Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Romans 6:6 We know that our old self [our human nature without the Holy Spirit] was nailed to the cross with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin. |
Subject: Two Natures or One? |
Bible Note: Dear Tim, I know about your busy weekends. Indeed, I understand that you are exceedingly busy with church, work, and family. With all those important things, I'd be the first to affirm that I should certainly be a long way down on the list! One of the nice things about interacting on the forum is that we can and ought to take our time. Did you know that Anthony Hoekema -- from the Christian Reformed tradition (i.e., Heidelberg Catechism); John Murray -- from the Scottish Reformed tradition (i.e., Westminster Confession); and Herman Bavinck -- from the Dutch Reformed tradition (i.e., Canons of Dort) all actually wrote systematic theologies? Indeed, they each spent quite a bit of time on theological anthropology. I bet that every single one of them actually did give some pretty thorough definitions for what they meant by nature. It is hard to imagine a theologian, worth his salt, not doing so. If one would seriously wrestle with these men's doctrine -- and I mean their actual doctrine, rather than a minimalist, approximation; and I mean "wrestle" in an honest, scholastic fashion -- it might take some effort, but the benefits would be worth it. Just imagine the satisfaction of such industry, built on foundations of Christ-honoring veracity. You see, defining terms is a pretty fundamental aspect of theology. Whole hermeneutical perspectives and even diverse philosophies are rooted in the definition of some of our commonly used words. That ought not to surprise us, given the linguistic transmogrifications by the Enemy, even all the way back to the Garden. Hence, the great documents of church history spend a great deal of time defining terms. Have you ever read Anthony Hoekema's "Created in God's Image?" The whole book deals with the very question you raise. Right up in the front of the book he talks about idealistic and materialistic anthropologies, warning us of their idolatrous origins, and their historic hybridization into Christian anthropology. He insists that Christian anthropology is fundamentally different from all other anthropologies. Hoekema concludes his preface (page 4) with "It is therefore important for us to have the right understanding of man. As we try to arrive at a proper Christian understanding, we should keep in mind such questions as these: Are there still remnants of non-Christian anthropology in our thinking about man? How does our view of the human person help us better to understand God? What light does our anthropology shed on the work of Christ? What light does our view of man shed on soteriology? What light does our view of human nature shed on the doctrine of the church and the doctrine of the last things? What relevance does a Christian anthropology have for our daily life?" So, if you really are serious about the question of two natures, I can help you track down some of those "definitive definitions." Then you'll at least be able to know if you're in the same ball park. In Him, Doc |