward. Does the indwelling of the Holy Spirit make Christ schizophrenic? A tri-personality. No! When the believer is regenerated there is the immediate imputation of the Holy Spirit and the mind of Christ. Does that then mean we are schizophrenic as Christians? That we are at once tri-persons? Again, no. Then it does no good to try to make Christians to be so because one believes that we have a duality in nature. Yet, we must be careful not to confuse terms. Nature has many meanings when it comes to its use theologically. Perhaps we should say attributes.
We might say things like the nature of love. When we do, we do not mean that it is an entity existing beside the person whose loves, do we? Likewise, we do not think of God whose nature is love, as a being with multiple natures. Instead we think of God as possessing in his person, that is his nature, the attribute of love. So, we need not think that because we call it the sin nature that man has multiple natures, i.e. personalities, anymore than we think of a man who loves as having multiple natures. Instead, we speak of man as a whole, possessing in his being a multiplicity of attributes all of which constitute one person. So, when Paul speaks of enemies within and enemies without, he is not just speaking of men who oppose him, just as David was not speaking of men who opposed him when he pleaded with God to search him to find any wicked way in him:
Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God!
O men of blood, depart from me!
They speak against you with malicious intent;
your enemies take your name in vain!
Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?
I hate them with complete hatred;
I count them my enemies.
Search me, O God, and know my heart!
Try me and know my thoughts!
And see if there be any grievous way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting!
David many times speaks in anthropomorphic terms when describing the enemy of sin within him as him a mortal enemy, or enemies. Indeed, armies of such. He recognized that there was within him things contrary to the nature of God's Spirit within him, things that warred against him and his love of the things of God. And, there we go again. We slip back into the anthropomorphic description because we cannot go to war except that it is a force against which we go to battle. Or, that is to say, an army, and that made up of men equipped for battle. The dualism is completed in Paul's visually referencing the Christian in complete armor. The fact is that Paul spoke, not just of those who as men fought the truth, but also of the spiritual powers in heavenly realms, thoughts that war against the truth of God of which we are to take captive.
There is simply no getting around the language. Call it a nature, a force, make it what you will. The fact remains that there is a struggle, a war against the remaining strongholds of sin in our members. And that is not just enemies of Christ within the body of Christ, nor those from without who would want to destroy the church. We are to take care to ourselves, also. Routing the enemy within where we find him and destroying him by the Spirit.
So let's answer the Romans passages:
Rom 6:11 Why would I have to consider it if it is true that there is no such nature in me? Why wouldn't Paul just say, you're dead to sin, no such nature any longer exists in you? Because, sin still remains. Call it what you will, nature, or the flesh, or any other designation is just other words that describe the reality that if any one says he is without sin, he is a liar and the truth is not in him. The recognition that there is this duality of nature is requisite of true faith. To deny that we still have a sin nature, or that the "old-man" is still active is a denial of the faith. By using those terms we do not nullify the forensic declarations that we are new creatures. By regeneration that is true. But a new ruling principle in us has not eviscerated the flesh with its passions. That is hte work of the Spirit by which he sanctifies the believer. Without that fight we are as Hebrews 12 declares, bastards, and not true sons. Where Jesus struggled without, our greatest enemy is within. In our struggles we dare not forget that. And, we must also thank God that he purges us through scourging.
Rom 6:12 Why the effort, why the beating into submission? If there is no sin there, I would reign, there would be no fight, no threat at all that sin would ascend. What passions of whom? There isn't a him who has passions? Then, why does Paul personify it as having passions? A nothing doesn't have passions, a personality does. That is not to say we are schizophrenic. On the other hand, a person who does not do what he wants, and does what he does not want to do, of which we are all guilty, is considered pathological. Compulsive behavior is a reality. The forensic reality is also that we have been set free as Romans 8 declares. The experiential reality is that it is not yet made manifest. Paul could say that he was without guilt but not without blame. The reason, was not who he was in and of himself, rather, his claim was positional, in Christ. It is in Christ, where the new-man is in its eschatological reality. Not here, not now.
We could repeat this exercise for each statement thats quoted out of Romans. But they are non sequiturs if there remains no longer sin which indwells the believer. It is set up against Paul's full discourse to deny a principle still at work in us. Call it what you may. But you cannot escape its reality.
Let's hear Abraham Kuyper on the Old Man/New Man reality:
It is true that our former connection brings us in frequent contact with him. On such occasions he often entices us by his cunning, but not to our delight; and being only half willing, our souls protest; and as soon as the sin is committed we are filled with self-loathing and contrition.
And this reversal of our affections is not our work, but that of the Holy Spirit. Not that we deny that He often uses us as instruments, or prompts us to exert ourselves, but the changing of our inclinations is not our work, but the direct operation of God the Holy Spirit.
How it is performed we can understand but partly. Essentially it is a mystery, just as much as regeneration. Being God, the Holy Spirit has access to our heart, He discovers our personality, the nature of our affections, and in what way their action may be reversed. But our inability to fathom this mystery does not in the least affect our faith in the matter.
Since the dying of the old man is effected, not by our good works, but by the implanting of a disposition and inclination repugnant to the old man, our own work is entirely out of the question; for our own heart is inaccessible to us. We have no power over our inward person; we lack the means to create another inclination; and when we deny this we are self-deceived. God the Creator alone can do this, and in doing it He is irresistible. Hatred against the old man, once having entered the soul, is a power that simply overwhelms us. Even when enticed by him; we can not but hate him.
The seventh chapter of Romans is very instructive in this respect. St. Paul says, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man,” (Rom vii. 22) i.e., after my inward affections. There is indeed another law in his members, which brings him into captivity to the law of sin; but he has not the least love or sympathy for that law, but with the law of his mind wars against it.
Any other representation contradicts this positive testimony, uttered by the mouth of the most excellent of the apostles, under the seal of the Holy Spirit. He that believes embraces the Son, and can not but receive impressions and be swayed by influences that cause his affections and inclinations to become radically changed. A believer is internally wrought upon. All his former dealings with the old man—pride, hardness of heart, deceit, and thirst for revenge—now fill him with horror; what was formerly to him the pride of life and the lust of the eyes is now vexation of spirit, as he realizes how shameful and abominable it is.
So he gradually dies to the old man, until, in the hour of death, he is fully delivered. God’s child remains the old man’s grave-digger until the hour of his own departure.
Nevertheless he dies to him so completely that at last he loses all confidence in him, thoroughly convinced that he is without excuse, an abominable wretch, a reprobate, and a deceiver, capable of all evil. And when occasionally he indulges in scornful mirth at the old man’s pride and practises, it is not in boastfulness of his own work or of his fellow men, but glorying only in the gracious work of his God.
Or of John Bradford:
For this end (I mean that we might be coupled and married thus to Christ, and so be certain of salvation, and at godly peace with God in our consciences,) God hath given his holy word, which hath two parts, as now the children of God consisteth of two men; one part of God's word being proper to "the old man," and the other part of God's word being proper to "the new man." The part properly pertaining to "the old man" is the law: the part properly pertaining to "the new man" is the gospel.
And finally I add Thomas Boston:
DOCTRINE I. There is in believers united to Christ a new man, a holy principle; and an old man, a fountain of sin.
I. Why the holy principle and the corrupt nature in believers are called the new and old man?
1. They are called men, because each of them possesseth the whole man, though not wholly. There are by their means two I's in every believer, Rom. vii. 15. "For that which I do, I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate that do I." There is not one part of the man that is in Christ, but grace has a part of it, and corruption has a part of it: as in the twilight there is light over all, and darkness over all too, the darkness being mixed in every part with the light. So my renewed part is I, a man having an understanding enlightened, a will renewed, affections spiritualized, using my body conformably: but my unrenewed part is I too, having an understanding darkened, a will rebellious, affections corrupted, and using my body accordingly.
2. They are called the new and old man, for two reasons.
(1) Because the new nature is brought in upon the corrupt principle, which was the first possessor. The corrupt nature is of the same standing with ourselves from the conception and birth, and possessed us alone till our union with Christ by faith. And then only came in the new nature, and that made the former old.
(2) Because of their different originals; the one being in us from the corrupt first Adam, the other from the holy second Adam. So the believer, looking on the corruption of his nature, may call fallen Adam father; and on the new creature in him, he may call Christ father. The second Adam coming after the first, made the first old: so the produce of them in us is the old and new man accordingly.
II. How the believer comes to be thus split in two, two men. This is done by virtue of his union with Christ, from whence ariseth a communication of grace to him from Christ, 1 Cor. i. 30. "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." Concerning which two things are to be noted.
1. That in the moment of one's union with Christ by faith, there is communicated to him, out of the fulness of grace in the man Christ, a measure of every grace in him, as the wax impressed receives every point in the seal, John i. 16. "And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace." Eph. iv. 13. "Till we all come -- unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." And thus is the new creature formed, being a new man perfect in parts, entire or having all its members, no grace totally wanting.
Hence it is that the new man is formed immediately after Christ's image, so that it is the very picture of the man Christ, as Eve was of Adam. Therefore the forming of it is said to be the forming of Christ in the believer, Gal. iv. 19.
2. That yet there is not then, nor during this life, communicated to the believer a full measure of any grace, 1 Cor. xiii. 9. "For we know in part." So all the graces being imperfect, though they remove sin as far as they go, they cannot fill up the room in any part, mind, will, or affections. And thus is there an old man left in the believer still, Rom. vii. 14. which is the image of the first Adam, from whom the corruption composing it is derived.
USE 1. Hence see, that the believer's life while here cannot miss to be a struggling life, Gal. v. 17. "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." The believer is like Rebekah in another case, the two men struggle in him; and like the two armies in the Shulamite.
2. See here the rise of the peace and easy life of it most men have. The flesh in them has no competitor. In the state of glory, grace has all, so there is a perfect peace: in the state of nature, corruption has all; so there is peace too; except what is marred by the struggle between the flesh in one part lusting, and the flesh in another part fearing, as in Balaam, 2 Pet. ii. 15. "who loved the wages of unrighteousness." Compared with Numb. xxii. 18. "If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more." Whereas the struggle in the believer is betwixt the flesh and Spirit in the same part willing, and willing the same thing of their proper motion, Rom. vii. 15, 16. forecited.
To deny the duality, is, simply put, to deny the necessity of sanctification and the operations of it by the Holy Spirit. It is to deny the historical track of Calvinistic thought. It is not a myth, it is the life we now must live.
0 Leave A Comment:
Post a Comment