Copyright Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D. 1992



The sin nature is that part of us that came from Adam. It is also called: Adamic nature, Inborn sin, Original sin, and Old man.

Calvin held that God created Adam perfectly and that his nature was perfect. Adam sinned, becoming another nature which was a corruption of his original nature. Thus he would have held that we only have one nature pre-salvation. I do not know if he held to one or two after salvation. To be consistent with what has been said, it would seem that even after salvation, the nature of man would be singular - a new nature.

As the normal two nature thinking goes the Bible deals with the cause of our outward sin, and that cause being our inward nature, or Adamic nature. In short, if we as believers have sin, it is because we have a new and an old nature that war. When we don't war properly the old wins out and we sin. On the other hand is we war correctly, the new nature will win out and we will not sin.

Now, to some that makes God a God that gives us a new nature that is barely able to cope with our old nature, and that He may not be the powerful God that He claims to be. On the other hand, if he has given us a new nature that is consistent with Himself, and has changed our very being into something new, then we have the power to say no to sin. That is a God that I can deal with.

There are systems of religion that function to control and eradicate the outward sin, but never deal with the inner problem. Any system of works usually is dealing with the outward sin, and not the inner problem.

To a point some past fundamentalists did this, in that they mean mouth the outward on a regular basis, but never concentrate on the inward. This is changing and is not very common anymore.

The liberal movements also deal with the way you live your life and seldom deal with the inner man. A friend of mine witnessed to a Methodist pastor one time and mentioned being born again. The minister stated, "Don't try to talk to me about that deep stuff. I don't understand that stuff!"

Let us consider some questions concerning the natures.

Can the Adamic nature be eradicated? Chafer mentions that it cannot be. Others believe that it can be put down on a daily, moment by moment basis. Others believe that the believer has only one nature and that, being the new nature, from God. We will consider some of these thoughts.

There are some in our day that feel that we need to kill the old nature daily - that it is a daily duty of a believer to see to it that God put's down the insurrection that comes up every single day. I was once told of a president at a Canadian Bible Institute that felt this way, and one day in chapel the speaker had just stepped to the pulpit and the president yelled as loud as he could - "KILL HIM LORD!" In short put that old nature to rest so he can preach properly. At times this thought has been affectionately termed "slain in the spirit."

Because we are totally depraved and because all believers tend toward evil naturally, Chafer seems to draw the conclusion that the old nature cannot be eradicated.

Let's consider the idea that the nature of man was injured in the fall and that his nature is similar to Adam's post-fall.

This position would hold that Adam's understanding and conscience were perfect prior to sin, yet after sin they are injured. I am sure the Calvinist would say that the injury was total and that man was left with no understanding, and that his conscience is useless. They would also feel that man's will was turned COMPLETELY away from God and toward sin. The result of the three changes is that man is totally void of any proper thoughts toward God.

The question is this. Can you buy all three of these? The understanding of man seems to have been affected, we could agree. The Scriptures tell us that the lost cannot understand the things of the Lord. Indeed, the conscience and will are damaged in lost man as well. So, yes, we can go along with this definition of man post-fall. Some might question the COMPLETENESS of this injury. They might suggest that our understanding is injured, but not so badly that we can't respond to the natural and inward revelation of God to man.

It seems that if man is responsible to God for the revelation given, then there must be some amount of understanding left. This does not detract from the thought of total depravity. Man is always, in his lost state, completely without help, and completely bent on wrong.

This should not surprise anyone, for we have already mentioned that man is totally depraved. Not partially depraved but totally depraved. All parts of man were affected by the fall.

FOR YOUR REVIEW, READ THE FOLLOWING ON TOTAL DEPRAVITY: Gen. 8:21, Ps. 14:2-3, Ps. 51:5, Isa 42:7, Jer. 17:9, Jn 3:6, Rom. 1:28-29, Rom. 5:12, Gal 5:17-21, Eph. 2:3, and I Tim. 4:2.

Is man lost by nature? We will see some verses that would indicate that man is not lost eternally because of his nature. In Adam we were a race that were lost by nature, however Christ corrected that problem, and we will see that the lost are now lost because of their rejection of Christ's work on their behalf. He nailed all sin to the cross, and made us as if Adam had never sinned. We are as Adam was before the fall in our post-salvation state.

Remember II Pet 1:3-4? It mentioned that he gave us all things pertaining to life and godliness. ALL things are available for salvation. The sin nature of all of mankind was cared for at the cross.

This may sound strange, however if you take most of the thinking current today about the work of the cross to its logical end, you will have to agree with the statement.

Is man lost because he has sinned? No. He is lost because he has rejected Christ, not because I stole that penny tootsie roll from the dime store in 1948.

What did Christ die on the cross for? The sins of the world. What sin is involved in this death for the sins of the world? Jn. 1:29, "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Notice the singular "sin." Both the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version follow this translation. Even the Living Bible uses the singular sin.

Just what "sin" means is up for the person to decide. I would agree with Chafer that this is speaking of sin personal, sin nature and any other type of sin you want to include. Let me quote Chafer, "The sin of the world is taken away in the sense that by Christ's threefold accomplishment in His death every hindrance is removed which restrained God from the saving of even the chief of sinners." (Chafer, Lewis Sperry; "SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY"; Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947, Vol V, p 191.)

His threefold work involved Redemption, Reconciliation, and Propitiation. Jot that down for now and we will explain those terms fully in coming sessions. Let it suffice the mind at this point, to say that Christ died for all of the sin in the world, indeed, all types of the sin of the world.

Take Chafer's quote to its logical end and you find that the person that goes to hell does so because he rejected Christ, or in the case of those that have never heard of Christ - rejected the revelation that they had. Thus, we can take one step further and say that Christ's work on the cross makes the believer as Adam was before he sinned.

Christ died for the sin nature as well as for personal sin. He removed all barriers between The Father and the sinner. The sinner has only to accept that work on the cross as payment for all that is owed! Salvation is free in all areas for the receiving.

If a person is lost it is because he refuses the free salvation that is offered to him by God. Jn 1:29, "...the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world." Jn 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Heb 2:9, "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man." I Jn 2:2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for us only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

The entire human family can be saved. II Cor. 5:19, "To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." Isa 61:1, "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;" Col 2:14-15, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And, having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it."

It has been suggested that we still have the sin nature, but that God gave us the Holy Spirit so that we can live a holy life. In effect the teaching holds that the Holy Spirit allows us to win the battle between the old and new natures. I find a problem in this thinking.

If under this case I sin, I am left to understand that the Holy Spirit did not do His work properly and the fault of my sin was His. The thought set forth - that the Holy Spirit controls the sin nature, and that this is our hope for living a good life as a believer - is illogical.

Secondly, this tells us that the Old Testament saint could not have lived a righteous life, for he did not have the Indwelling Spirit as we do. Thus the Old Testament saint had no possibility of pleasing God. NOT LOGICAL! INDEED, UNSCRIPTURAL, FOR DAVID PLEASED GOD.

How did the Old Testament saint keep from bringing three thousand lambs per day for sacrifice? He had to have sinned continually if the New Testament person has a struggle. This teaching is not acceptable!

Chafer mentions, "...the gift of the indwelling Spirit as One who is able to give victory over every evil disposition." (SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, p 293) This implies that he agrees with what has been previously set forth, with the exception that it is not the Holy Spirit that controls whether the person sins or not, but that the individual controls it by being filled with the Spirit.

This line of thinking tells us that the believer has an old nature, and a new nature. The Holy Spirit, if in control, will see to it that the new nature has victory over the old nature. The emphasis is on the control of the Spirit. I have always wondered how this teaching relates to James when it tells us that sin comes from lust. The James text seems to indicate a choice of the will. If what has been set forth is true, the believer that is not controlled by the Spirit will automatically sin. If sin is automatic, then what is James speaking of? James 1:14-15 "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." If sin is automatic why does James say it comes from lust?

On the other hand if the believer has only one nature, and that being the new creation of God, and if we are as Adam was before the fall, then we have this choice of the will which James indicates. The main objection to this thought is that we still sin. Yes, we still sin, because we are humans, descended in the image of Adam. We choose to do our own thing, rather than follow God.

This is not hard to understand. Given the choice of a life of ease or a life of tribulation, we naturally want to go the easy way. It takes a choice of the will to do either. Those that want to follow God, will choose the life that He shows them, rather than what they would naturally desire.

To sin or not to sin, then is the choice to do it God's way or our own way. The committed Christian will choose the way of God and the non-committed Christian will choose his own way.

No one disagrees that man has a bent toward evil. Christianity has taught the mediate transferral of the sin nature. Chafer lists three proofs that the sin nature is received mediately from Adam. In other words because of Adam we received a sin nature. First, Scripture says it, that finishes it. Secondly, it is observable in all of history - war, Hitler, hateful things man does to man, etc. Man shows his true, sinful, colors when he opens his mouth or acts. Finally, the fact that man is consciousness of God. Most every civilization recognizes man is not a perfect creature. Why else would they work for merit. We all work to improve our perception before man. There is always a concept of right and wrong.

Most agree that in Adam, all of mankind sinned. We are all in our earthly father's image.


We have already hinted at the fact that there is discussion as to the number of natures of man. This question has been around for some time.

There are two views as to the nature, or natures of saved man. Both views would see lost man as having one nature, and that being an old nature, or possibly better termed Adamic nature.

The difficulty comes in whether the old nature, which by the way is not a Scriptural term, so let us say whether the Adamic nature, is eradicated, or if it is present along side the new creation of God.

As you read the texts that supposedly prove that we have two separate and distinct natures, read them carefully and examine them within their context. Many verses used to prove this point are poorly if not wrongly used.

I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that the saved man has an inner man. What is the inner man? The Spirit? The nature? The soul? I'd say soul, and this would require the lost also have an inner man.

The two nature people use Rom. 7:25 to prove the struggle between the old nature and the new nature. "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." One must determine if this is Paul speaking from his lost state, or his saved state. I wonder at a statement of Paul that mentions that he serves the law, being tied to his saved state. I doubt that after his conversion he followed the Old Testament law. If he did, it was only until Christ taught him that he didn't need to.

Cambron states that this new nature is a "Christly Imparted Nature...a Holy Unchangeable Nature...a Non-forfeited Nature." "Its End is Resurrection and Rapture" "Every child of God has two natures; the unsaved man has only one nature. The old nature cannot be eradicated while the believer lives in the flesh; therefore, we have the fight between the old and new natures." (Cambron, Mark G., D.D.; "BIBLE DOCTRINES"; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954)

He also mentions that Rom. 7:22 is speaking definitely of Paul as a saved man. No unsaved ever delights after the law of God. He also mentions that "...only the saved man has the inward man, which is the new nature." He offers no proof of this.

The two nature thought requires that the one nature system, eradicate the old nature. Eradicate is the wrong term. Eradicate has the idea of doing away with - getting rid of - destroying. The thought of the one nature person is more along the line that the lost person has a sin nature which is a nature of man that is injured by the fall. (We have shown that the two nature people hold to this.) The work of the cross transforms that injured nature, back into the nature that it should have been had Adam not fallen.

We are a new creation according to Scripture. We are not a depraved person that is given a new creation - the new nature, we are a depraved person that is transformed into what we should be! If this is not true how do you deal with the meaning of rebirth.

The two nature people would view the struggle of old nature versus new nature as our state, and the fact that we are Spiritual in God's eyes as our standing.

They use several verses to prove their point. I would like to list these verses with some thoughts for you to consider as you consider their position. If there is a reference with no comments, it is probably because it is dealt with later in this section.

Rom. 13:14

Col 3:10. " And have put on the new [man], which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:" I would start at 3:1. Putting off the old man was a past item of business. We will see this later. The putting on of the new man is also a past item of business. It is an aorist tense. (The aorist tense is something that occurred in the past at a point in time. There is no continuing action.) This has to do with living as they ought to live, and not as their Adamic nature is forcing them to do.

Rom. 6:13 "Neither yield ye your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness unto God."

I would add vs. 11 and 12 also. "Likewise, reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in its lusts. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God." This is not saying that there is a conflict - only that we can yield ourselves to serve sin, or serve God. It is our free choice - an act of our will.

Eph. 4:22 "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;"

Eph. 4:24 "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."

Let us look at the terms involved and see what the Scripture has to say. (I have included the tenses of some of the verbs in brackets for your convenience.) We are just listing the references and making observations.


OLD MAN: Rom. 6:6, "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed [aorist], that henceforth we should not serve sin." The old man is crucified with Christ so that the body of sin might be destroyed. Three things that need to be noticed: One is that our old man was crucified - put to death as Christ was. Secondly, we need to note the term destroy, which would give the impression that it is no longer around. The body of sin is no longer around. Thirdly, all this is so that we "should not sin." This does not say we cannot sin, nor does it say that we do not sin - only that we SHOULD NOT SIN.

II Cor. 5:17, "Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away [aorist, active, indicative]; behold [aorist, middle, imperative], all things are become new [perfect, active, indicative]." (The perfect is an act in the past that has continuing action into the future. It is something that is permanent.)

If we are in Christ the text tells us that we are new creatures - that old things are passed away, and that all things become new. Passed away indicates "gone." All - ALL becomes new - we are new creatures!

What can we say from all this? All the old ways are gone and they are replaced by new. Might this be speaking of our life style and way of doing things? I suspect so. There is also indication that the old is gone and that we are a "new creature" - singular.

Eph. 4:22, "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;" The old man is corrupt. Statement of fact. The verb put off is aorist - past. They have put off the old man which is corrupt. It is done. This is not a command to put him off! Nor, is it a command to keep putting him off every day. He was put of in the salvation experience.

Col 3:9, "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;" The old man was put off past it would seem from this text. (Put off is an aorist, middle tense.)

OLD NATURE: There is no listing for old nature in the Scripture.

NEW MAN: Eph. 2:15, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;" The context seems to indicate to me that this new man is a combining of the Jew and Gentile into one people for the Lord, and that people, probably referring to the church. This verse really does not relate to our discussion.

Eph. 4:24, "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." "Put on" is aorist middle, and thus is a past action that they have done. The term created is also aorist and a past thing. Not something that the Ephesian people are to do.

Col 3:10, "And have put on the new [man], which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:" "Have put on" is aorist middle, and thus something past. Renewed is present passive, thus the renewing is continuing and it is being done from outside the person. (Created is an aorist active.) The new man is knowledgeable after the image of our creator.

NEW NATURE: There is no listing in Scripture for this term.

NEW CREATURE: II Cor. 5:17, "Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (See above for comments.)

Gal 6:15, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." The new creation availeth for something, and the context would indicate that salvation is in view. The new creature evidently comes from the salvation experience.

Miscellaneous texts:

Eph. 2:1-3 tells us of our past life that is now gone because of what salvation has done in our being. "And you hath he made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins; In which in times past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; Among whom also we all had our manner of life in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." We are no longer this type of person due to salvation. all this is behind us.

II Pet 1:4 mentions that we partake of the divine nature. The context is strictly salvation and its benefits. There is no hint of struggle, or vestige of the old nature left in our being. "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."

I Cor. 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." This is contrasted with a spiritual man. This is man in his Adamic fallen, unsaved, unregenerated state.

Gal 5:16-26 contrasts the lost, or life of the flesh, to the saved, or the life of the Spirit filled man. It is a stark contrast of lost vs. saved. Verse 24 is of interest to our discussion. "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." "have crucified" is an aorist active, indicative tense, which means that they did it at a point in the past - point of fact. (Indicative shows a statement of fact.)

If you are to make this a conflict between the flesh and spirit in one person you have problems with vs. 21 which states that the workers of the flesh won't be in the kingdom of God. I think that one holding that this is old vs. new natures must also hold to the insecurity of the believer. Indeed, Bancroft a two nature man states that the saved person is not in the flesh, but relates that he still has the flesh within. He bases this on Gal. 5:16,17. That is a real problem for the doctrine of the security of the believer!

Rom. 8:12-13, "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if we live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

To say that the flesh is in us and read this text where it says "if we live after the flesh, ye shall die" gives some rise to the thought of eternal security and its truth!!!

Let us move on to consider further the question of one or two natures. So, if there is no struggle between our new and old nature, why do we sin as believers? Because we make a choice to. We chose to follow our desire. Not because some ugly sin nature is pressuring us to, but because we allow our minds to dwell on things that they ought not dwell on. We allow our mind to decide to sin. James 1:14-15, "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

There is a sequence involved in our sin in this text, and there is no mention of our old nature, old man, evil self or any other thing in the text. Only lust - enticement - sin.

Rom. 6:11-13, "Likewise, reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in its lusts. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God."

Gal 2:20, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." "live in the flesh" relates to living life, not living with the "flesh" or the old nature.

We have the choice to do either - sin or serve God. Romans six calls us to serve God and not sin!


1. The indication is that the new man is something put on in the past by some of the recipients of Paul's writings indicating that it is something that came at salvation. The putting away of our old life.

2. We are told that we SHOULD not serve sin.

3. Our old man was crucified, and is no longer a threat to us, if he is dead.

4. All things in the believer are new.

5. The old is passed away. This terminology would indicate that the old is not going to bother us at all.

If you haven't tumbled to it yet, it should be obvious that the definition of "nature" is of great importance to us. How can we define nature?

Buswell suggests in the discussion of Christ's nature, a "complex of attributes" (Ryrie, Charles C.; "BASIC THEOLOGY"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 250). In other words, the compilation of all the attributes of a person. This would be the person's nature.

We might make note that a nature cannot sin. A person sins. A nature is the sum total of all attributes of the being.

If this definition is true then all the attributes of a lost man would include things like, fallen, vile, evil, against God, etc.

If this definition is true then all the attributes of a saved man would include things like, saved, holy, regenerated, righteous, etc.

The old attributes have passed away and the new attributes are in place.

What of the saved person that ceases to walk with God? Are his essential attributes or nature changed? No. He is still saved, righteous, etc. though he is not walking with God.

In all of my study I see nothing to warrant a doctrine of two natures in any of the texts that are normally given to prove that we have two. Nor have I run across any references in my own reading of the Word that indicate two natures.

It is suggested that Romans seven depicts the struggle between the old and the new nature. There are several possible settings to this passage. The key to understanding the text is to put it in the context of Romans 7:25 and 8:1-2. This can't depict chapter seven as a saved man's view.

Possible settings for Romans seven.

a. Paul reflecting on his lost days and his struggle as a Pharisee with following the law.

b. Newel suggests it is Paul describing his past struggle with the law as a believer before he knew he wasn't bound to the law. He did not realize he did not have to live up to it.

c. Others suggest that he is describing a constant, day to day struggle between the Adamic nature and the new nature. This requires that Christ died for only our personal sin and not the sin nature.

Rom. 7:25-8:2 are hard to accept if Chapter seven is a saved man! Indeed 8:1-4 gives the idea that we, because of salvation, don't serve this law of sin that he has just struggled with, and that we do serve God!

I am not sure I understand all I desire to know about the Romans seven text, but I see enough to say that this is not stating that we have a struggle with the flesh and the spirit going on all the time.

Indeed, the overwhelming evidence is that there is no struggle, except between the lust that we can follow with our minds, and our will. This is not two natures! This is mind over lust - matters of the will and intellect, within the recreated soul of man.

I might mention that those that believe in two natures base much of their position on this Romans text, which is in high dispute. Few can confidently state, without reservation what it truly means. So why base a doctrine on a questionable text? Look at the whole of Scripture and see how the questionable text relates to it, not look at the questionable text and attempt to relate all of Scripture to your interpretation of the questionable text.

Our new nature has attributes that make it heavenly and Godly. All our attributes are our nature.

I realize this goes cross grain with many men. Scofield, Bancroft, Cambron, Walvoord and I'm sure Chafer and many others. I wonder why Ryrie does not deal with it (that I have found anyway). Is it because he disagrees with the boys? I don't know.

Walvoord does not believe the old nature is eradicated but that it is out of luck as far as controlling the believer. "Though it is impossible to eradicate the old nature, the exhortation prohibits the old sin nature from dominating the believer's manner of life. The old nature has lost its power in view of the crucifixion of Christ, but the victory can be wrought by God only through the indwelling Holy Spirit."

He goes on to state something that is somewhat eschew of his thinking. "...Christians continue to contend with the "old self" which is contrary to the new nature." (Reprinted by permission: Walvoord, John F. Editor; "LEWIS SPERRY CHAFER SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY VOLUME ONE"; USA: Victor Books, 1988, p 406) If we aren't dominated by it then how can we be constantly struggling with it?

So, if we do have a left over of the Adamic nature, it is an integrated part of our one nature. I do not think that this is what we have seen, but is an option to the person that desires to retain the Adamic nature within the saved person.

The Adamic nature does not, nor can it ever, force anyone into sin. It is a collection of spiritual characteristics, and not a force to be dealt with.

The new creation is also a collection of characteristics which make up what we are. It cannot, nor can it ever force us to live correctly. It is not a force.

The individual can, at his will, decide to follow the old ways of the lost. This is termed carnal, or flesh in the Scripture. This is not something he is forced to do, but is something that he desires to do. (If we view him forced to, we must give stock to the world's favorite phrase, "The Devil made me do it.")

One must then submit that if a believer that was once spiritual, which is acting as carnal, is acting against his own character - his divine character.

We say man has three parts. Body, soul and spirit. This is pre and post salvation. Where does the Adamic nature fit in? Is it a forth part? No. It is the characteristics of the lost being. It is the pollution of the soul and/or spirit. Which? The spirit is our God consciousness - even in lost man. It is not clearly seeing God. The soul is polluted by sin.

Now salvation comes on the scene and we are a new creation. How are the Spirit and soul affected? Are we given a forth part? A new nature? No. It has to be a changing of the spirit and soul.

Is it a partial changing? How could God call us a new creation or new creature if we were only partly new? He can't!

It seems from what we have seen that we, as believers, are in Adam's pre-fall state, and we choose to sin as Adam did. It is a decision, or act of the will, not a lost struggle with the old nature.

We have one thing that Adam did not have - I John 1:9. We can go before the throne of grace to confess our sin and be restored to that wonderful state, anytime we want.

If you study the word nature, you will find that normally it is viewed as the sum and substance of all that a thing or being is. For example, let us consider a glass of milk. It, as milk, has certain characteristics. If you put poison in, and stir it, the overall nature has been changed. You don't have two natures, you have one that is drastically changed. So, in our being, God regenerated us, we are born again, we are new, we have only one nature.

From all of this, we should deduce that nature is the inherent character or total collection of facts about ones character. The nature of man then becomes all that the man is.

The question then comes, how many natures does he have? Only one. The lost man has one, the saved man has one. The lost man's nature is sinful, and the saved man's is either sinful, or not sinful.

Part of that overall make up needs to have the idea of a self centered, self willed, self serving, characteristic, but still within only one nature.

We then sin because we decide. We then sin because we desire. We then sin because we are self willed, self serving and self centered.

Does that put the monkey of sin and its cause on our back? Very definitely!

I trust that as you approach sin, you will realize that if you proceed, it is because of your decision, and not the old nature, not the Devil, and not the Spirit. It is because you want to.

The ultimate reality in this question is this. If you believe that you have a constant struggle going on, as the two nature people believe, and that you can have victory by relying on the Holy Spirit, as they also believe, then when the person sins, they feel that they have failed to have the victory. Allow this to go on for many years, and you will find the many, totally defeated Christians that we have in our churches. They are totally discouraged because they can't find the victory that they have been taught they can have.

Now, on the other hand, if you tell them that the sin of their life is not due to failing to have the victory, but that it is because they CHOSE - DECIDED - ACTED - because they wanted to, and you will give them instant relief from their terrible guilt. They don't have victory because the choose not to, not because they have failed in some spiritual battle.

They have not failed the Lord because they haven't been able to walk with Him as closely as they needed to, to have the victory, they have failed the Lord because they have decided to sin.

There is a vast difference between failing the Lord, because you couldn't walk close enough to Him, and to fail Him because we decide with the will to turn against Him. The difference is the terrible guilt.

If we realize we choose to sin, we then realize how important I John 1:9 is to us. We will also realize that confession is that which brings us to not want to have to confess the same sin again. On the two nature side, I John 1:9 seems to be a crutch for life. You sin because you can't walk close enough to the Lord, and this is the way back.

Confession is, in part, agreeing with God about the terribleness of the sin. If we sin by an act of the will, we are in open rebellion against God. If we sin because we didn't walk as close to him as we should, the sin becomes only the slip of the walk, and a slip of the control of the Spirit.

I see sin, and I John 1:9, as a one nature person, as open rebellion and restoration. It is a terrible process to have to go through. As a two nature person, prior to coming to the conclusions I have submitted to you in this section, I was prone to I John 1:9 my problems away lightly, because, I was just a little remiss about my walk with the Lord. "Oh, Lord, I forgot my quiet time where I ask you to control me, and got a little off track. Sorry. Forgive me. Amen."

To see sin as rebellion, to see sin as my own responsibility, to see sin as God sees it, as filthy unrighteousness, is to see I John 1:9 as a serious place to find yourself.

I trust that you have a healthy realization of what sin is. I trust that you will seriously consider ALL OF THE SCRIPTURES before you decide on one or two natures.

Remember, the crux of the decision is the definition of "nature." To have two natures is to do damage to the normal definition of the term.

Are we talking about sinless perfection. No, never. We will sin however we do not have to. Remember II Peter? "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:" (2 Peter 1:3)

We aren't perfect, yet we don't have to sin. Because we have tried to get away from the false teaching of sinless perfection, we have over reacted to the point of saying we sin because it is our nature. It is almost as if we have to sin - we have no choice. Based on this teaching, we have allowed sin to become a normal part of the Christian life.

We need not see sin as an integrated part of life, we should see it as something that is an option. We don't need to sin, we need to not sin!