RYAN: There is something called Natural Sin. This is what many believe you are born into.
This is what Adam left mankind. Nazarenes believe (I'm sure there are other denominations as well) that you are bound to natural sin until you accept Jesus and you are no longer bound.
BRO REDD: The general Baptist teaching is to group sin into one category...separating it somehow gives the impression that god grades us on which one we get involved in and that is not the case. I have been taught and believe that sin is sin is sin, natural or otherwise.
JOHN: Biblically, historically, and theologically there are distinctions between “categories” (for lack of a better word) of what mean by “sin.” First, there is original sin (Ryan used the term “natural” sin. I take it that is original sin that he has in mind). This is related to Adam. When Adam, who was our representative in the garden, sinned, he plunged himself and all of his posterity into sin and ruin, meaning that all humans beings born after Adam have both the guilt of Adam’s sin “imputed” to them, and we also inherit a sin nature. Thus, taking our cue from King David in Psalm 51, we are born and conceived in sin. Note: this idea of representation and imputation will be critical when we look at Jesus, the second Adam as Paul refers to him in Rom 5, and the concept of how He represents His people, and how they stand before God on the basis of the imputation of the righteousness of their representative, Christ, to them.
Now, as a result of this original sin, mans nature is described as “totally depraved.” (Ryan use the term “bound” by sin, and this is correct). This does not mean that man is as evil as he could possibly be. What it means is that sin has corrupted man to the very core of his being and this corruption is total in that it extends to every aspect of man’s nature: his mind, emotions, will, desires, etc. There is no aspect of man that has not been radically corrupted by sin.
The results of this depravity are profound, and frankly many today fail to understand the full scope and significance of this. Man, as a result of this depravity, is in bondage to and held captive by his own sinful nature. Jesus said that man is, “a slave to sin.” This “slavery” and bondage means that we can only do that which our sinful nature desires. Hence, because of the pervasive corruption of sin, man does not and cannot incline himself to the spiritual good. Please note the word “cannot.” It is not merely that man will not come to Jesus (as Jesus says in John 5:40, “you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life…), but, it is also that man cannot come to Him, as Jesus clearly says in such passages as John 6:44 where Jesus said, “No one can come to Me…” and as Paul wrote, “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor 2:14). Many other passages bring this to light (these texts just scratch the surface on just how radically sin has affected man).
So, that is the first category, so to speak (i.e., original sin). We are conceived in sin, born in sin, and are sinners in every aspect of our nature.
The second category of sin is directly related to the first category, and this is what we call “actual sin” This is the sin that we commit in word, thought, and deed, by omission and commission (omission is not saying, thinking, or doing the things God has told to say, think, and do, while commission means we say, think and do things that we are commanded not to say, think or do. Our thought life alone should be enough to demonstrate the radical falleness of our nature, and the corruption that still remains in us even after we are saved…more on that below). Hence, because of the stain of original sin, we can do nothing commit actual sin in our lives. As the saying goes, we are not sinners because we sin; rather, we sin because we are sinner.
Now, though there is this important distinction between original and actual sin, as you point out Bro. Redd, it is not as if God “grades” us on which one we get involved in, for a very simple reason: it all applies to us. However, we must make sure we acknowledge both categories of sin. I hope that makes sense. And, as I noted, the results of this depravity are profound, and frankly many today fail to understand the full scope and significance of this. Our understanding of the nature of man and sin is essential in order to understand so much about the Gospel.
For example, if I may digress for a few moments, please note that Ryan said that man is bound by sin until he accepts Christ. This is only partially correct. Yes, man is bound by sin, and it is true that each person must make their own decision for Christ. Yet, as we have demonstrated, man is bound by sin. What this means though is that man, because he is in bondage to his sin nature, not will not and cannot come to Christ. As a result of the fall, man lacks the ability to come to Christ So the question(s) is this: How is one who is dead in trespasses and sin, whose whole nature (his mind, emotions, and will, etc.) has been tainted and corrupted by sin, ever going to come to the place where they “accept” Jesus?
Or, to really personalize it, why did any one of us (who, as Paul says in Eph 2:1-3, were like the rest, “gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature”) make a decision for Christ, whereas our unbelieving neighbors, co-workers, and others do not? Was it because we were smarter than them? Was it because we were wiser, or more inherently righteous in some way? Obviously, the answer is “no” to that. But, how can it be no if we were the ones that believed, and they didn’t? The answer is that the only reason we believed, and they didn’t was because of a work of God’s grace alone in us, whereby God brought us to spiritual life, and gave us the ability to choose Christ. Hence, our saving faith did not flow out of our unregenerate hearts of stone. Rather, it was it something that was bestowed upon us when God first raised us to spiritual life from spiritual deadness, solely by God’s sovereign grace alone. The Gospel alone is the power of God unto salvation, not man and his supposed power of “free will.”
This takes me back to John 6:44, where Jesus says “no one can come to me.” Immediately after saying that, He then says, “unless the Father draws him.” The first thing to note is that the ones that are “drawn” are, in context, the ones that were given to Christ by the Father (see John 6:37). This corresponds to Eph 1:3-6 (He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, and other similar texts, etc.).
Secondly with reference to John 6:37, which states, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me”, we further note that the ones given to Jesus will come to Jesus (not “might” come or may “potentially” come). In other words, every single person given to Jesus by the Father will be saved without fail.
Jesus then moves on to discuss how it is that those given to Him by the Father are brought to Him. First, as noted, He emphasizes the total inability of man to do this when He says in John 6:44, “No one can come to Me,” but then He adds “unless the Father draws him.” Though God certainly invites sinners to come, this “drawing” is not a mere invitation offered by God as if God were standing there, pleading helplessly with the dead sinner for him to make a choice for Christ. The Greek word here (helkuo) is the exact word that is translated as “drag” in Acts 16:19, where we are told that Paul and Silas were “dragged” into the market place (they weren’t “wooed” into the market place). Of course, just because a word is translated in one place one way doesn’t mean that it should be translated that way all of the time. The point of this word though (“helkuo”), is that it is not a passive word. It conveys action and power (though not as violent as another Greek word “suro” which is also translated as drag).
Hence, in John 6:44, the picture with reference to this word “helkuo,” which is translated as “draw” is that of a fishing net. The fisherman casts his net into the water, and “draws” the fish into his net. The fish are “caught” and drawn up into the net and in the boat (note, the fish are just swimming along until they are ceased and captured by the net, and also note that God, as the divine, sovereign, and omnipotent fisherman, always catches the fish he sets out to catch). This is more of the idea here. The drawing is a powerful working of God’s grace and Spirit. It is an enabling power that never fails to accomplish the intended the result, which is to bring those given to Jesus by the Father, but who were both unwilling and unable to come to Christ, to come to Him. Hence, the drawing that is in view is not a powerless “plea” from an impotent God. Rather, from God’s perspective it is the mighty working of His grace in bringing His sheep to Himself, and for the sheep, it is the enabling power given to them to do that which they were previously unable to do: come to Christ. And, if we keep reading on in the text, these points are further brought out (see verse 45, and 60-65. John 6:65 really highlights this because Jesus repeats what He said in John 6:44, “this is why I said to you no one can come to Me,” but then He adds, “unless it has been granted Him by the Father” or, as the NIV translates, “unless the Father has enabled him.”).
Many might think that “it is mine to believe, and it is the part of God’s grace to assist.” But, this is fundamentally incorrect. Salvation is not a joint venture and work by God and man, where God does His part and then leaves it up to man to do the rest (or as one evangelist once remarked, God has done 99% of the work, and leaves the 1% for man to do). Man must believe, but God’s grace must do far more than “assist” us. What is needed is spiritual resurrection, not spiritual assistance. It’s not that man is floating on top of the water, and God just throws a lifeline to him and tells him to just take hold of it. It’s that man has drowned and has actually sunk to the bottom of the ocean floor, and God must dive in after him, pull him up onto shore, tilt his head back, and breathe new life into him. When God does this, the moment that life comes into us, our heart cries out, “Jesus save me!”
Hence, salvation is “all of grace, not some of grace.” It is all of grace, not simply because it is undeserved (even the Roman Catholic acknowledges that much), but because every aspect of our salvation, to include our ability to come to Him, is given to us by God. It is all of grace because it is not merely assisting grace, but saving grace. It is grace that actually saves, not merely potentially saves. It is all of grace because it is grace that is able to overcome our resistance, not grace that is held in check by the supposedly sovereign, almighty, omnipotent will of man. Grace is amazing, not because it merely helps men essentially save themselves, but because it does what man is unable to do.
Okay, that was my digression J But, it is an extremely important, and relevant digression.
What I’d like to do know, for us to really get a good sense of this whole idea of sin and man’s slavery to it, is to quote two historic Protestant confessions of faith, the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), and the 1689 London Baptist Confession (LBC), which say the same thing with regard to this situation and really articulate the problem well. I will provide comments below each statement (also, please note, I have “modernized” the language from the old Queens English, and replaced the “hath’s” with has, etc.):
I.
God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is
neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or
evil. (James 1:13-14; 4:7; Deut. 30:19; Isa. 7:11-12; Matt. 17:12; John 5:40).
--
This first article, as well as the second article, relate to our pre-fall
condition. Hence, the first article
describes our “pre-fall” condition by saying that our will was not
determined to good or evil by any necessity of nature.
After the fall, this all changed, because now our will is
determined to that which is ultimately displeasing to God.
As the next article will elaborate on, we had the power to will that
which was pleasing to God, but, as a result of the fall and the ensuing
corruption of our whole nature, we lost that ability.
II.
Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to
will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; (Eccl. 7:29; Gen.
1:26, 31; Col. 3:10) but yet, mutably (i.e., subject to change), so that he
might fall from it. (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:6, 17)
--
Please note the words “in his state of innocency…” Here we see the crucial
matter: sin and its
devastating effects on our nature since the fall of Adam and Eve.
In our state of innocency (i.e., human nature before the fall of Adam and
Even), man had freedom and the power to will and to do that which
was pleasing to God; however, that ability was mutable, i.e., it was subject to
change. In other words, there was a
real possibility that man might lose that ability to will that which was good
and pleasing to God (we know in fact that he did lose it). And of course, we
know how the story ends: man fell
into sin, and incurred spiritual death. The
next article describes the nature of spiritual death:
III.
Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability
of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:(Rom. 5:5;
8:7-8; John 6:44, 65; 15:5) so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from
that good,(Rom. 3:9-10, 12, 23) and dead in sin,(Eph. 2:1, 5; Col
2:13) is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare
himself thereunto.(John 3:3, 5-6; 6:44, 65; I Cor. 2:14; Titus 3:3-5).
-- Here the WCF and LBC state in no uncertain terms what happened to us
as a result of the fall. As a result
of sin, natural man, i.e., every person that has not been regenerated by the
Holy Spirit, does not want anything to do with salvation.
He is dead in sin, and has lost all ability of will to do any spiritual
good. Not only is man unable to
convert himself; he is also unable even to prepare himself for salvation.
In other words, fallen sinful man isn’t out there desperately seeking
salvation. Quite the contrary; he is
only seeking that which gratifies his sinful nature.
As the apostle Paul tell us in Romans 3:10-11, "There is none
righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands;
there is none who seeks after God.”
There
are at least two things we can say with regard to this “seeking” or lack
there of that Paul mentions. First, we can say that Paul has in mind fallen man,
apart from God’s grace, in his natural fallen condition.
Man, in his natural, fallen condition, does not, and indeed cannot, seek
God in a saving sense. Second, even though man is, as it has been said by some,
“incurably religious” (i.e., man is created as a worshipper), we should not
be fooled into thinking that he is seeking the one true and living God in and of
himself. Man, in his natural state
apart from God’s grace, is not seeking God on God’s terms, and in
a saving sense. They are
“seeking” an idea of God that they have that satisfies some other motive in
their wicked hearts. It is only as
the Spirit of God, by His grace, moves upon the heart of man, that man begins to
turn toward God. Left to himself, he
does not, and cannot, seek God in a saving sense.
This is why it is the Gospel alone that is the power of God unto
salvation (not the power of man and his “free will,” which, as we have seen,
is really not as “free” as people think, but is in fact enslaved to sin).
IV.
PART 1: When God converts a
sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he frees him from his
natural bondage under sin;(Col. 1:13; John 8:34, 36; Rom. 6:6-7) and, by his
grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually
good;(Phil. 2:13; Rom. 6:14, 17-19, 22) PART 2: yet so, as that by reason of his
remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good,
but does also will that which is evil.(Gal. 5:17; Rom. 7:14-25; I John 1:8, 10)
-- This article has 2 distinct parts to it, and I have labeled them “PART 1” and “PART 2” for ease of explanation. Prior to PART 1 of this article, the WCF and LBC had been speaking of our state prior to the fall, and it moved on to speak of our state after the fall. Now, as we come to PART 1 of Article IV, these confessions turn a corner, and speak of our conversion to Christ, wherein we were brought into a saving state by God’s grace.
In PART I of this article (Article IV), we first discover that as a result of having been made spiritually alive, we now are no longer under our natural bondage to sin, and as a result, we have been liberated. We have been freed. Now we have a new heart and new desires. Where previously we hated God, we now love Him. Where previously we did not want anything to do with Christ, we now crave Christ. Where previously the only thing we could freely choose was that which was opposed to the spiritual good, we now have been enabled to freely choose the spiritual good. But, please note, the WCF is careful even here to couch even that in God’s grace, when it says, “by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good…” (Phil. 2:13; Rom. 6:14, 17-19, 22). Anyway, the point is that all of this is speaking of the initial moment we were brought into a saving relationship with God, and has reference to the doctrine justification. The doctrine of justification speaks of the moment when we were brought to saving faith by God, and at that moment we had the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and we were both pardoned for our sins, and declared righteous in God’s sight by virtue of the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us.
PART 2 of Article IV on other hand has reference to our life after
having been “saved.” This refers
to the doctrine of sanctification. Whereas
justification is a one time act that occurred the moment we were enabled to
received Christ, and is never repeated, sanctification is that aspect of our
salvation that is progressive.
It is the continual putting to death of our sin nature, and living for
Christ and being conformed to the image of Christ; a process that will not be
completed until glorification (when Christ returns and resurrects us and gives
us glorified bodies, etc).
Now,
all of this lays the groundwork to address Ryan’s comments. Ryan said, “you
are bound to natural sin...” Again,
understanding that Ryan is speaking of original sin and its effects, he is
correct at that point. However,
there is a qualification that must not be overlooked, which the WCB and LCB make
clear in PART 2. Though we are no
longer “bound” by our sin nature (meaning that where sin previously had
dominion over us, we now have dominion over it; see Rom 6), nevertheless the
corruption of our sin nature remains, and, as the WCF and LCB state, “as
that by reason of [mans] remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, nor only,
will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.”
That is critical to remember, because it calls attention to the fact
that, as stated, we never reach a time in our Christian lives (sanctification),
wherein we can say that we have achieved sinless perfection.
Now, this is important, because Ryan mentioned the Nazarenes. The Nazarenes, along with all Methodists and Wesleyans (these are all ultimately derived from John Wesley), believe that a person can reach a state of sinless perfection, and that our sin nature can be totally eradicated. But this is extremely problematic on a number of levels. Now, we can say that we are, positionally before God in Christ, “entirely sanctified” because of the perfection of Christ imputed to us. However, practically speaking, we will never achieve a state of sinless perfection in our lives, and our sinful nature will not be totally eradicated in our lifetime. Anyway, I will simply refer you to this article that really addresses this a bit more: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=391, and these articles on the doctrine of sanctification: http://www.monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=sanctification&B1=Go.
The
bottom line is that even though we are saved, and even though we have been
delivered both from the penalty of original and actual sin, and the bondage of
sin, we nevertheless are still engaged in an internal war with our old nature. Hence,
the WCF and LBC each are careful to say that the reason God must continue
to enable us to freely will and do that which is spiritually good is because, as
the WCF goes on to say, we are still suffering the effects of sin in our lives.
So profound is the remaining corruption in our lives that we neither
perfectly will that which is good, nor is that the only the only thing that we
desire. In other words, even when we
do, by God’s grace, will to do His good pleasure, our “willing” is still
tainted by sin. We have impure motives, thoughts, desires, etc.
This is why even the good works that we do still fall far short of the
glory of God’s infinite perfection and holiness, and could never stand the
scrutiny of His perfect scales and balances.
This
takes me to the final article:
V.
The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in
the state of glory only.(Heb. 12:23; I John 3:2; Jude 1:24; Rev. 21:27)
-- The only time that we will ever freely choose only that which is good
alone is when Christ returns and we receive our glorified bodies.
It will be impossible for us to sin at that point!
Praise Lord! Even so, come
Lord Jesus!
Anyway, the importance of understanding the nature of man and sin cannot be overstated, and it will affect how we understand the doctrine of salvation and its various components (there are a number of different elements that make up the doctrine of salvation, and these elements can be summarized by what is called the “ordo salutis” (i.e., the order of salvation), as particularly found in Romans 8:28-31, a passage which has been referred to as the “Golden Chain” of salvation. Anyway, those components begin before time even began (election and predestination), are manifested in time (calling, justification, and sanctification), and take us all the way to the very end of time (glorification)).
I will now address the other comments:
RYAN: Some believe you are always bound and this is the sin we struggle with.
BRO REDD: We as human struggle with sin period. While from a theological perspective I understand but from a practical application, rubber meets the road perspective, we struggle with sin. Without looking for or at it the distinction that I remember the bible making is that there is sin that leads to death and sin that does not lead to death. That's where, for me, the categorizing of sin stops.
JOHN: Ryan is not entirely accurate when he says that “some” believe you are always bound and this is the sin we struggle with. As noted in my comments on sin, the historic Protestant position anyway, going back to the Reformers, and codified is such confessions as the Westminster Confession of Faith (written in 1646), and the London Baptist Confession of 1689, is that we are not “bound” by sin in the sense that sin no longer has dominion over us, and we now have the ability that we previously lacked, namely, to actually desire and to freely choose the things of God. Though we have been liberated and freed, as noted above, God has not totally eradicated our sin nature, and the Christian life is one that is marked, as Bro Redd said, by struggle (or war) against indwelling sin. Numerous texts speak to this:
Gal 5:16-17 – “I say then: walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.”
Rom 6:11-14 – “In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
One thing that might be helpful here is the distinction we make in theology between the “already” and the “not yet.” For example, Christ has already defeated Satan at the cross, but, the full scope of that defeat has not yet happened, and awaits His return. Many more examples can be cited. Rev. Adrian Dieleman provides an brief, concise, and excellent over of this already/not yet tension in a sermon he preached. He says:
“According
to the New Testament Scriptures, the believer experiences the "already but
not yet." He is already in the future era spoken of by the prophets of the
Old Testament, but he is not yet in the final state. He is living in the last
days, but the last day has not yet arrived…We see the "already but not
yet" in the new life. On the one hand, it is already ours; on the other
hand, it is not yet fully ours...Paul says that the creation groans – as in
childbirth – as it waits for our final consummation (Rom 8:19,22); and, we
groan with it as we also wait (Rom 8:23)…The new life is "already but not
yet." Consider what this says about the kind of life we live. On the one
hand, we have already put on the new self created to be like God in true
righteousness and holiness (Eph 4:24). We have already put on the new self
renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator (
http://www.trinitycrc.org/BelgicSermons/37d.html
Dr. John Piper has a good, short article about this as well, and the fact that though we are already decisively and irrevocably free, we nevertheless are not yet finally and perfectly free: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2001/1178_Already_Decisively_and_Irrevocably_Free_Not_Yet_Finallyand_Perfectly_Free/
As for the sin that leads to death and sin that do not lead to death (1 John 5:16-18), that is a very difficult text that has been subject to various interpretation. I have read various commentaries on it, but will just leave you to check out some as well (I found this one to be the most helpful, and it has much to say about the current discussion: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=14&source=1&seq=i.69.5.2
RYAN: However, Nazarenes believe that you are now under a different kind of sin, a more directed sin that Satan uses.
BRO REDD: Don't fully agree but think i understand what is being stated.
JOHN: It is the same sin nature, with one important difference: we have been regenerated, and have the indwelling presence of the Spirit, and, as mentioned, are not in bondage to our sin nature any longer, though we still struggle against it.
RYAN: Natural sin is the natural barrier between God and man.
BRO REDD: Again, for me and the way I've been taught this statement would say "sin is a barrier between god and man. I'm curious, what is the other category or what is opposite of natural sin?
JOHN: As noted, I believe Ryan is speaking of original sin, and then the ensuing depravity of nature that accompanies it. As for the other “category,” that would be “actual sin.” These are the sins we actually commit by word, though and deed, by omission or commission.
RYAN: However, once you have Jesus this sin is no longer applicable.
BRO REDD: Agree it is no longer applicable because one has a choice to make, a choice of sinning or not sinning and glorifying god with and in their life.
JOHN: Actually, it is not entirely accurate to say that this sin (i.e., original sin which resulted our having been conceived and born in sin, and having a sin nature) is no longer applicable. It is not applicable in the sense that the penalty for both original and actual sin has been paid, and that we are no longer under the dominion of our sin nature. However, it is still applicable in the sense that our sin nature has not been eradicated, and we must, as the great Puritan John Owen said, “be killing sin, or it will be killing us.” (if you do not read anything else by a Puritan, you must read Owen’s book “The Mortification of Sin”. Get the condensed Puritan paperback: http://www.monergismbooks.com/001owen.html.).
As for the choice of sinning or not sinning, this is true, however, remember, even when we make the “right choice,” we are still never able to conform to the perfection of God (hence, it falls short, and at the end of the day, all of our righteousness is as a filthy rag before the perfect gaze of majestic holiness.). The Westminster Confession of Faith again has wonderful words of wisdom here: “They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able…to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do…but when we have done all we can (i.e., good works), we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they are good, they proceed from his Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God's judgment.”
As for making the right choice, also keep in mind that this only happens because God is working in us both to will and to do His good pleasure (Phil 2:13), hence, He receives all of the glory for the good choice we make.
One other problem here with Ryan’s view is that if we no longer have this “natural” sin (i.e., do not have a sin nature), then this means that we have, in essence, a perfected nature, and if that is the case, it would be impossible for us to sin; we would, by necessity, live in a morally perfected state. The reason is this: we make choices, but all of the choices we make are based upon our nature (I wrote about this here: http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/sovereigntyfreewill). Or, we may ask how is it that we come to make any choice at all? Do the choices we make just happen, or are they “caused” by something within us? The answer is that we do not make choices “ex nihilo” (out of nothing), for that would be to posit an effect without a cause. Our choice is the effect, and the cause of that effect is our nature. We could say that the human will is really at the very bottom of the process of choosing. First, there is our nature (which in unregenerate humanity is enslaved to sin). Then, from out of our nature flow our desires (the only kind of desires that can come forth from an unregenerate corrupted nature are corrupted desires). Then, we make our choice according to what we most desire at the moment. Jesus put it this way: “A good tree bears good fruit…nor can a bad tree bear good fruit…either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for a tree is known by its fruit. Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Matt 7:17-18;12:33-34).” The point is this: if our choices flow from our desires, and our desires from our nature, and if we no longer have a sinful nature, as Ryan seems to suggest, what kind of choices will we make? The answer is that we will never make a sinful choice. But this is manifestly proven to be false, both in Scripture, and just in personal experience. As believers, the reason we still struggle with sin, and make evil choices, is because we still have a sin nature. Now, when we are glorified, that will all change. It is then, and only then, that it will be impossible for us to sin, because it is then, and only then, that our sin nature will be completely eradicated. This gets into the already/not yet distinction I made above. Much more to say, but, I will leave it at that.
RYAN: You have the sin to fight against that is just from Satan, not from the world.
BRO REDD: Don't agree...read James 1. The word "just" is out of place.
JOHN:
Ryan’s comments are not correct. Historically,
Christianity has taught that we are engaged in a three front war against the
world, the flesh (that is, our own indwelling sin), and the devil.
As for the sin being just from Satan, that is incorrect.
Satan (and the world) are able to successfully entice us to sin because
they are able to appeal to the sin that still remains in us.
The sin that we fight against is internal, not external.
The world and Satan are our external enemies, while our flesh (sin
nature) is our internal enemy, and those external enemies make appeals to our
sinful nature to entice us to sin. James
1:13-15 alludes to this: “When
tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting
RYAN: Natural sin is not choosing to sin. It's being born into it and thus we have those who follow Christ and those who live in sin (of the world). Living without sin; Nazarenes believe that sin is a choice. You choose to disobey God so you are choosing to sin. If it is a choice, than you can choose not to do it. Therefore, a seasoned Christian (someone in your age bracket:-)) whose walk is further along and more knowledgeable, can by the grace of God be able to choose not to sin for a period of time. Personally, I think it is rare. I don't think just anyone can do it and just because you are an older, seasoned Christian, that doesn't mean you're guaranteed not to sin.
BRO REDD: True that but a blood bought Christian will not continue in sin, will not continue to live a life of sin, will not continue to habitually sin...age is not a factor, I certainly agree with you on that.
JOHN: With reference to Ryan’s comments, I think there is just some confusion as it relates to the whole “natural sin” idea. Again, that natural sin (i.e., original sin) is itself not a choosing to sin, but rather describes the corruption of our nature, which results in us make sinful choices. I have spoken about all this above. As for a Christian continuing in sin, the point is correct: a truly born again Christian will not live a life marked by habitual, willful sin. This does not mean that he never sins (in point of fact, if we were to take count every day of the many ways we do in fact “sin” either by omission or commission, we would surely be stunned), nor does it not mean that there may be even extended periods where the person looks nothing like a Christian (take the example in 1 Corinthians. In that letter, Paul addresses all sorts of sinful practices and beliefs, yet still refers to them as in the faith). The point is that our lives are to be marked, both in attitude, and in practice, by a desire for, and an expression of, personal holiness.
RYAN: I'm getting into all the deep stuff lately...
BRO REDD: be careful of the deep stuff, there are a lot of things my denomination believes and teaches that I have found to be against God's word or better put, it is not supported by God's word so I can't go along with it. The word of god encourages us that "in all of our getting, get an understanding." again, this is the reason I believe god opened the door (again) for me to become educated in his word and while I certainly don't agree with all some of the professors are saying, I seek god for the greater understanding so that I, as one of his called, will rightly divide the word of truth. I want to be about his business and to speak and do as he commands.
On that note, I almost didn't respond because I said to myself we needed to talk...I can't relay all that needs to be relayed in the manner it needs to be relayed in an email. Yes, I remember and miss those afternoons we would spend talking about the word and life in general. Just make sure you are getting wise counsel and in all your getting, get an understanding according to the Holy Spirit.
JOHN: The desire to get into the deep end of the pool, so to speak, is good, because we want to keep growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ. However, Bro Redd’s admonition about being careful is correct. Two things to guard against are: 1) a spirit of pride (the more we learn, the more we may feel we have attained. In point of fact, for me anyway, the more I learn, the more ignorant I realize I really am!). 2) In examining the deeper things, we can be thankful that God has raised up godly teachers, upon whom shoulders we but stand in order to see more of God’s truth. However, those teachers, though they may have taught many correct things, are not the infallible rule of faith and practice; Scripture alone is. Thus, we must test all things in light of God’s Word. Now, with that in mind, I love the Protestant Reformers (Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc.), and I am a 5 point Calvinist. I am a 5 point Calvinist though, not because of John Calvin, but because I have tested those things in light of Scripture, and I came to agree with the great Baptist preacher of the 19th century, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, that “Calvinism is really just a nickname for Biblical Christianity.”
As for Calvin and Calvinism, Calvin himself is probably turning over in his grave because people refer to themselves as “Calvinists.” J Calvin was, by the admission of both friends and foes, an extremely humble, quiet, and godly man (though, of course, Calvin is almost one of the most vilified figures in church history, mostly because his name more than any other came to be associated with the sovereignty of God and predestination. This is quite sad though, because Calvin did not teach anything new with regards to those things. All of the Reformers believed and taught the same exact thing regarding those issues (though Philip Melancthon, who was Martin Luther’s right hand man, began to modify some of his views). Anyway, Calvin did not teach anything new, and the doctrines that have come to be known as “Calvinism” certainly did not originate with Calvin. Part of the problem was just Calvin’s own brilliance as a theologian and organizer. While Luther was the voice of the Reformation, Calvin was its theologian, and it Calvin, the great “systematizer,” who was able to present to the world orthodox Protestant theology in a clear, concise, and systematic manner (he did this his “Institutes of the Christian Religion.” Regardless of what one thinks of Calvin, his Institutes should be read by every Christian. They are powerful). Anyway, Calvin’s teachings were nothing new. Much more, obviously, to say about all of that. For now, I will refer you to my own testimony on why/how I came to be a “Calvinist” http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/whycalvinist.
I also refer you to this site that has numerous articles on this issue:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Doctrines-of-Grace/
(note: there are some excellent audio files as well at that link. See in particular John Pipers lectures. If you don’t listen to anything else, you must listen to these: http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Audio-and-Multimedia/Doctrine-and-Theology/Calvinism/John-Piper--TULIP/ .
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/05/doctrines_of_grace_categorized.php
Also, there is a great DVD you can purchase called Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism. It is very good and well worth the price: http://www.monergismbooks.com/001DVD.html
I have also written extensively on the subject: http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/musings
RYAN: Studying Romans with a brother I have here, we've opened the predestination vs. free will. A little over a year ago, I was all about free will but having studied Romans, I am not so sure now and lean more towards predestination (I get closer to Calvin every day...scary). Having looked over this email, believing that you choose to sin and believing in free will is somewhat contradictory. I may have to keep studying...
BRO REDD: KEEP STUDYING, YOU'RE NOT THERE YET.
RYAN: The 5 points of Calvinism are fascinating as well. I am reading up on them but still only on point #1.
JOHN: Well, everything I mentioned about sin falls into the first “point” of Calvnism, and the comments on how one comes to saving faith, and John 6:44, deal with the second and fourth points (Unconditional Election, and Irresistible Grace).
Soli Deo Gloria (to God alone be the glory),
John