Wesleyan view of sinful nature?

[psimmond]

I've been reading a lot of Witherington's stuff and I know he doesn't subscribe to Augustine's view of sinful nature but he does seem to equate the old man/self with sinful nature, which I believe he would define as a lifestyle of yielding to one's sinful inclinations. I think I read once where he said the old man is crucified so at the time of conversion a person experiences a change in which they become morally neutral and are no longer under sin's dominion.

I know Witherington is Methodist but I don't know if these views align with Wesleyan theology. If they do, here is my question, do Wesleyans believe that this is an instantaneous change--a person becomes morally neutral at the moment they believe (an instant leap from 1 to 2), or is this something that happens progressively--the more one takes takes thoughts captive and resists temptation the more they move to the right (from 1 to 3) on this spectrum?

<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

Code: Select all

1. inclined toward sin                           2. morally neutral                            3. inclined toward righteousness

[Paidion]

The "holiness" groups, such as the Weslelyan Methodists and the Salvation Army, believe in "a second work of grace"—they were saved through the first work of grace and sanctified through the second. Both experiences are instantaneous.

[mattrose]

I know 'The Wesleyan Church' is only one of many 'Wesleyan' denominations, but I thought I'd reproduce our constitutional statement on sanctification.

"Sanctification is initiated at the moment of justification and regeneration. From that moment there is a gradual and progressive sanctification as the believer walks with God and daily grows in grace and in a more perfect obedience to God. This prepares for the crisis of entire sanctification which is wrought instantaneously when believers present themselves as living sacrifices... The crisis of entire sanctification perfects the believer in love and empowers that person for effective service. It is followed by lifelong growth in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

My quotation is not a complete endorsement of this statement, just an attempt to answer your question

[psimmond]

So are we all at a different place on the spectrum immediately following regeneration, or does regeneration place us all at the morally neutral point and we progressively move forward from there?

It seems to me regeneration does not immediately place every believer on a morally neutral even playing field.

[mattrose]

I'm not really used to using any kind of 'morally neutral' language at all.

Personally, I don't think of the 'sin nature' as an entity. I think of sarx (the flesh) as a good thing acting outside its role. It was designed to be in submission to the spirit, but took over via the fall. A spirit filled with God's Spirit is more powerful than the flesh. But a spirit without God's Spirit is less powerful than the flesh. Sanctification is the graceful process through which the human spirit regains its authority over the flesh via the power of God's Spirit. It is primarily a process, but there may be moments so significant to the process that they get labeled, by some, as 2nd works of grace.

[psimmond]

mattrose wrote: A spirit filled with God's Spirit is more powerful than the flesh. But a spirit without God's Spirit is less powerful than the flesh.

This makes sense but I guess my question is more about will than power. I've heard it taught that prior to regeneration we have a bias or inclination toward sin. At regeneration that bias (which we inherited from Adam) is neutralized so that we are no longer in a state where we are more likely to choose to sin than not.

It seems the power within will move us along the spectrum but only as fast as our flesh will allow. Imagine a person who comes to faith later in life after leading a sensuous life in which their sinful desires were seldom checked. Will this person have many struggles reigning in their flesh or do they experience a supernatural change at conversion putting them in that state where they are no more likely to choose to sin than they are to choose not to sin?

It seems to me that all believers have to work out of one and into two and then into three and that there is no supernatural work that immediately places every believer at point two at the moment of regeneration. Sometimes it sounds like Witherington thinks sanctification begins at point two, but I think it begins at one and could take some believers quite a while to get to point two.

<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

Code: Select all

1. inclined toward sin                           2. morally neutral                            3. inclined toward righteousness

[dwilkins]

I read a book lately that did a decent job of describing the evolution of the doctrine of original sin. I'm still not settled on what I think about it, but you can pretty clearly see that it has changed over time.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Story-Origina ... iginal+sin

Doug

[mattrose]

mattrose wrote: A spirit filled with God's Spirit is more powerful than the flesh. But a spirit without God's Spirit is less powerful than the flesh.

This makes sense but I guess my question is more about will than power. I've heard it taught that prior to regeneration we have a bias or inclination toward sin. At regeneration that bias (which we inherited from Adam) is neutralized so that we are no longer in a state where we are more likely to choose to sin than not.

It seems the power within will move us along the spectrum but only as fast as our flesh will allow. Imagine a person who comes to faith later in life after leading a sensuous life in which their sinful desires were seldom checked. Will this person have many struggles reigning in their flesh or do they experience a supernatural change at conversion putting them in that state where they are no more likely to choose to sin than they are to choose not to sin?

It seems to me that all believers have to work out of one and into two and then into three and that there is no supernatural work that immediately places every believer at point two at the moment of regeneration. Sometimes it sounds like Witherington thinks sanctification begins at point two, but I think it begins at one and could take some believers quite a while to get to point two.

<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

Code: Select all

1. inclined toward sin                           2. morally neutral                            3. inclined toward righteousness

I don't see any need for considering the 2nd category. I think sinners are inclined toward sin and Christians are inclined toward righteousness. The New Testament seems pretty clear, though, that walking in the Spirit and not in the flesh isn't automatic... It's a challenge. And that challenge is quite obviously different for each of us. Why is it different for each of us? Perhaps that's what you're pondering. I'm sure it does have something to do with the # of years spent sinning, the deepness of ones sin, the post-conversion environment, etc. But I don't find the 'morally neutral' category useful to the discussion (just my opinion).

It's interesting that you're dialogue partner is Witherington... I didn't know he had much interest in the sanctification question (relatively speaking).

[psimmond]

mattrose wrote:I don't see any need for considering the 2nd category. I think sinners are inclined toward sin and Christians are inclined toward righteousness. The New Testament seems pretty clear, though, that walking in the Spirit and not in the flesh isn't automatic... It's a challenge. And that challenge is quite obviously different for each of us. Why is it different for each of us? Perhaps that's what you're pondering. I'm sure it does have something to do with the # of years spent sinning, the deepness of ones sin, the post-conversion environment, etc. But I don't find the 'morally neutral' category useful to the discussion (just my opinion).

It's interesting that you're dialogue partner is Witherington... I didn't know he had much interest in the sanctification question (relatively speaking).

I also think it makes more sense leaving out the second point and simply saying we are all somewhere on this continuum. I think believers should pass through this second point and move into the third, but it's not like we would be conscious of hitting that point. (Hey guys I'm buying today! At 11:30 I entered a state of moral neutrality! )

I was just wondering if Wesleyans in particular (and Christians in general) believe there is a supernatural work at the time of regeneration that puts us at that point on the continuum. Like I said before, I believe Ben Witherington said this was the case but since I'm just reading his books and not actually dialoguing with him, and since I can't locate now where he says this, I'm just not sure.

Your statement "I think sinners are inclined toward sin and Christians are inclined toward righteousness" sounds as though you don't think new Christians could be inclined toward sin initially and perhaps after weeks, months or even years reach the point where they are inclined toward righteousness. But you also said "I'm sure it does have something to do with the # of years spent sinning, the deepness of ones sin, the post-conversion environment, etc.," so maybe that's not what you are saying...

[mattrose]

I was just unsure of exactly what you meant by 'inclined'

I think Christians don't want to sin. Their will wants to please Christ. But their flesh is used to getting its way.

I think non-Christians don't care about pleasing Christ. There flesh gets its way and they are quite content with that.