Col 3. Do we have two natures or one?

[Biker]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%203&version=NASB

Col 3 Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 [a]Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. 3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.

5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to [c]immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which [d]amounts to idolatry. 6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come [e]upon the sons of disobedience, 7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living [f]in them. 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. 9 [g]Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old [h]self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him

 

[Torrent v.2]

We have an old man and a new man.  To call them natures is to add to the biblical text.  I know it is common theological language, and I have read the discussion in "5 Views of Sanctification" that shows why they can legitimately be called natures.  But someone can rightly come along and claim that the New Testament never calls them natures.

But, to answer simply, I think yes, we do.

 

[rsc2a]

I personally don't like the language of a "sin nature" although I can understand why people would call it that.

The largest problem with this language that assigns a sin nature to every person is that this word choice makes it appear as if there is something intrinsically wrong with humanity whereas I understand the Bible to teach that humanity (and all of creation) is intrinsically good.

I prefer to think of sin as more of a cancer (although hyper-malignant and touching everything) than as a nature. When someone has cancer, they don't become the cancer even though the cancer infects them. People, likewise, do not "become" sin even though sin dominates every part of their life until the Great Physician removes said cancer. To stretch this analogy, we are justified when God declares "the cancer is gone" and sanctification is the process of "chemo" and "radiation" that destroys the "cancer" in us (although the analogy fails regarding the order in which these events happens is reversed).

 

[Biker]

We have an old man and a new man. To call them natures is to add to the biblical text.  I know it is common theological language, and I have read the discussion in "5 Views of Sanctification" that shows why they can legitimately be called natures.  But someone can rightly come along and claim that the New Testament never calls them natures.

But, to answer simply, I think yes, we do.

Ok that sounds right. calling it a nature is adding to the text. I'll avoid that usage from now on

So you believe we have an old man and a new man. How to interpret these verses?

Rom. 6:6-7 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified (put to death) with Him that the
body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not
serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Rom. 6:6-7

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified (put to death) with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.


Galatians 2: "I no longer I live..."

Romans 6: 6 "I have been crucified."

If our old man is still living in us, he's really not dead, what is Romans 6:6 referring to?

"I no longer live.." meaning something died in us. what is that?



Something has been put to death^^^here in Romans 6:6.  If it's not the old man, and Colossians 3 speaks of an old and new man, what would that be?

 

[Biker]

I personally don't like the language of a "sin nature" although I can understand why people would call it that.

The largest problem with this language that assigns a sin nature to every person is that this word choice makes it appear as if there is something intrinsically wrong with humanity whereas I understand the Bible to teach that humanity (and all of creation) is intrinsically good.

I prefer to think of sin as more of a cancer (although hyper-malignant and touching everything) than as a nature. When someone has cancer, they don't become the cancer even though the cancer infects them. People, likewise, do not "become" sin even though sin dominates every part of their life until the Great Physician removes said cancer. To stretch this analogy, we are justified when God declares "the cancer is gone" and sanctification is the process of "chemo" and "radiation" that destroys the "cancer" in us (although the analogy fails regarding the order in which these events happens is reversed).

I lost my reply to you during cut and paste so I'll be back to respond

 

[brianb]

Romans 7:18 comes to mind. I believe we have one nature but as Christians we have the Holy Spirit and as we walk in the Spirit we are partakers of the divine nature (see I Peter 1 for more on that). This is choice though. We do not by nature walk in the Spirit. By nature we walk in the flesh. When the Bible says that we have died I think it means positionally. If we were actually dead we would not be able to commit sin. Only in the Spirit are we incapable of sin.

 

[Biker]

I personally don't like the language of a "sin nature" although I can understand why people would call it that.

Thanks for this. it is not accurate to call it a nature so it has been removed from my vocabulary

The largest problem with this language that assigns a sin nature to every person is that this word choice makes it appear as if there is something intrinsically wrong with humanity

Romans 5:12-16
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

whereas I understand the Bible to teach that humanity (and all of creation) is intrinsically good

GOD applies this label of GOOD to Adam and Eve prior to their sin (the fall) in the garden. After the fall, I am unaware of any verses calling humanity good, or referring to any human as intrinsically good. Jesus was more than good, he was righteous to the core. Sinless.

I prefer to think of sin as more of a cancer (although hyper-malignant and touching everything) than as a nature. When someone has cancer, they don't become the cancer even though the cancer infects them. People, likewise, do not "become" sin even though sin dominates every part of their life until the Great Physician removes said cancer.

Ingenious! Great Analogy
Actually though...your comment sin dominates our lives is incorrect
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. KJV

Except then... why do we sin? I can only conclude it is our actual physical body God assigned us as being the reason we sin. Scripture seems to indicate such imho .Death, pain,sickness and suffering came upon us with the curse in Genesis 3. It affects our brain, our mind. Our mind with other bodily deficiencies causes us to crave everything from self importance to drugs. And the cancer you mentioned contaminating us is the curse (as you indicated)

Since All Scripture "is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" 2Tim 3 if we belong to a church where Sermons contain just a handful of scripture (verses) then the Pastor is making it about him. It is also known as Topical Preaching.  This allows him to pick a topic that appeals to him... then mold Gods words around his own agenda topic. This goes against scripture. If just a handful of verses are recited in a half hour or hours sermon which can be read in 5 minutes, well then it's time to change churches. The babbling in between opposes scripture.

To stretch this analogy, we are justified when God declares "the cancer is gone" and sanctification is the process of "chemo" and "radiation" that destroys the "cancer" in us (although the analogy fails regarding the order in which these events happens is reversed).

Wow, your description is perfect



.

 

[Biker]

Romans 7:18 comes to mind. I believe we have one nature but as Christians we have the Holy Spirit and as we walk in the Spirit we are partakers of the divine nature (see I Peter 1 for more on that).

I agree

This is choice though. We do not by nature walk in the Spirit.

scripture seems to indicate it is very natural to us but in the beginning, I believe it is more of a struggle to remember to break old patterns and cycles.

By nature we walk in the flesh. When the Bible says that we have died I think it means positionally. If we were actually dead we would not be able to commit sin. Only in the Spirit are we incapable of sin.

Yes if we physically died we cannot sin. I believe it to mean dead to sin, dead to the result of sin (hell)

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

The biggest laugh of the day came when I read that r2d2 thinks that people are intrinsically good.  Yep, that is definitely what the indictment of mankind in Romans tells us:

Romans 3:10-23 (HCSB)
10  as it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one.
11  There is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.
12  All have turned away; all alike have become useless. There is no one who does what is good, not even one.
13  Their throat is an open grave; they deceive with their tongues. Vipers

 

[rsc2a]

The biggest laugh of the day came when I read that r2d2 thinks that people are intrinsically good.  Yep, that is definitely what the indictment of mankind in Romans tells us...


Now I have two choices, either believe r2d2 and his liberal lies, or believe the one true God.  Will I believe r2d2?

Romans 3:4 (ESV)
4  By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Biker]

whereas I understand the Bible to teach that humanity (and all of creation) is intrinsically good

GOD applies this label of GOOD to Adam and Eve prior to their sin (the fall) in the garden. After the fall, I am unaware of any verses calling humanity good, or referring to any human as intrinsically good. Jesus was more than good, he was righteous to the core. Sinless. [/quote]

Genesis 9:6 and the idea of the Incarnation. Those are the most obvious. From below... (underlined)

[quote author=Biker]

I prefer to think of sin as more of a cancer (although hyper-malignant and touching everything) than as a nature. When someone has cancer, they don't become the cancer even though the cancer infects them.People, likewise, do not "become" sin even though sin dominates every part of their life until the Great Physician removes said cancer.

Ingenious! Great Analogy[/quote]

Thanks. 

[quote author=Biker]Actually though...your comment sin dominates our lives is incorrect
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. KJV[/quote]

...for the regenerate man this is true. Thus the statement about the Great Physician.

[quote author=Biker]Except then... why do we sin? I can only conclude it is our actual physical body God assigned us as being the reason we sin. Scripture seems to indicate such imho .Death, pain,sickness and suffering came upon us with the curse in Genesis 3. It affects our brain, our mind. Our mind with other bodily deficiencies causes us to crave everything from self importance to drugs. And the cancer you mentioned contaminating us is the curse (as you indicated)[/quote]

I would have no problem with this statement. Like I mentioned, we are still going through "chemo" as part of our sanctification. Until it is over (until we die?), we will still have to deal with the cancer.

[quote author=Biker]Since All Scripture "is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" 2Tim 3 if we belong to a church where Sermons contain just a handful of scripture (verses) then the Pastor is making it about him. It is also known as Topical Preaching.  This allows him to pick a topic that appeals to him... then mold Gods words around his own agenda topic. This goes against scripture. If just a handful of verses are recited in a half hour or hours sermon which can be read in 5 minutes, well then it's time to change churches. The babbling in between opposes scripture.[/quote]

I would mostly agree with you here although I fail to see how it relates to the topic at hand?

[quote author=Biker]

To stretch this analogy, we are justified when God declares "the cancer is gone" and sanctification is the process of "chemo" and "radiation" that destroys the "cancer" in us (although the analogy fails regarding the order in which these events happens is reversed).

Wow, your description is perfect[/quote]

Thank you.

 

[Biker]

Reply to rsca
Genesis 9:6 and the idea of the Incarnation. Those are the most obvious. From below... (underlined)
ok

Thanks. 
your welcome

...for the regenerate man this is true. Thus the statement about the Great Physician.
woosh right over my head...  thanks

I would have no problem with this statement. Like I mentioned, we are still going through "chemo" as part of our sanctification. Until it is over (until we die?), we will still have to deal with the cancer.
yep

I would mostly agree with you here although I fail to see how it relates to the topic at hand?

My bad. I should have started a new thread

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Biker]...for the regenerate man this is true. Thus the statement about the Great Physician.
woosh right over my head...  thanks[/quote]



[quote author=Biker]I would mostly agree with you here although I fail to see how it relates to the topic at hand?

My bad. I should have started a new thread[/quote]

It might relate. I just didn't see how and wasn't sure if I was missing something. 

 

[Biker]

Now I have two choices, either believe r2d2 and his liberal lies, or believe the one true God.  Will I believe r2d2?

You have two other choices I can think of offhand. Debate it or ask for further clarification before responding.
Some things typed may come out different than intended due to unorganized thoughts. Hence: misspellings (r2d2 instead of rsc2a)

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Now I have two choices, either believe r2d2 and his liberal lies, or believe the one true God.  Will I believe r2d2?

You have two other choices I can think of offhand. Debate it or ask for further clarification before responding.
Some things typed may come out different than intended due to unorganized thoughts. Hence: misspellings (r2d2 instead of rsc2a)

You have never watched Star Wars, have you?  What a maroon.  There is nothing to debate.  God settled it with His word.