----- Original Message ----- 
From: <malajaa@...>
> Do you try to intimidate people out of their views with the use of guilt
> by association?  I.e. Finneyism.

No.  I'm merely pointing out the origins of the dualistic Paul... Finneyist 
and Keswickian theology need a sin nature present in order to justify their 
second blessing/surrendered-Victorious life.  (see Randall Gleason, JETS, 
June '97, where he posits Warfield's monism over against Chafer's dualism... 
or "one nature" vs. "two natures").  John R. Rice's infamous "black 
dog/white dog" analogy as explanation for his "I-surrender-allism" is 
grounded, even if unintentionally, in this Keswickian paradigm.

The dualism is both gnostic and Hellenistic... a Greek imposition on a 
Jewish text (the Hebraic understanding of man and his nature is monistic, 
not dualistic... Paul as a Jew spoke of one "man" in Romans 6, not two.  One 
cannot separate the Jewish view of personhood with the word "nature").

Use of the association was my lazy way (in lieu of having the time for a 
full-orbed discussion) of expressing surprise at finding Pauline 
"psychological" dualism on this list.

> Chad, your view sounds alot like one-nature pentecostal holiness teaching
> to me (:-), where the second blessing delivers from indwelling sin.  At
> least you share doctrinally the concept that there is no indwelling
> source of sin.

Well, not exactly.  Paul says in Romans 7:17 that sin "indwells" him.

>Your sin does come from somewhere though, doesn't it?

Of course.  Paul attributes sin to "the flesh" in Romans 7:18.

> Under your construct it could only come from the new man in Christ.

True.  Thus, what is a past reality, the old nature/man/person has been 
crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6, Colossians 3:3, 9, 10, Eph. 2:15) and 
becomes the basis for crucifying the old nature/man/person (Colossians 3:5, 
8, Eph. 4:24).  The relationship of the Paul's eschatological indicative and 
imperative always follows this pattern: *be* what you already *are*.

The new man and the new creation do not allow for the new creation to be 
added to the old creation, thus giving man a dual nature.  Ezekiel 11:19 and 
36:26 says in lieu of the new Spirit, the old heart is removed.  The New 
Covenant member has one heart, not two ("heart" being the equivalent to 
"nature").  The New Creation presupposes the death of the Old Adam (2 Cor. 
5:17).  Something that is "new" cannot also be "old".

I find the defense of "nature" in Romans 7 too bent on trying to explain 
what Paul does not explain in his use of the word "flesh".  Use of the word 
"nature" to explain Romans 7 flies in the face of what has been said in 
Romans 6 (via Ezekiel 36), 2 Cor. 5 and Col. 3.  There are various ways of 
attempting to explain the origin of sin in the believer... but "nature" 
should not be one of them.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH