The following is e-mail conversation with a friend about the previous 2 blogs.
I your most recent blog stated that we no longer possess a sinful nature. But in your 9-29-2005 blog, you write "The very prescence of God by His Spirit in the believers life is clearly evidence of grace and its purpose is the sanctification of the believer."
If we are already justified/regenerated/no longer possess a sinful nature, what needs to be sanctified.
It sounds like you are contradicting yourself.
Sanctification is now natural. While rejection of God and moving further from Him was the nature of the old man, the nature of the new man is to draw near to God. Sanctification is not the changing of our nature, but submission to our nature which being redeemed is the nature of Christ. We still are disobedient, but we can no longer make the claim that disobedience is natural. I am not sure if that made sense or not. If any man be in Christ he is a new creation the old is passed away behold ALL things are become new. That 'all' is troubling if we still retain a sinful nature. Moreover if the work of Christ on the cross was complete and adequate how could we possibly being saved by Him still retain the sinful nature. I understand it is a difficult thing to grasp, and a very difficult thing to explain. At regeneration our nature is changed, the process of sanctification is not the reduction of sinful nature (that nature is gone) but the increase of our obdience and likness of Christ. That is a natural process in the believer and it is condusive to his regenerated nature. I would say that there is no contradiction between the most recent blog and the 9-29 blog. I am sure I contradict myself now and then on various things and I hope not to, but in this case I think I was consistent.
So, what it sound like you are saying is the our disobedience is not our nature but an outright defiance of regenerated/justified nature.
I just want you to know that I am not wholy in disagreement but am rather posing what you may find a irritating questions to you help you look at the big picture. And I am not saying that I have a better view but maybe a different angle.
That is pretty much what I am saying. The point that I try to hammer home on the blog, is that we cannot attribute our sin to our nature when we have been regenerated. Now as someone who has been regenerated and is not sinful (by nature) it is perfectly plausible for me or you to say "it is not I that sin, but sin that dwelleth in me, that is in my flesh." So in disobedience we give occaision to the flesh, and it always takes that occasion to produce sin. It is not our nature to do so, our nature being regenerated is to deny the flesh and to welcome the conviction of the spirit against our flesh. It is all about association, do we associate ourselves with the regenerated man and call the regenerated state our nature, or do we associate with the flesh of the old man and consider that our nature? In Christ we are a new creation, so I would say we are the new man, the flesh is simply present during this earthly life.
p.s. I plan on posting this dialog on the blog, I don't plan on including your name or anything like that, just the questions and answers. I think they have been very helpful in forcing me to articulate the position I hold to. Tell me if this is a problem.