Let's be reasonable with one another, shall we?

Monday, February 13, 2006

Is the Christian Dual-Natured? (part 1)

The idea that the Christian is dual natured has been something that I have understood from my earliest days as a Christian. If I had a sinful thought, it was because of the “old nature.” This really helps to explain what goes on in our lives as believers does it not? We are sinful people, born in sin, separated from the life of God. Then, the Spirit of God comes to dwell within us when we receive Christ and are given the life of God, eternal life, within our being. However, our minds, our hearts, are not suddenly free of all the sin that we have had from the moment of birth. We still struggle with sin (hopefully we struggle, fight it and not just indulge in it). We still remember many of our past sins. We still have the “other person” that we once were, but now, we have a new person next to this one. We have a “new nature” and an “old nature.”

The new creation is one who is inclined toward the things of God. This child of God can “get something” out of the Bible. Before believing, the Bible would be foolishness to him. Once a person has become this new creation, having the Spirit of God within them, that new nature doesn’t see the Bible as foolishness. That born-again believer needs to grow and develop. That spiritual being, born of the Spirit of God, doesn’t want to sin, but wants to please God.

However, the other person, the “old man” is still there too. He doesn’t want to abstain from sin, does he? He wants to continue in sin. He doesn’t desire the things of God. He relates to the world. The “old nature” is just as it was. If I am right, a born-again Christian is like two people in one.

This presents quite a struggle, doesn’t it? A WAR WITHIN! (Although with God's Spirit on the "NEW MAN's" side, it is a very winnable war!)

Coming soon: The scriptures that support this doctrine and the scriptures that a brother has recently brought to me to challenge me on this.

the END


  • Yes, I agree with that.

    God Bless

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 2/13/2006 12:14 PM  

  • Wow, you were able to somehow post that comment while I was still fiddling around with posting the post! You are really "Johnny-on-the-spot"!

    I am glad you agree. I wonder if others do, too, or if this brother of mine I refer to is an abberation on the issue.

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/13/2006 12:19 PM  

  • In your first post as "Rosie," I asked in the comments section if you were referring to the battle within of Spirit vs flesh, to which you replied no. You clarified it to be 'old man' versus 'new creation.'
    I still see today's post topic as Spirit vs flesh, only now as the 'new man' (born again), you have the Holy Spirit within convicting your flesh of its errant ways.
    I don't see it as two people in one or two 'natures'. As long as we're residing in flesh, we'll have the flesh nature, but we're born again in Spirit. We can be spirit and flesh at once, but this side of heaven, they will always duel - once we're born again that is.

    By Blogger Susan, at 2/13/2006 12:57 PM  

  • Well I sort of agree Rose...but I figure it is all ready won through Christ and not just winable.

    There is a conforming...but that is preordained.

    You asked once why one believing in election would continue to talk as if trying to convert another...it is simply the nature of Christ conforming within us ...it is really more about our conforming since the battle is all ready won.

    By Blogger ambiance-five, at 2/13/2006 1:22 PM  

  • Hi Susan,
    I didn't reply "no." :~)
    I stated what my perception is without really adressing your Sprit vs. Flesh question.

    This may all be a matter of semantics.

    What you may learn about me if you continue to read my blog, Susan, is that sometimes I write a post and take comments for the purpose of clarifying things for myself, not always to dish out to others what I believe to be true.

    This is one reason why I like blogging. It can help me think!

    Thanks for stopping by!

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/13/2006 1:22 PM  

  • Rose,
    I am sorry I only just read this as I am literally on my way out the door for work. I see Paul's address of this issue in Gal.5:16-26. The indwelling Holy Spirit is the only source of good in the believer. The flesh wars against Him. Other than that, I am with Susan and Ambiance-five here.


    By Blogger bluecollar, at 2/13/2006 1:34 PM  

  • {seminary training kicking in}

    Salvation is a 3-step process (God is more efficient than human, thus saving us 9 steps}:

    1. Justification: we are forgiven for our sins (past, present, future), and made blameless in the sight of God, by the act of Jesus' substitionary death on the cross and our acceptance of the gift of mercy and grace.

    2. Sanctification: we are progressively cleansed of our sinful nature through an ever-deepening relationship with Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit.

    3. Glorification: at the end of time (if not sooner--not getting into the debate of whether we go straight to Heaven upon our departure from this physical world or have to wait for some moment in the future) we are made fully free of all taint of our sinful nature as we enter into the very presence of God for eternity.

    By Blogger Jeff H, at 2/13/2006 1:36 PM  

  • Hi Rose,
    I didn't read your post as anything remotely resembling dishing out things for others; I enjoy your thinking out loud and reasoning with brothers and sisters in Christ. I realized that when I first read your blog, its header, profile, and important posts.
    I just wanted to introduce into the discussion the language of Spirit vs flesh. Because I think that's what you're talking about.

    By Blogger Susan, at 2/13/2006 1:39 PM  

  • Hi Ambiance,
    There are plenty of Christians who have "shipwrecked" faith though. I know a few. I believe I am responsible to "walk in the Spirit". Yes, Christ has won it! BUT ... What is my responsibilty as a new creation?

    Bluecollar and Susan (and Ambiance),
    I really wasn't bringing this up to get back into the POTS or the LS debate, believe it or not. I am mainly asking about the two natures, the TWO PEOPLE idea. Is there TWO people within a Christian?

    You can mention your thoughts on the other if you wish, and I will certainly engage you in that discussion, but I just want to be clear, that isn't my main question here. (although I must admit, the whole subject of the two natures came up when I was talking about POTS with a brother)

    Thanks for bringing your brawn by! (alliterwhat?)

    Thanks. :~)

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/13/2006 2:00 PM  

  • Yes' it's probably semantics and probably depends on how you define "nature". NIV uses Sinful Nature but it is sometimes a confusing term to some because the word sinful nature is sometimes translated incorrectly.

    Consider Romans 6:6 the old man was crucified resulting in the Christian no longer being a slave to sin. So in that sense we our flesh as a Christian isn't to slavery to sin.

    The believer is truly a "new creation" in Christ so has a new nature, yet constantly fighting the battle of sin.

    Sarx I think it is called in the greek, but it's more like flesh if you translate it.

    We are really a new Creation in that our nature has really changed, yet there is a constant battle for sin in our life.

    The more biblical term is the "flesh" or "deeds of the body" in us with our desires to sin.

    This being said, we know that we all have a evil desires/passions within us to sin Romans 7.

    In our sanctification, we mortify or put to death the deeds of the body and now we have put off the deeds of the old self, and have put on the new self in God and we must keep in step with the Spirit.(Colossians 3:5-8).

    Sorry so long. This is an interesting conversation, but I think a good one.

    By Blogger Shawn L, at 2/13/2006 2:09 PM  

  • Rose,
    I don't even know what POTS refers to, and my mentioning Spirit vs flesh is Biblical, not Lordship Doctrine (at least not as I'm bringing it up).
    If you want to reduce it to one question: Are there two people inside one Christian? My answer is no. But there is a flesh nature and there is a Holy Spirit - both in one Christian. They are not two people. Just as we don't serve three gods - we serve a triune God.

    By Blogger Susan, at 2/13/2006 2:11 PM  

  • Hi Susan,
    I know you are referring to biblical terms; it is OK, I am not an adversary.

    POTS: things you put houseplants in? No. ;~)


    Yes, Calvinism. (achhh! I can't get away from that discussion!)
    If you want a little background on where we have been on this blog, before, in regards to POTS, you could read the post in my sidebar, entitled:
    TULIP ... Perseverance of The Saints

    Also, it is sort of related to what you have read on Antonio and Daniel's blog in recent weeks.

    Bless you in your studies. Keep this in mind: sometimes when we have an idea that has been put in our mind, then we read a passage of scripture, sometimes it can sound like that idea, even though it really isn't. I have learned this the hard way. (I say this in reference to the teachings of Calvinsim and what I read from you this morning on "from the head of the Moor") Again, I am not trying to talk down to, or be adversarial to you.

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/13/2006 2:22 PM  

  • Hi since I was on I thought I'd say - Great discussion.
    Don't think I will add to much yet Shawn has me covered.

    By Blogger Jessica Jo L, at 2/13/2006 2:35 PM  

  • No, Ambiance, the victory of the Spirit in our lives is not certain-

    Hebrews 12:25
    'See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven.'

    Note that the author says 'we', this is addressed to believers not false professors. In the same chapter he warns that those who are sons must endure chastening.

    1 Timothy 1:19
    'Holding faith and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck.'

    We as believers may fall into serious sin. This is not dealt with by loss of salvation, but with chastening and if it reaches an advanced state by loss of physical life (1 Cor 11:29-32, 1 John 5:16).

    This is a message you will not hear in many pulpits

    Every Blessing in Christ


    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 2/13/2006 2:36 PM  

  • The entire epistle of Galatians (among other Scriptures) is devoted to the struggle between the fleshly nature and the spiritual nature.

    Paul further discussed his battle in this in Romans 7.

    By Blogger Gordon Cloud, at 2/13/2006 2:41 PM  

  • Hi Rose,

    I tend to go with the duality of the Christian nature. I take Romans 7-8 pretty literally. I believe Paul is saying that we as Christians stay as chapter 7 describes, and don't go from being chapter 7 to being chapter 8 after being reborn. It appears as though we are still all of chapter 7 and 8, both, while on this earth. but I'm getting ahead of you and I'll let you finish your supporting in your next post. It will be edifying to see what other believers are thinking. I wish I had time to even read the comments today. Catch up with you soon. Todd

    By Blogger Todd, at 2/13/2006 2:48 PM  

  • Hi Rose, I've never thought of you as an adversary. Nor any of the Christian bloggers out there.
    Since you're familiar with my comments in the Christian blogosphere, you know that I'm very new to theology - particularly Calvinism, Arminianism and Lordship Doctine (I don't even know what the latter is either really - just that I've heard it referred to with respect to Calvinism, so I presume there's a connection.)
    I say all this to let you know I wasn't sure why it entered into this blog discussion. Just my lack of familiarity showing.
    I had previously printed three of your TULIP discussions and put them in a binder for further reading - just haven't read them yet. (I have done that with other blog discussions as well.)
    I certainly appreciate your counsel regarding not reading into Scripture, but I don't think what you're saying applies to what I wrote in Jonathan Moorehead's comments.
    When Scripture confirms things with the Spirit of God residing in us, we can't not listen to it. (Well, we can choose not to, but in my case, He is reaffirming for me something that is a new revelation - predestination and God's ultimate sovereignty - which I'm thinking about in ways I never had before since becoming a believer.)
    If anything, what I've read on Calvinist blogs makes greater sense to me in the light of Scripture. And it has been a great help to me with respect to my 'sinful flesh'; I don't "fret" so much about my own failings, as if it all depended on me. I let the Spirit convict, and if/when I'm wise, I repent. So far, I've repented (sooner or later) of sin every time He convicts.
    But it's a Spirit-flesh battle within, not my old self per se and my new self. At least that's the way I see it.

    By Blogger Susan, at 2/13/2006 3:49 PM  

  • I appreciate anonymous' comments regarding sin. Bingo!
    Perhaps that's why I'm struggling with semantics here. (Words are important, all the moreso without benefit of face-to-face conversation.)
    The Spirit within us is not a 'nature.' And is opposed to the 'natural man' referred to in the Bible.
    Maybe that's why I'm having trouble with the semantics of "dual-natured."
    Maybe it should be 'duel' natured - the natural man (flesh) dueling the Spirit.

    By Blogger Susan, at 2/13/2006 4:28 PM  

  • hi;
    Romans 6:6-7-"For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin because anyone who has died has been freed from sin."
    "old self was crucified" and "anyone who has died" are pretty obvious statements that indicate our old nature is dead. we are now spiritually natured. you cant survive crucifixion!

    romans 7:20-"20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

    it is not A nature, but sin that dwells in you that sins. it is a body of sin that wars with you. Susan is right. It is a flesh vs Spirit battle and the flesh is sin itself. this is crystal clear, but only semantics.

    By Anonymous Pat, at 2/13/2006 4:30 PM  

  • Hey, what happened?
    Anonymous changed to Pat.
    And then my comments jumped above his (hers?).
    Just so everyone's clear - I'm referring to Pat's comments now.
    (See above. If they stay in place, that is. :-)

    By Blogger Susan, at 2/13/2006 4:43 PM  

  • Thanks Rose for bringing this up.

    Some good thoughts everyone. I don't see that this has to be a POTS or anything discussion, but getting us in the Word. Amen!!

    Isn't God's sanctification awesome, though our sinfulness sometimes can freak me out. I'm freaked out how much I sin, yet I know of one who has paid penalty on my behalf alone.

    Yes, Romans 6:6 is helpful to me as well, however having said that we must put to death the deeds of the flesh.

    By the way as a side note as I'm thinking about putting to death the deeds of the body, isn't Colossians like one of the coolest books in the whole bible. I love it.

    Colossians 1 : Greatness of Christ
    Colossians 2 : Christ's sufficiency
    Colossians 3 : Therefore, God's Sanctification

    Because we are delighting and enjoying Christ alone and have been raised with Christ and that we are Hidden With Christ in God(Colossians 3:1-4). We start from there, in viewing his greatness and then go from their this is how we are sanctified.

    Let me show you what I mean.

    Thankfully in God's Sanctification we are putting off the deeds of the flesh or crucifying the old man. Sometimes I think we forget this is sometimes a painful process. And putting on of the new man, clinging to what is good and holy.

    One of my favorite verses in this context is Colossians 3:9-10 "Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. "

    Isn't that a facinating verse, there seems to be such indication throughout all of the scriptures that our sanctification is always starting first by looking to the Savior and Lord.

    Whether it be painful in it's putting to death the deeds of the flesh or putting on holiness. Isn't this fascinating to you in the section I'm looking at. John Piper has helped me see these scriptures throughout the bible.

    Then because of the fact that we are enthralled with Christ and this we put to death or mortify the deeds of the flesh (Colossians 3:5-11) we put on deeds that are pleasing to God. (Colossians 3:12-17). Colossians is a great book to view in it's order of things.

    WE must reconize that sanctification is a work of God (put off, put on) and not to be confused by thinking that we are passive in this process.

    We must pray that God would keep us from temptation. Pray for wisdom and discernment and the power to do good and to turn from evil. I pray God deadens my delight in sinful pleasures and helps me grow in godliness.

    sorry so long.....
    However, there

    By Blogger Shawn L, at 2/13/2006 5:26 PM  

  • Rose,

    You are absolutely right. It is two natures, two capacities.

    People who want to say that we do not have two natures are begging the question.

    In Christ, in position, our old man was crucified. This is the ultimate victory.

    Yet in experience, the old man is very much alive as long as we do not mortify it.

    Romans 6:1-10 tells about our position in Christ.

    But Romans 6:11ff, talks about our need for experiential mortification of the old man:

    Rom 6:10-13
    11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

    There is a disconnect with Traditionalism here. Their doctrine of "definite sanctification" states that the old man in experience was crucified and that sin only remains in the regenerate by nature of the remnant which is left in the flesh.

    This is, to me, is untenable. Flesh, as a merely physical thing, is morally neutral.

    James 1:14-15
    But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

    Sin starts in the mind and affections, the immaterial nature of man, and when the mind is tempted, and the person succumbs, sin is born.

    This all resides, not in the physical flesh, but the nature/capacity of man that can be referred to as flesh or the old man.

    The old man is within regenerate man, but it has been judged. Regenerate man no longer needs to be in slavery to it. But he surely can be a slave to sin. He is to make no provision for his sinful nature/capacity. In light of the sinful nature being judged on the cross and our position in Christ, we are to:

    1)Reckon ourselves dead unto sin (Rom 6:11)
    2)Reckon ourselves alive to God in Christ (Rom 6:11)
    3)Not let sin reign in our body (Rom 6:12)
    4)Stop presenting our members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin (Rom 6:13)
    5)Present ourselves to God as being alive from the dead (Rom 6:13)
    6)Present our members as instruments of righteousness to God.
    (Rom 6:13)

    If our old man was experientially crucified as it is positionally crucified, there would be no need for Paul to enjoin and entreat our wills to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to God, and present ourselves to God.

    The sin nature is there, still there. Look at Romans 7! Paul is talking about his regenerate self in Romans 7!

    It needs to be crucified in experience as it is in position.

    Here is where the Traditionalists get into trouble. They see the plethora of commands to mortify our sin nature in experience. Yet their doctrine assumes that all true Christians, by virtue of their regeneration, necessarily do this. These commands become superfluous in light of their doctrine.

    There is no need to enjoin and entreat the will of someone who is constrained already to do what is being commanded.

    Rose, you are right.

    The Christian has two distinct capacities, just read Romans 7.

    Rom 7:17-23
    7 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

    21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

    Why is Paul's will to do good but he cannot? He is not living by the Spirit! For it is only when we walk by means of the Spirit, in the sphere of His influence that we will not fulfill our sinful desires (Gal 5:16).

    There are two natures, two capacities set in opposition to each other in our ontological nature. The one is empowered by our selfish, sinful desires, the other MUST BE empowered by the Holy Spirit.


    By Blogger Antonio, at 2/13/2006 5:48 PM  

  • Death to the old man!

    Reminds me of a song by the band Guardian called "This Old Man".

    Returning the comment! God bless!

    By Blogger Rhology, at 2/13/2006 6:54 PM  

  • Hi Jessica. Thanks!
    Hi Shawn,
    I am going to bring those things up in the next post.

    Thanks. That is what I though, but we shall see how my study takes me.

    Hi Todd,
    Thanks for your contribution also. And thanks for realising that this was just the introductory post.

    Hi Bhedr,
    Christ truly loves His bride.

    By Blogger Rosie, at 2/13/2006 7:05 PM  

  • oops, that really wasn't the old nature talking, I forgot to change identities.

    I am taking your thoughts into consideration. The reason that I deleted that comment is because it was from my brother. He insists on being anonymous and I want him to use his name "Pat". So I emailed him and told him that I was changing his comment from anonymous abykwia
    to Pat.
    Hopefully he will interact some more and use his name, because he is the one that I was discussing this with to begin with!

    Thanks for visiting rhology!

    I have to be with the little ones so I will come back and read your comment in a while. It is long so it will take me a minute! Thanks for contributing!

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/13/2006 7:10 PM  

  • Antonio,
    Can we just stick to the discussion without citing where 'Traditionalists' (or any other family members in Christ) fail in your eyes?
    It's really frustrating to try and reason or learn together and have someone continually pointing out where the other guy doesn't match up (in your eyes).
    You could, for instance, make your point very well without going into how you view 'Traditionalist' thinking at all. You could affirm what you know to be true without knocking down the other guy. It leaves the impression that you seek controversy and/or confict.
    And as I read through your discourse, I just don't see the way you portray 'Traditionalists' (I'm reading Calvinists in here) as accurate.
    Ex: "There is no need to enjoin and entreat the will of someone who is constrained already to do what is being commanded."
    Nobody is being constrained against his or her will.
    I don't want to nitpick through everything you write, but I implore you to be more respectful. You can just state your points without continually ripping into other theological points of view.

    By Blogger Susan, at 2/14/2006 8:38 AM  

  • Brawny Mark,
    Before you read my comments, (if you do), I just want you to know that "traditionalist" is a label that is not deragatory. I was reading TGATJ yesterday and JMac refers to his theolgy with that term. So please, don't be insulted by it. It is never intended to insult.

    I have never met you, yet here, what you have stated, is exactly the way I understand this.

    I also appreciate your explanation of the other view ... I didn't even know there was another way to see it, until very recently. (It is that naiveté again.)

    I see that Susan has rebuked you. I, personally have no problem with what you have shared because I like to understand what the reformed view is, and to see any inconsistencies, which you are so willing to point out.

    I read their blogs faithfully, so I hear their points of view from their own "mouths". Of course, they never point out their own flaws in reason ... that is why we have Antonio. And God bless us all, none of us can easily see the flaws in our own reason! (or else we would change our minds!)

    I read you faithfully as well, and the reformed are more than wiling to point out what they feel are flaws in your theology. It balances itself out. (Well, not reallly, because you are kind of a minority.)

    I know you have studied the "traditionalist" views on things and so I have no problem with you stating what you have, especially since it was done in a very respectful manner.

    Actually, Antonio, I really appreciate you explaining what you did here, because now I know that there are some other voices saying that our old self is gone, besides just my brother. It helps to put the idea in context with the current teaching, and helps me to understand the distinctions in the different schools of thought.

    There are two natures, two capacities set in opposition to each other in our ontological nature. The one is empowered by our selfish, sinful desires, the other MUST BE empowered by the Holy Spirit.

    Be ye filled with the Holy Spirit.

    Thanks for your contribution.

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/14/2006 9:18 AM  

  • Susan,
    I don't think Antonio was being disrespectful in this case. Maybe re-read his note. He really isn't picking on any particular person (I understand this better after having read his current post, don't you?), but rather, a particular school of thought.

    I am an active blog admisistrator. In other words, I keep a watchful eye on what is going on in my comments and I jump in if I notice something ugly. I never just put the thing on auto pilot and let it go! I usually do the rebuking quite quickly if I feel someone is being unkind. My regular readers can attest to this. I don't put up with nasty remarks.

    Let me do the censure. :~)

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/14/2006 9:24 AM  

  • My apologies, Rose, if I offended you. I've seen other blog comment sections where folks address one another as I did. I won't do it again here. I appreciate your correction on your site and explanation of your position.
    But with respect to other folks not pointing out their own flaws in reason, I'd refer you (and other blog readers) to Jonathan Moorhead's blog post of Feb. 11 titled "Calvinist Weak Points". I don't know him, but I get the impression Jonathan has Calvinist leanings, and this is a post calling some of those points into question - questioning without finger-pointing.

    By Blogger Susan, at 2/14/2006 9:34 AM  

  • Susan/Antonio/Rose,

    I think I see what Susan is saying.

    It seems we continually just point out the differences based on rather just studying the scriptures together. I think Rose and Susan were getting to the right point without always continually pointing out what wrong with other views.

    Yes their are flaws in all of our logic I believe (we have not all arrived), but how does it focus on the Lord to continually focus on what is wrong with something else.

    I think our emphasis on differences tends to just steal our joy in opening up the bible. Also tending to be argumentative inhibits all of our own joy in the Lord through this method.

    We should be so happy that the Lord chose to reveal this information to us in the Bible.

    I open up the bible every day thinking I can't believe God you are giving me this grace and mercy.

    When we talk about sanctification is it a sweet joy? Isn't the Lord Gracious and wise and great and glorious to not leave us in our condition!!!! This should give us great praise.

    Theology rightly taught should increase more joy and hope and peace and love in the body of Christ. That's my goal to have other see and delight in Christ and His Work. I think this is what Susan is getting at and all of our purposes.

    By Blogger Shawn L, at 2/14/2006 10:00 AM  

  • Susan,
    This is what J. Moorhead said on that post:
    Am I admitting that there are holes in Calvinism? Not really.

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/14/2006 11:23 AM  

  • No problem addressing other bloggers, just leave the censure to me.

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/14/2006 11:38 AM  

  • Ok, Rose. Can we get back to the discussion of Scripture and your original post topic?
    If you go back over all comments here, you'll see that I tried sticking to your post topic. You yourself brought up POTS, TULIP, LS(although you stated that wasn't your main purpose, but you were the person to bring them into the discussion), and then Calvinism. Antonio brought Traditionalism to the table (in a finger-pointing way), to I responded and implored him to merely state his points without continually ripping into other theological points of view.
    You also mentioned my comments from Moorhead's blog and admonished me not to 'read into Scripture' things from other sources. ("Keep this in mind: sometimes when we have an idea that has been put in our mind, then we read a passage of scripture, sometimes it can sound like that idea, even though it really isn't. I have learned this the hard way. [I say this in reference to the teachings of Calvinsim and what I read from you this morning on "from the head of the Moor"]"
    From what I wrote here in comments about the flesh vs the Spirit, I don't know why you chose to bring my comments from Moorhead's blog into the discussion, with a counsel to be careful with reading Scripture. You're not saying that to others when they comment here.
    Why isn't what I wrote on Moorhead's blog being like a Berean? Searching the Scriptures to see if these things are true...
    We have strayed so far from the original point of your post, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sensing here a real wall against certain theologies (or the persons who lean those ways), which is odd since I didn't bring anything about theology into the mix - just what I know to be true from Scripture.
    I feel a grieving in my spirit over all of the theological divisions and the stress they cause. I wish, like Shawn wrote, we all would strive to increase "more joy and hope and peace and love in the body of Christ," particularly in the discussion of God's Word.
    And I share Shawn's goal: That's my goal to have other see and delight in Christ and His Work.

    By Blogger Susan, at 2/14/2006 11:54 AM  

  • Rose,
    Did I censure Antonio?

    By Blogger Susan, at 2/14/2006 11:55 AM  

  • Susan,

    I think you might be reading too much into Rose's statements possibly.

    I think the issue is she once brought up is that she knows alot of Calvinists in her personal life and doesn't follow it's theology and that is a bit like feeling like the minority so it feels good to have other people like Antonio seeing the flaws in it around her like she sees the flaws in it.

    I think what happens though is when you are around alot of people from a different position you are always on the defense.

    I felt that way when I was in the seeker sensitive church and just couldn't delve in to the bible and Savor it the way that I wanted to because I was feeling like I was always confused by what I was seeing other people reading in the bible.

    It must be hard and draining for her as well as it was for me.

    What I do hope for Rose and anyone is that they can just enjoy and savor Christ in the Word whereever they are at in their walk and see it's joy. Sometimes it's hard when you feel you are the defensive.

    The Word's goal seems to be to bring more joy in your walk rather than feeling like on the defense.

    I personally see why this happens a bit more lately though. As I said before sometimes we can just focus on what the Word says and dig in there and it helps us out.

    By Blogger Shawn L, at 2/14/2006 12:20 PM  

  • Perhaps, Shawn. I'll have to give that some thought. I'm on my way with my daughter to "Mommy and Me" at church, and that will give me time to reflect on what you've written. Thank you for that.
    I maintain that my last comment does point out some facts, though, which remain true. I wanted to stick to the point, whereas different theologies to which Rose and Antonio don't subscribe were brought into the mix by them. I don't understand why - with respect to the particular post topic.
    In fact, let's get back to the point. Dual-natured? Any takers?
    This discussion is getting far too flesh-oriented with far too little Spirit.

    By Blogger Susan, at 2/14/2006 12:30 PM  

  • Susan,

    Have fun with your daughter.

    By Blogger Shawn L, at 2/14/2006 12:56 PM  

  • Susan,
    Ambiance brought it up. I said I wasn't trying to bring it up because I know it has caused a lot of stress in the Christian blogosphere lately. Then you asked me what the acronym stood for. (this sort of reminds me of one of those arguments I have with my husband: you said ... then I said ... and we banter back and forth over who offended who)

    As to Antonio: you have no idea (I don't think you do) of what all has gone on around blogdom in the last 5 months. He is my friend. I think what he said in his comment was fine. It reflects his unique passion. Besides, I thought it was helpful. If anyone is going to tell him what to do here, it will be me. (as if he would obey me - he is Antonio!) That is all I meant. I hope that didn't sound harsh. I don't like to be harsh. Now let's drop it. :~)

    I referred to JMoor's post originally because my heart went out to you when I read your comment that morning, because I know you said you are new to theology studies. I only meant it to be helpful. Just never mind. If it didn't sound right to you, never mind. I don't want to fuss with you. I don't want to comment about comments anymore.
    :~) :~) :~)

    Thanks Shawn for trying to understand. You definately know me better than Susan! Susan and I only just recently inter-met. Isn't it interesting how you can kind of get to know someone just by blogs. wow...

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/14/2006 1:02 PM  

  • Yes, Rose~, it is rather incredible.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 2/14/2006 1:10 PM  

  • Hi Susan :)

    I'd say this comments section is like a slapstick comedy. It's like an old Don Knotts movie with Anonymous becoming Pat and Rosie slipping in by accident.

    he he he

    And the whole thing being about the possibility of dual natures!

    pretty funny in my opinion

    Oh well, I know everyone is not amused.

    Susan, I can see how you would be frustrated.

    But please remember the bloggs are ongoing conversations. And for you in your legitimate frustration, to question Rose because she brought up ideas in the comments section that were not part of her main post just doesn't seem to me to be fair to Rose. After all, it's her blog, as I know you already know. As you know, she can bring up related ideas even if you see those things as somewhat off-topic or not fully explained.

    Perhaps it is hard to fully see that these conversations are a part of a bigger conversation that extends even beyond the blogosphere, out there in churches and in the Christian publishing world.

    There is a lot of history to it.

    (And in my assessment, Antonio and my position, free grace, did not originally pick the fight with reformed teachers.)

    But you wonder if people are wise to lug that baggage into a simple discussion about what the bible teaches...

    I see your point here. But if it was avoided in deference to newcomers, it would be like the proverbial elephant in the living room!

    My sincere belief is that much of the NT is misunderstood by wonderful and deeply committed teachers. And that misunderstanding is causing more immature believers to stumble and never progress as far as if they were taught more clearly the NT ideas. That doesn't mean I can't learn from people like Jonathan and bluecollar. I have learned from them! But this is still a vital debate and I firmly believe it is God-honoring.

    In the modern world it is considered wise to state things positively without pinpointing other people's errors.

    But in the NT error is sharply and personally rebuked side by side with the positive proclaiming of NT truth.

    My advice to you is to state your views and let others state theirs:) Go for it!

    I hope you are as welcoming and friendly with newcomers as you begin to post on your own blog as Rose is on hers.

    May God richly bless you, sister :)


    By Blogger H K Flynn, at 2/14/2006 2:12 PM  

  • About the topic,

    I consider Eternal Life to be Christ Himself in us, per first John.

    I think the Trinity indwells us because of what Christ says in the upper room.

    Also, when we are born again we become a new creature. And that new creature is not part of the fallen world. It is always as perfect as James describes it, as a perfect gift.

    While the Spirit seals us as if He were a pilot-light in us, when we walk in the Spirit He is engulfing us. When He does this our new nature gets to unfold and mature and thrive like a little plant might unfold.

    When we live selfishly the Holy Spirit goes back to His pilot light state. I think there is a war over control and I do have a dual nature. And I'm in charge of how the war goes, if I put my faith in Christ delivering me throughout my life I am siding with the winner and my real nature is empowered.

    I know I didn't connect all this but that gives you an idea of some of things I believe Scripture teaches.


    By Blogger H K Flynn, at 2/14/2006 2:24 PM  

  • Jodie,

    Interesting perspective, however don't understand or believe "And I'm in charge of how the war goes"

    Also don't understand why everything in conversation has to be debate, that is not how the body of believers did things. They prayed, they sharpened, they cared deeply for each other, etc.

    How can one really sharpen one another if one doesn't also be willing to bear one another's burdens? I don't believe it can be done in the body of Christ without this idea that sharpening must happen in the context of the bride of Christ and bringing/encouraging one another daily in the fellowship. However if you consider this to be a damnable error I can see your concern. This is where I think the body of Christ has lost the NT perspective. Even though Paul in Acts 20 was teaching them day and night he did it with tears.

    By Blogger Shawn L, at 2/14/2006 4:03 PM  

  • Thanks, Jodie. I think we see things similarly ... surprise! Thanks for explaining to Susan.

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/14/2006 5:35 PM  

  • Thnkx Rose :)

    Hi Shawn :)

    I'm in charge because I decide how to allocate the resources God has given me. If I want to grow I must pay the cost of being a disciple.

    Why not check out my post on Hodges and MacArthur and if you think I'm turning all Christian conversation into a debate, than you can give me a hard time about it :)

    God bless,


    By Blogger H K Flynn, at 2/14/2006 5:40 PM  

  • Hi Rose,
    This blogging sure is a new creature. Takes time to acclimate oneself, learn the pitfalls, learn how to communicate all over again in a unique environment. It's just too fascinating. And then we try and talk about God's word. The fact is the human race has not done so well at that, ever. We've got brothers and sisters all over the blogosphere telling each other that they've got it all backwards. Amazing isn't it. All of Christendom has been racked by divided teachings. Well, I didn't mean to get all dramatic there, so all I'm leading up to is, under those circumstances, I think things have been going pretty well here in your blog. I'm swamped so I must go. I sure appreciate being able to stop in and learn a few insights here and there. So thanks to all your commentors for that. Especially yourself. Todd

    By Blogger Todd, at 2/14/2006 11:08 PM  

  • Jodie,

    By Blogger Shawn L, at 2/15/2006 7:43 AM  

  • Thanks Todd,
    What you have said about my blog is very kind. This is a strange, new environment. Very strange, but beautiful in many ways.

    I wanted to tell you something else, 2 things, actually, if you are still here.
    1. Just in case you thought I was not being fair, I want you to know that I have only mentioned bad blog behaviour to two other people (I think) on my blog and they were (were they Calvinists?)... {drum roll..}
    Matthew and Antonio!
    I asked both of them at different times to change their tone when I thought that maybe they were not being so nice.
    I wasn't trying to pick on you or anyone because they have Calvinist leanings.

    2. I still welcome you! I want you to feel comfortable posting comments. I didn't mean to scare you off. I think you are an intelligent woman and I am glad we have inter-met.

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/15/2006 10:47 AM  

  • I am sorry that you were offended, Susan. I am sorry if I offended you. I wish you could let it go and not discuss this on my friend's blogs. I am sorry that whatever happened happened. (although I still don't really get it). I am sorry.

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/16/2006 5:30 PM  

  • Rose, thank you.
    I have been praying on this matter; the discord between us (and also among us, in the larger on-line Christian community) greatly grieves my spirit. When I wake at night, it's the first thing on my mind.
    As you read on Shawn's blog, I didn't come back to read comments here on this post after HK Flynn's comments to me (for reasons explained at Shawn's site). Please know - it's nothing at all against HK Flynn (Jodie); she was most gracious to me.
    I also want you to know I didn't go to Shawn's site to vent about your site. I think if you read my comments there in full, you'll see it all in its proper context. I read your comments over there this morning, then I came here because I too want this to end. (I'm sure it already has for everyone else; but not quite yet for me. Thankfully, the Lord is gracious in reforming me - continuing to create in me a new heart and a right spirit, as I am asking Him to do - as only He can).
    Anyway, I may not come back because my time is limited, and I need to prioritize my on-time reading. You have a good-sized readership, and I pray for your continued growth and edification in the Lord, as He wills.

    By Blogger Susan, at 2/17/2006 12:04 PM  

  • Thanks for saying that, Susan. To you, too.

    By Blogger Rose~, at 2/17/2006 1:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


Who Links Here