John wrote: > ... I am not a dualist. > There is only one nature. Just for the record in regards to this discussion, it is dualism that provides for me the framework for understanding how Jesus could have a fallen nature. Without the understanding of man's dualism that comes from Romans 7, I would probably be on Judy's side in saying that Jesus could not have had a fallen nature as part of his being. I also could not believe in Christian sanctification without dualism.
Jesus was perfectly pure and holy in his spirit, but he was housed in a corruptible body of flesh. His inner man was incorruptible but his outer man was corruptible. His inner man had no shadow of darkness, but his outer man was subject to passions and appetites like all other men, which created a drive in him toward that which would be contrary to the spirit. Jesus, just like us, had to live a life of self denial in order to walk in holiness. To suggest that Jesus did not have a fallen nature is to say that Jesus did not live in any kind of self denial at all, but that he simply did what was natural for him, which is perfect, holy living. I believe his spirit had that nature, of naturally doing what was right, but he was in a corruptible body of flesh that did not agree with the direction of his spirit. Hence, in the wilderness when he was fasting, he hungered and desired to turn rocks into bread. His spirit told him to resist the temptation. In the garden his fallen nature tempted him to sleep when he was suppose to fast and pray. The prospect of the cross caused his flesh to cry out, to run away, and not to sacrifice himself for a people who all deserted him at the smallest sign of trouble. Without a model of dualism, I truly do not know how to process all of these facts. Dualism provides the means to understand Paul's statement in Romans 7:17 in regards to sin, "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." If this can be said concerning sin, how much more concerning temptation. When Jesus was tempted to sin, it was not him, but sin that dwelled in his flesh. As Paul says in Romans 7:25, "with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." How any of you avoid the dualism taught here is very strange to me. Modern theologians erroneously make dualism a dirty word. John wrote: > I used to believe that man, apart from Christ, > had no choice when it came to sin. > I no longer believe that to be the case. > Man does have a choice. Adam had a choice. Make sure you study Pelagianism very closely. You are moving close to that position. Such leads to moral government theology and open theism. Make sure that is where you want to be. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
