 |
| 
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 9/4/2003 9:02 AM (GMT -6) |   | I'm having some serious reservations about the "character solidification" theory. According to the doctrine of creation, God created human beings "good." According to the doctrine of original sin, human beings became "fallen." Thus, human nature is simultaneously good, but fallen, and the choices we make will reflect this problematic existence. However, I do not believe that our choices can ever resolve our natures one way or the other, which is what the character solidification theory seems to say, if I understand it correctly.
Here is how I articulate my own position (originally posted on the "Love and Freedom in the Hereafter"):
quote:
The nature of human persons is unresolved, so our choices have implications for our natures--for better or worse (however, please note: our choices can never be so bad that they undo the image God has bestowed on us and the goodness he created in us; neither can our choices be so good that they undo our fallenness). But God's nature is resolved and always has been, and God's choices are always perfectly shaped by God's nature--God is love. This is one way of thinking of the afterlife--our restless and bent natures will finally be resolved (not as a cumulative result of our choices, but rather as a result of God's choice to make a way for our good-but-fallen natures to be redeemed) and we will be free to love others without fail, endlessly, and in whatever way we choose.
There is no such thing as self-determination—human nature is always already unresolvably problematic. The extent to which we trust in our own capacity to determine our own way out of our good-but-fallenness is the extent to which we operate out of our old self. The extent to which we trust that our natures are already but not yet determined by God in Christ and through the Spirit is the extent to which we operate out of our new self.
I don't see this as a denial of free will. I still think we are free to choose what we want and that we are responsible for what we choose. I just don't think that free will ultimately has any bearing on our natures. [With the possible exception of the choice to receive a new nature in Christ—but let's bracket this for now.]
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 9/4/2003 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | | ALso, what about the people who are evil most of their lives, then have a conversation experience? Wouldn't their character be too solid to preclude such a choice? | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 9/4/2003 9:27 AM (GMT -6) | | | BTW, Electra, I think your definition is wonderful. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/4/2003 9:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra:
quote:
There is no such thing as self-determination—human nature is always already unresolvably problematic. The extent to which we trust in our own capacity to determine our own way out of our good-but-fallenness is the extent to which we operate out of our old self. The extent to which we trust that our natures are already but not yet determined by God in Christ and through the Spirit is the extent to which we operate out of our new self.
I don't see this as a denial of free will. I still think we are free to choose what we want and that we are responsible for what we choose. I just don't think that free will ultimately has any bearing on our natures.
Apply the idea of character solidification to SANCTIFICATION and REPROBATION. Now what do you see? Remember, character solidification is, at base, just dealing with habituation.
And as far as the evil persons converting. What somebody would just say is that those persons, regardless of how habituated into evil that they were, were OBVIOUSLY not solidified in evil. For if they had been so, then no possibility for conversion would have been there. In other words, conversion is seen as tacit evidence that someone was not solidified in their state.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/4/2003 10:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Lemme say more.
All human beings start off becoming selves with fallen natures, meaning natures that are significantly influenced by sin. In this, NO ONE seeks God. By divine enablement, God rejuvenates us and makes it possible for us to choose for or against God. At this point, the person may or may not choose to answer God’s call. If, at this point, we choose against God then we REMAIN in our fallen natured state. On the other hand, according to Scripture, God FREES us from the bondage of this nature if we respond to God’s offer, such that we have another chance to actually live in a truly God-glorifying manner. We have been given a NEW nature that CAN live the godward life. However, we have to work against the ways that we have been HABITUATED into. Taking off the old man, right? Now, to the extent we rest in the Spirit and “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”, we are not only following the process of sanctification, but solidifying ourselves in new ways IN ACCORDANCE with our new nature. To the extent that we live against the Spirit,we are following into reprobation and possibly into apostasy. We are DENYING our new nature and at the same time, solidifying ourselves in ways AGAINST our new nature. We becomes bondservants to sin again…to our own demise.
All this is to say that, with respect to character solidification, our exercise of freedom DOES have bearing on our “natures” if we are talking about our habituated thoughts, feelings, and actions in life that may play into sanctification or reprobation…but character solidification does NOT have bearing on our “natures” as far as either fallen and dead in sin or revived and alive to God. That is the work of God.
Clear as mud?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 9/4/2003 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Lemme say more.
All human beings start off becoming selves with fallen natures, meaning natures that are significantly influenced by sin. In this, NO ONE seeks God. By divine enablement, God rejuvenates us and makes it possible for us to choose for or against God. At this point, the person may or may not choose to answer God’s call. If, at this point, we choose against God then we REMAIN in our fallen natured state. On the other hand, according to Scripture, God FREES us from the bondage of this nature if we respond to God’s offer, such that we have another chance to actually live in a truly God-glorifying manner. We have been given a NEW nature that CAN live the godward life. However, we have to work against the ways that we have been HABITUATED into. Taking off the old man, right? Now, to the extent we rest in the Spirit and “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”, we are not only following the process of sanctification, but solidifying ourselves in new ways IN ACCORDANCE with our new nature. To the extent that we live against the Spirit,we are following into reprobation and possibly into apostasy. We are DENYING our new nature and at the same time, solidifying ourselves in ways AGAINST our new nature. We becomes bondservants to sin again…to our own demise.
All this is to say that, with respect to character solidification, our exercise of freedom DOES have bearing on our “natures” if we are talking about our habituated thoughts, feelings, and actions in life that may play into sanctification or reprobation…but character solidification does NOT have bearing on our “natures” as far as either fallen and dead in sin or revived and alive to God. That is the work of God.
Clear as mud?
Hmmm. I'm going to think over what you've said for a while. But when it comes to the determination of a person's nature, their own more or less successful attempt at habituation just doesn't cut it for me. This view seems to privelege people who are predisposed toward making and maintaining habits and/or who have the leisure to self-consciously and deliberately do so. No, when it comes to determining human natures as redeemed, only God's choice can be decisive.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 9/10/2003 6:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
Most excellent question Electra. I THOROUGHLY enjoyed it. I tend to side with you on "when it comes to determining human natures as redeemed, only God's choice can be decisive."
Many scholars use the Romans 7 text as evidence for the "two natures." Others have said that it refers to two "dispensations" or life BEFORE Christ and life IN Christ. That is, that Paul did not divide the human person up as seems to be the thought here. Therefore, Paul is not speaking of "natures" as such. I mean, it seems to me that we could be reading modern assumptions on to the text. Yes?
Hi Brandon. Thanks for picking this up. I'm really wrestling with this right now.
Romans 7 is a notoriously tricky passage, so it wouldn't be the first one I'd turn to for clarity.  But I think that all of us can relate to the frustration Paul expresses here. He wants to do what he knows is right, but he always manages to screw up somehow. WHY? That is the question he is wrestling with in this passage, and there is endless debate about how—or if—he answers it. Personally, I just skip to the ending: "Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
I wouldn't say that we have multiple natures (like a good angel and a bad angel sitting on our shoulders). Instead, I think that human nature is irreducibly problematic, i.e. good-but-fallen. I do NOT hold the Calvinist view of "total depravity." I think my own view is closer to the Lutheran notion of "bondage of the [free] will."
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/11/2003 4:54 AM (GMT -6) | | OK. Here’s a thought. Say for example that you have to forgive someone. Is it EVER easy to do that? See, I think what Meph Man says in theory sounds good. That is, the more we choose for God the more habituated we are to choose in that direction. But I don’t know if in REALITY that that is the way it is. I mean, I think until the day that I die, I will struggle with forgiving others (or whatever Christ like behavior I should exude). It will never come naturally to me. This to me seems like part of the reason why we are COMMANDED to forgive. Because we always have to fight to do the good.
Also, what do you think of the pre-occupation with the self in the “sanctification process?” For example, in talking about character solidification, I will have some goal in mind. That goal may be the “image of God” in me. Love like Jesus loved. Forgive like Jesus forgave. Whatever that goal is, there is this focus on the “inner person” and whether it is living up to some set criteria for wholeness. Now, it seems to me that the problem with this is that I see my personal failures, my personal imperfections and I WISH that the love, joy and peace were real. Ummm…this doesn’t make me feel any better. What happens is that I begin to get sooo concentrated on the turmoil that I forget the Spirit.
Now, part of the reason I mentioned “two natures” is because that seems to be the way that Meph Man stated it. He states that we have fallen natures and he interprets this as natures that are influenced by sin. Now, when we work against the ways in which we have been habituated into, we are “taking off the old man,” metaphorically speaking of course. But in doing this, we are solidifying ourselves in new ways in accordance with our NEW NATURE. Either way, whether one sees two natures or one nature that can be influenced two ways, the point is that there is an inner struggle or turmoil to reach a point in which we have habituated ourselves where what we do comes naturally. In your post you refer to this struggle. You say:
quote:
But I think that all of us can relate to the frustration Paul expresses here. He wants to do what he knows is right, but he always manages to screw up somehow. WHY? That is the question he is wrestling with in this passage, and there is endless debate about how—or if—he answers it. Personally, I just skip to the ending: "Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
And this is precisely my point. The endless debate of which you speak about may be off kilter from the get go. For some scholars, Paul is not referring to some inner turmoil where one chooses for the good and then solidification occurs. Nor is he talking about answering why he messes up so badly.
I know that there have been some scholars who say that the “center” or “hub” of Pauline theology is justification by faith. But another model has been, that in which Paul sees life from two perspectives or two ESCHATOLOGICAL REALITIES. BEFORE Christ and AFTER Christ or in the Spirit.
Regardless of whether Paul answers or not the question of WHY he keeps screwing up, there are a few things we can say about this passage.
1. Paul is describing what it is like to live under the law. As a CHRISTIAN, Paul did not consider himself to be under the law and he is saying, “This is life under the law before Christ before the Spirit.” His use of “I” and the present tense of the verbs only intensify his feelings about how the law is totally helpless to do anything about sin.
2. The person describe? Never wins. Under the law we are sold as slaves to sin. But guess what? This seems to be absolutely incompatible with Paul's view of LIFE IN CHRIST which is energizd by the Spirit.
3. Though the Spirit is not mentioned here except for in vs 6, it is mentioned again in 8:1-2 as a response to the cry of the person struggling with sin in chapter 7.
For Paul, when he describes “the flesh,” he is describing LIFE IN THE PRESENT EVIL AGE. When he speaks of Spirit, he is talking about AN ESCHATOLOGICAL AGE THAT HAS DAWNED with the coming of the Christ and the Spirit.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:10 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|