Men Will Always Act According To Their Nature: Sophistic Statement. True Or False.

[HeteroDoxic]

I have often heard it said that men will always act according to their nature. I believe that this is a sophistic statement that if true would exclude men from ever doing anything that does not morally displease God.

Would like to discuss here whither Paul has one nature, two natures standing side or both natures mixed together. Was the old nature destroyed when God gave Paul a new nature?

Romans 7:
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after 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.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

The nature Paul describes here, he says HE IS NOT IN with his comments in VS 5.
Rom 8:9 shows what the solution looks like to the dilemma painted above.
Col 2:11 shows HOW it happens.
Gal 5:16 shows how it affects you.
Gal 2:20 defines it.

[dacristoy]

OoooooK....

[dacristoy]

Redicious conclusion? How about a delicious conclusion? mmm...bacon.....baaaaacooooon....mmmmmm


So in conclusion, turkey bacon is only able to taste according to it's turkey nature.

Now ya talkin....

[footwasher]

[phat8594]

Ludicrous!!!! That is a patently redicious conclusion.

Redicious conclusion? How about a delicious conclusion? mmm...bacon.....baaaaacooooon....mmmmmm


So in conclusion, turkey bacon is only able to taste according to it's turkey nature.

[dacristoy]

In Scripture, being a blessing to the world is specifically attached to salvation. If Abraham, et al are blessings only by virtue of being Christ's ancestors, then Adam was a blessing too. You can see how ludicrous that line of thinking is.

Ludicrous!!!! That is a patently redicious conclusion.
1. Genesis 18:18
Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

Curious to know: Do you believe that Abraham is not saved, maybe burning in Hell?

Romans 10:5-7
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

Would you agree that eternal life is life lived here in this world and not just after we die?

Nope!!!!

John 5:24 "Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

[footwasher]

1. Originally Posted by footwasher

The point is that before the Cross, men couldn't be a blessing to the world,

A blessing is a blessing is a blessing. I just wanted to show that the conclusion that you posted was incorrect.

In Scripture, being a blessing to the world is specifically attached to salvation. If Abraham, et al are blessings only by virtue of being Christ's ancestors, then Adam was a blessing too. You can see how ludicrous that line of thinking is.

Yet it is logically against monotheism. Three entities do not make one entity.

Rest is resting from one's own efforts. Israel tried to use her own efforts , search Scripture , to find a Way get eternal life. Even after many centuries, they never succeeded. Jesus said Scripture pointed to Him as the Way. Whoever believed in Him had already passed from death to eternal life.

Would you agree that eternal life is life lived here in this world and not just after we die?

John 5:24 "Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

[dacristoy]

Sure, but not in the way God promised Abraham, leading to the ability to revive dead men, through being springs of living waters, preaching words of life, through the Spirit:

1. Originally Posted by footwasher
The point is that before the Cross, men couldn't be a blessing to the world,

A blessing is a blessing is a blessing. I just wanted to show that the conclusion that you posted was incorrect.

Umm, it says that the Publican was justified: God saw his action of humbling himself and said it was a cleansing action, he could enter the Camp of the People of God, God had lifted him up, exalted him. Nothing about waiting for the blood of Christ.

The Doctrine of Trinity makes no Scriptural sense: directly. Only the texts that says God is One, and that says Jesus spoke to the Father, and said the Person of the Spirit would come, supports the doctrine: indirectly.

Similarly, the texts that say something new would happen to men after John the Baptist, that they would be given the rest that Joshua could not give, the rest that God promised Abraham's seed, that He said Israel would never enter. Supports this view, indirectly.

[footwasher]

Abraham, Moses, Jacob, as well as all the prophets were a blessing to the world..

(the Body of Christ)

The Old covenant only provided a covering for sin through the sacrifice of bulls and Goats; a covering awaiting the blood of Christ before forgiveness could be applied.

Umm, it says that the Publican was justified: God saw his action of humbling himself and said it was a cleansing action, he could enter the Camp of the People of God, God had lifted him up, exalted him. Nothing about waiting for the blood of Christ.

This makes no scriptural sense at all...

The Doctrine of Trinity makes no Scriptural sense: directly. Only the texts that says God is One, and that says Jesus spoke to the Father, and said the Person of the Spirit would come, supports the doctrine: indirectly.

Similarly, the texts that say something new would happen to men after John the Baptist, that they would be given the rest that Joshua could not give, the rest that God promised Abraham's seed, that He said Israel would never enter. supports this view, indirectly.

[dacristoy]

The point is that before the Cross, men couldn't be a blessing to the world,

Abraham, Moses, Jacob, as well as all the prophets were a blessing to the world..

as the Old Covenant provided only forgiveness, through confession of inadequacy (publican in the Temple).

The Old covenant only provided a covering for sin through the sacrifice of bulls and Goats; a covering awaiting the blood of Christ before forgiveness could be applied.

The New Covenant provided empowerment, through entering the Promised Land, rest, of which Palestine was only a type, Christ being the reality.
Enabled by switching loyalty from self to Christ, like Joshua, and Paul.

This makes no scriptural sense at all...

[footwasher]

My understanding is that he did his best to act according to his new nature, but often failed to do so...

The point is that before the Cross, men couldn't be a blessing to the world, as the Old Covenant provided only forgiveness, through confession of inadequacy (publican in the Temple). The New Covenant provided empowerment, through entering the Promised Land, rest, of which Palestine was only a type, Christ being the reality.

Enabled by switching loyalty from self to Christ, like Joshua, and Paul.

[dacristoy]

Did Paul act according to his old nature after converting?

My understanding is that he did his best to act according to his new nature, but often failed to do so...

[footwasher]

Men will always act according to their nature. Make the connection for me..

Did Paul act according to his old nature after converting?

[phat8594]

Your problem is one of application. You obviously can read and perhaps understand, but of application you appear to be clueless...

Romans 6:5-7
Romans 6:5-7
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self[a] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin.

We are no longer slaves to sin, but can you present me with one application where we are "FREE" FROM THE RAVIGES OF SIN. The freedom that you see in verse 7 is positional, not actual and presently applicable.



Romans 6:17-18
Romans 6:17-18
17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

We have been set free from the penalty (death) not the consequences...

3. The law of sin and death
Romans 8:2
2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
This is precisely what I stated above. Only in Christ is the law of sin and death negated...

It seems to me that you are now 'adding' to the Bible to fit your own definition. Simply put, I asked if we were free from three things. You said 'No'. I then presented you verses that EXPLICITLY said we are free from those very things. If you cannot accept what the Bible clearly and explicitly states before offering your own opinion, then I think this conversation will be quite fruitless. To be clear, before we go on to 'application' we must first be clear on what the Bible ACTUALLY says (as opposed to what we want it to say). [We all need to ask ourselves if we want the Bible to be shaped by our theology, or if we want our theology to be shaped by the Bible]


Secondly Romans 6:17-18 is not dealing with the 'consequences' of sin per se, but the grasp that sin has on one's life through one's actions. This is explicitly clear from both the immediate and surrounding context. In these verses alone we see that being free from sin entails becoming 'slaves of righteousness'.


As for Romans 8:2 I am glad that you have left that one alone -- for as with the other verses, it is explicitly clear in what it is saying.

[dacristoy]

Let's start with what God intended, planned.

He says that the woman's seed will strike the serpents head and it will strike his heel.

This will result in restoring creation.

Abraham is a faithful believer. God decides to use him to be the ancestor of the seed who will restore creation.

God chooses a tiny nation descended from Abraham to restore creation. To do this, they must volunteer to leave Egypt (worldly dependence) learn from Him (drink from the Rock) and follow Him (dependence on God). If they had not rebelled when He tested their loyalty with thirst, starvation and enemy action, He would have brought them into the Promised Land, where it was possible to start the process of restoring creation.

God sends His prophets to teach Israel , but they continue to disobey.

Finally God sends His Son to communicate His message, and when Israel again disobeys, Christ does what God commands. He enters the Promised Land, after depending on God for water, food and protection. He put His life in God's hand and God preserved His life, taking Him into the Heavenly Canaan, Heavenly Promised Land.

Now, if we depend on God to save us from thirst, starvation and bodily harm, He will take us into Christ, our Promised Land, our Rest, where we can do what the Seed was ordained to do, be a blessing to the world.

Through being living waters, waters that revive dead men.


Remember, believers could not enter Rest, could not overcome the flesh before the Cross, because God's covenant only had law, and law could not bring you into rest, only the Cross could overcome the giants and carry you into the Promised Land. After the Cross, because the giants of the Promised Land , sin, the serpent, have been conquered by Christ, we can also enter Rest, by being in Christ.

Now we can be restorers of Creation.

Reconciling sinners with God is restoring Creation. Only possible by being in Christ. Being in Christ is confirmed by having His marks. Sharing in His suffering, being persecuted for telling the world that the serpent has been overcome by the Cross, the offering of the heel for striking.

Men will always act according to their nature. Make the connection for me..