I appreciate your post Mike. I do think the argument against the word nature is semantic, but I also have no problem throwing out the word nature in favor of sin principle as descriptive of that aspect of the Christian out of which arises various kinds of sins. Stan, LA > -----Original Message----- > From: malajaa@... [SMTP:malajaa@...] > Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 12:50 PM > To: soundofgrace@... > Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Romans 7 & 8 > > To Moe, Terry, Chad and Stan, > > Thank you all again for this stimulating and refreshing discussion. I > too was blessed by your last post Moe. Thank you for encouraging us to > walk in "newness of life". It is a truly marvelous thing that God has > done with us in Christ. Think of it. Uniting us to the Son of God. > Giving us the Spirit that we might know that we are the children of God, > and manifest His very life! Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift! > What a blessing to be created in Christ Jesus unto good works. In > Christ a new creation. Though we disagree on some points. Let us all > agree that it is an unspeakable blessing to know and experience the fact > that "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, has set me free from > the law of sin and death". Whatever that means, it is something very > very good is it not? And it is true of us in Christ. > > Now, back to the bickering... Chad, you said.... :- .... > No, we are not bickering we are sharpening each other, right? As iron > sharpens iron. Or is it, as mountain goat butts mountain goat. > May we be open to what the word of God alone teaches and not motivated by > pride and the desire to win arguments. > > It seems to me that the law of cause and effect does apply to the fact > that we still sin. Those sins must have a cause. To deny this seems to > me to invite a conflict with reality. When Paul uses the singular "sin" > as the source of sins. I believe he is referring to a source still > within the Christian. Romans 7:20, "But if I am doing the very thing I > do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. > 21. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who > wishes to do good." > > This statement of Paul's is so plainly saying that "sin dwells in me > (him)" that it is hard to see how it could be missed. The reason that he > stated that sin dwells in him is because he was doing the things that he > did not wish, i.e. sinning. Sin is clearly here the source of the 'doing > the things that he did not wish'. Now if Paul believed that he had sin > dwelling in him, producing sin, I would encourage you to consider the > possibility that you also might have sin dwelling in you. > To introduce Paul's already/ not yet, soteriology/ eschatology as > a basis for denying that believers have a sin nature is not really > helpful. Our issue is with our current state now. Paul obviously held > to both the believers perfection in Christ as a present reality > (positional sanctification), and the believers present state of have "sin > dwelling in him". This tension is just as real as that between perfect > position and sin nature. > Terry and Chad, if you admit that sin is dwelling in you, is that > really any better than having a "sin nature"? Is "old man" better? Do > you think that calling it a nature is giving it too much 'credit', or > 'legitimacy', or, more reality than it is due? I believe calling it a > "pattern of behavior", or "habit", is denying its reality. I believe the > danger in that could be compared to the family of rabbits living near the > family of coyotes and the mother rabbit telling her babies (kits?) that > the coyotes don't really exist. You and those you teach will not be > prepared for the ferociousness of the beast of sin that is seeking to > dominate you and devour your life. "Mommy if that coyote isn't real, why > is it chewing off my leg?" > Ephesians 4:22 was written to Christians. It says that we are > to, "lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with > the lusts of deceit". The fact that the old self is "being corrupted", > strongly suggests both that it is a present reality, and really exists, > as opposed to a metaphor for former behavior. It does not make sense to > read it that "bad behavior is being corrupted by bad behavior." It makes > much more sense to read it as an actual source, or life, or self, or > nature, that is being corrupted. In other words, natures, or lives, are > much more likely to be corrupted than metaphors for bad conduct. This > is a strong point that I think you should consider, Terry and Chad. > > May grace and peace be to you in Christ, > > > Mike > PA > > > > t 2004 01:34:34 +0000 moe.bergeron@... writes: > > Terry, > > > > Appreciate your encouraging words and your point is well taken. > > That new man will pursue his God and he will do it willingingly. > > It's in his (new) nature. His desire is to please our Father and His > > Risen Son. As John plainly teaches in his 1st epistle if one > > continues to walk in darkness he is not of God. > > > > 1 John 6 > > If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we > > lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is > > in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of > > Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. > > > > Would you or anyone else for that matter agree with the following? > > > > I'm of the opinion that the man who claims in this age to be under > > the authority (rule of life) of both the external code inscribed > > upon tablets of stone and Christ could be guilty of spiritual > > adultery. (Such a state is of course for all practical purposes > > impossible. It's an imaginary life.) GNC (gulp) leads me to suggest > > that the man who claims his rule of life is the external written > > code gives evidence by his own admission that he remains outside of > > the New Covenant. At the very very least he is the true doctrinal > > anti-nomian. > > > > What say ye? > > > > Again, Thank you for being so agreeable. > > (at least with my previous post ;-) > > > > Moe > > > > -- > > 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 > > >