The Believer's Two Natures or One Nature?

"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law." --(Galatians 5: 16-18). 

The believer's two natures is a popular teaching in many evangelical Churches today. This concept about the "two natures" is especially best known among dispensational Christian groups. One of the early advocates of dispensational view is C. I. Scofield (1843-1921) who defines the believer's two natures as follows: 

"The Scriptures teach that every regenerate person is the possessor of two natures: one, received by natural birth, which is wholly and hopelessly bad; and a new nature, received through the new birth, which is the nature of God Himself, and therefore wholly good."[1] 

I have been a dispensational believer for the past 20 years and am quite familiar with this teaching on the believer's two natures. Over the past hundred years this teaching on the believer's two natures has been controversial in the Church. For there are other Christian groups who believe the teaching on the believer's two natures is unbiblical. The theologian who made this view on the "two natures" the most popular was Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, the former President of Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Chafer in his book "He that is Spiritual" classifies three classes of men in the world. He says: 

"The Apostle Paul, by the Spirit, has divided the whole human family into three groups: (1) The "natural man," who is unregenerated, or unchanged spiritually; (2) the "carnal man," who is a "babe in Christ," and walks "as a man"; and (3) the "spiritual man." These groups are classified by the Apostle according to their ability to understand and receive a certain body of Truth, which is of things "revealed" unto us by the Spirit."[2] 

Here we see Dr. Chafer classifying three groups of people in the world. The question can be asked, is this right? It is from this many evangelical Churches believe the Christian has two natures: a carnal and spiritual nature. Many past and present dispensational advocates of this view on the two natures appeal to a number of Bible verses to support their position (see Psalm 51: 5; Jer. 17: 9; Rom. 3: 10-12; Mark 7: 21-23; 1 Cor. 2: 14; Rom. 8: 7-8; Eph. 2: 3; John 1: 12-13; 3: 3; Gal. 2: 20; 3: 26; Eph. 4: 24; 2 Cor. 5: 17; Col. 1: 27; 3: 3-4; 2 Peter 1: 4; Rom. 8: 10; 1 John 5: 11-12; Rom. 7: 14-25; Gal. 5: 16-17; Rom. 8: 13; Rom. 6: 6, 11; 8: 12; 13: 14). But is this right? 

As a former dispensationalist, I used to believe I had two natures within. My old nature that was sinful and my new nature that was born of God. A popular passage of Scripture that was often quoted about the believer's two natures: The two natures are the "old man" and the "new man" (Eph. 4: 22-24). I was given an illustration about our supposed "two natures" by an elderly saint who was well versed in the Scriptures. He said, "Jerry, your old nature in the flesh is like a black dog and your new nature in Christ is like a white dog. Both are always hungry. Which ever dog you feed the most will dominate the other. In other words, if you live in the flesh, the "self" will reign, but if you live in the spirit, the " new man" will reign in your life." I was given the impression that both old and new natures in the believer was very much alive in me and were struggling for dominance in my life (see Gal. 5: 16-18). I was taught to read, study God's Word, meditate upon it, and pray to ensure my "new nature" (white dog) was fed well, while my "old nature" (black dog) was starved. In other words, my old nature or the flesh was to be put in the place of death. So I was encouraged to "die daily" (1 Cor. 15: 31) to my flesh and its lusts. So on one hand, dispensational teachers are saying that our "old nature" is very much alive with our "new nature, but at the same time we are to reckon the "old nature" dead. Make no wonder I never had much victory in my Christian life with that kind of teaching, when Paul said to the Roman Church, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?" (Rom. 6: 3). Paul again says, this time to the Colossians, "For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col. 3: 3). You see the impact of the truth that Paul was conveying here in these verses? Our being "baptized into His death" is essentially saying "you have died." The Apostle considered our "old nature" dead period. Notice the words that Paul uses here in the above Scripture passages: "baptized" and "died." Both words are in the past tense, meaning the Apostle was saying that one's former life in the flesh has passed away, no longer alive. So if our old nature is considered to be dead, then it cannot or should not respond to the sinful things in our former life in the flesh.  

Another interesting argument opposed to the dispensationalist's teaching about the believer's two natures is by the late reformed author, John Murray who put forth this comment: 

"For these reasons we are constrained to regard Ephesians 4: 22-24 as furnishing no other conception of the new man or of the old man than that provided by Romans 6: 6; Colossians 3: 9, 10. The case is rather, that Ephesians 4: 17-24 is corroboratory of the explicit emphasis of Romans 6: 6 to the effect that the old man has been crucified and that this is one of the ways in which Paul announces the definitive cleavage with the world of sin, which union with Christ insures. The old man is the unregenerate man; the new man is the regenerate man created in Christ Jesus unto good works. It is no more feasible to call the believer a new man and an old man, than it is to call him a regenerate man and an unregenerate. And neither is it warranted to speak of the believer as having in him the old man and the new man. This kind of terminology is without warrant and it is but another method of doing prejudice to the doctrine which Paul was so jealous to establish when he said, "our old man has been crucified."[3] 

As we can see from Mr. Murray's comment above a distinction is made between the old man and the new man. The old man refers to our former life as being unregenerate, meaning dead to Christ; whereas, the new man speaks of the new life as being regenerate, which in turn means alive in Christ. Since we are supposed to be baptized into the death of Christ, our old nature is dead. How can a dead corpse respond? You see the truth being conveyed here. We having died in Christ's death are no longer alive for sin to dominate our lives. "For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin" (Romans 6: 6-7, NIV). So if our old nature is dead, then we can conclude that we have but only one nature, the new nature we have in Christ Jesus our Lord, "old things have passed away, behold all things have become new" (see 2 Cor. 5: 17). Now some may insist, but we still sin. Again, quoting Murray, "The believer is a new man, a new creation, but he is a new man not yet made perfect. Sin dwells in him still, and he still commits sin. He is necessarily the subject of progressive renewel; he needs to be transfigured into the image of the Lord from glory to glory (cf. 2 Corinthians 3: 18)."[4] For more detail about this, consult Mr. Murray's book mentioned in the footnote at the end of this blog.  

Noted reformed author, Anthony A. Hoekema in his book "The Christian Looks at Himself" quotes Herman Ridderbos, and gives this insightful comment based on Ridderbos's claim: 

"The "old man" and "the new man," Ridderbos claims, ought to be understood in this salvation-history setting. They designate the great transition from spiritual death to spiritual life which came into existence through the death and resurrection of Christ, and which is now to be appropriated by faith. In other words, we may think of these concepts in both an objective and a subjective way. Objectively, "old" and "new" man mean that in Christ's death and resurrection the old, sinful way of living has once for all been done away with, having lost its power over Christ's people, whereas the new way of living associated with God's new creation has once for all been inaugurated. Subjectively, "old" and "new" man mean that believers enter into this new way of living as they appropriate by faith -- not only initially but continually -- what happened in the death and resurrection of Christ. Another way of putting this is to say that "old" man refers to the old age in which man as incorporated in Adam is a slave to sin, whereas "new" man designates the new age in which man as a member of the body of Christ is now liberated from the slavery of sin and is free to live to the praise of God." [5] 

Both Ridderbos and Murray's contribution on this subject is of great significance as seen in the quotes by them above. The old man is that former life in which a person is dominated by the flesh and sin; whereas, the new man is the new life in which a believer is dominated by the new nature and the Holy Spirit.  Just as sure as we have been baptized into the death of Christ, we have been raised in the newness of life in the resurrection of Christ. Being free from the bondage of sin in our death in Christ, our old nature has once for all been put to death, to rise no more. We now live in the life of our new nature. Therefore, the teaching by dispensationalist on the believer's two natures is false. For we only have ONE NATURE and that new nature is forever identified with Christ.

---

[1] C. I Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, (Loizeaux Brother, Neptune, N.J., 1997), pg. 42.

[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, He that is Spiritual, (Academia Books: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967), pg. 15.

[3] John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1957), pg. 218.

[4] John Murray, Ibid., pg. 219.

[5] Anthony A. Hoekema, The Christian Looks at Himself, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1979), pgs. 43-44.