Simul justus et peccator is not the same as saying "sin nature".  In fact, 
Luther would argue against that kind of thinking.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brown, Stanley" <SPBrown@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:26 PM
Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Romans 7 - Terry to Moe


>I thought that doctrine was reformational and Pauline. Simul justus et
> peccator.  Finney was a pelagian heretic.  Simul justus et peccator is not
> in that category.
> Stan
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chad R. Bresson [SMTP:breusswane@...]
>> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 10:01 AM
>> To: soundofgrace@...
>> Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Romans 7 - Terry to Moe
>>
>> --- "Brown, Stanley" <SPBrown@...> wrote:
>> > The reason we still sin is because we still have a sin nature, without
>> which
>> > we will not be able to sin as will be the case in the resurrection.
>>
>> We already have the resurrection as our nature in union with Christ's
>> resurrection,
>> the firstfruits of our regeneration.  Regeneration *means* what was once
>> dead (sin
>> nature) is now alive (new nature).
>>
>> Nowhere does the scripture state that the regenerated New Creation has a
>> sin nature.
>>  That doctrine is a manufactured fiction of Finneyism... the outgrowth of
>> second
>> blessing/Keswickian's "I surrender All" interpretation of Romans 7.
>>
>> Chad Bresson
>> Xenia, OH
>>
>> --
>> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
>> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
>> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>>
>> To view our online archive go to our web page at
>> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>>
>>
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: 
> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>
>