In this sermon, the speaker begins by stating that the first thirteen verses of the chapter are a depiction of Paul's testimony of coming to Christ. He emphasizes that it was God's Word that convicted Paul of his sin. From the fourteenth verse onwards, the speaker believes that Paul is talking about his own experience as a mature Christian. The speaker highlights the battle that a strong Christian faces and warns against the danger of carnal security, where people think they are saved but are still enslaved by their sinful nature. The speaker also addresses the teaching of two natures, stating that it is not perfect and that Paul is referring to one person with two conflicting principles within.

If you have your Bible tonight, or use the one in the pew, I think it would be helpful if you follow along because I want to be dealing with some things in Romans chapter 7. I wouldn't call this a sermon tonight, but just a little discussion for, I trust your prophet. Romans chapter 7, and before we look to God's book, let's bow our heads and our hearts and look to the God of the book. Let us pray. Our Father, we thank you for thy words, but without thy spirit it will be a dead letter. Therefore, in the name of Christ, we plead for that spirit that gives light and life to thy words in the hearts of those that hear. We thank you that you've given us this word for conviction, for correction, for instruction, for comfort, for growth and grace. And tonight we plead that as we meditate on almost a single thought, that thou would grant to us that which we need for another week to serve thee. Let us hear our prayers tonight for Christ's sake. I think we'll read this whole chapter tonight. The first 13 verses is a picture, I believe, of part of Paul's testimony of coming to Christ. He lets us know in those verses what it was, particularly what portion, what part of God's word was. It was that convicted him of his sin. But beginning with the 14th verse, you'll notice from then on the personal pronoun I. And therefore I believe he's talking about his own experience. In every case you'll see I. And I believe it represents the most mature Christian. Not a weak Christian, not one who has a problem with stumbling and falling and inconsistencies. But I believe it represents the strongest Christian, the strongest type of a Christian. And it's a picture of the battle of that Christian. So let's read it together tonight. He uses an illustration, you'll remember, as we, as the book of Romans opens up. He shows us in the first three chapters the need of justification to the people without the church. They need justification, that's chapter one. To the people who are in the church of his custodians of true religion. They needed to be, they needed to be justified before God. And when he gets to chapter three, he said there's no difference. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, therefore they need to be justified. Then in chapter four he gives us an illustration of how we're justified. He uses that great character of the Old Testament, Abraham. In chapter five he teaches us that it's justification by faith. In chapter six then we have what always follows true justification. That is sanctification, that is a death to self and sin and being made alive unto God. And this is a continuation of that to show the battle. And here in particularly he brings out that fact that we're justified before God apart from the law. And he uses an illustration in the first part about marriage. This is no place to turn to find a treatise on divorce. There are other passages for that. He just uses an illustration. Many people have been hung up on this passage. Trying to wrestle with the whole problem of divorce from this passage. And I think it's clear that he's using an illustration. Know ye not brethren, for I speak to them that know the law. How the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth. For the woman which hath a husband, for as long as he liveth. For the husband is dead, she is loose from the law of her husband. So then if while her husband liveth she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. But if her husband be dead, she is freed from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another. Even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sin which were by the law did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. That is, the law aroused those sinful passions. But, now we are delivered from the law, being dead wherein we were held. That we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? The tendency is to say, well let's do away with the law then, if it's done all this to us. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, and here's where he gives a little of his personal testimony. And we might ask, how did he find out sin? And it's right here in the next three verses. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law. For I had not known lust, except the law said, thou shalt not covet. That's the tenth commandment. And that's the one that discovered to Paul his great need of justification. I had not known sin, he said. I had not known lust, except the law said, thou shalt not covet. But sin, taken in occasion by the commandment, and I think it's referring to that particular commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. That is, inordinate desire, or corrupt inclinations, coveting those things which God has forbidden. And it's sometimes translated lust, that big word, concupiscence. For without the law, sin was dead. It was there, sin is there, but men are quite comfortable with sinners without the law. For I was alive without the law once. But when the commandment, and I think again it's that particular commandment, when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taken in occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore, the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. The problem was not with the commandment. The problem was with me, and sin. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid, sin was the problem. But sin, that it might appear sin. It was the law that made sin to be sin, and made it appear as sin. But sin, that it might appear sin, working in me. Sin by the commandment, exceedingly sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal. For that which I do, I allow not. For what I would, that I do not. But what I hate, that I do. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. For to will is present with me. His will was set right, but he had another problem. He didn't have the power to do what he knew was right. But how to perform that which is good, I find not. For the good which I would, I do not. But the evil which I, which I would not, that I do. Now, if I do that, I would not. It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. But I see another law, another principle, in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. As the law shines upon the most mature Christian, as he sees it's holy, and he sees it's good, and he sees it's perfect, and he sees it's just, the natural thing for him to do, as that law shines upon him, is to cry out, O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? And he said, I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore, this is not a good chapter division, I don't think. There is therefore, in the light of this, there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh. Now, tonight I want to talk about a subject because of the young converts and because of Christians. You know, the Bible tells us in 1 Timothy 4, verse 16, to know thyself. And you've heard it from this pulpit more than once, and I hope you'll hear it many more times, that there are two knowledges necessary for salvation. No one will ever be saved who does not know himself. And no one will ever be saved who doesn't know God. Both knowledges are necessary for salvation. But it's also true that it's good for Christians to know themselves, because they ought to understand what goes on inside. They ought to understand this awful battle that we have with inward sins as well as outward temptation. I want to talk tonight about a statement that we hear a lot of times. And that is, and I think the picture of it here is in Romans 7, probably the most, the chapter that deals with it the most. And that is this idea of two natures. Christians have two natures. We hear it all the time. And the way some people use it, it's all right. There's a teaching, and it comes from Romans 7. Now what do we mean by these statements? If they're accurate, are they accurate? Is that the best way to express it, the thing that goes on and the problems that Christians have with themselves? I think, and I'd like to show tonight, try to show, that this is not the best way to express it. In fact, it's not true in one sense of that word. Now the error of the Gnostics, Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a very dangerous heresy that came into the church like a flood in the second century. And by the third century, the beginning of the third century even, nearly all the more intellectual Christian congregations in the whole Roman Empire was affected by what we call Gnosticism. Its errors are clearly referred to in the first epistle of John, where he talks about, where the references are made, that Christ had come in the flesh. They were fighting, didn't believe in the two natures of Christ. In fact, there were many schools of thought among the Gnostics. They and their teaching cannot be really successfully classified under one kind of Gnostic. There were a number of schools of philosophy then that were described as Gnostics or Gnosticism. One of their errors was that they thought that all matter was irretrievable evil. That is, even my flesh. That my flesh was evil, all matter was evil. Another one of their errors was that they thought that the historical Christ, and that's what the epistle of John is fighting against, they thought that the historical Christ was a mere man and was just taken possession of by a heavenly Christ. That is, he was two people, he wasn't. That is, that the heavenly Christ acted upon the man Jesus, but was never incarnate. And he could not, he couldn't be incarnate, they would say, because matter and flesh were evil. Now, the reason I say that is because this error of the general teaching of the two natures is a form of Gnosticism. It's a dualism. It's a dualism, in this sense, that is generally taught that there are two people. That the Christian is two people. And it has grave dangers, especially in the understanding of it, that the Christian, he's two natures. He's two people. He has two wills. And some ramifications of that is nothing more than the old doctrine of the, the heretical doctrine of the second century of Gnosticism. Now, I do not mean to be fighting language such as evil in itself that we use to convey these thoughts, but I do mean to fight all that I can this vicious dualism. And I want to point out some dangers, and they're very practical for you, you young people in school. And they're very practical in knowing yourself. So I not only want to try to make some statements tonight about it in this little study, but I also want to say why that I'm speaking on such a subject. Because of this vicious dualism and many of its dangers. Now let me say at the outset, nowhere in the New Testament do we find that regeneration is the implanting of a new nature beside the old nature, or that the renewed man has two hostile natures. There isn't a passage in the New Testament that teaches that. This is not what Romans 7.21 is saying, I spoke on that the other week. I find in the law that when I would do good, evil is present with me. That's not two people, that's St. Paul. And St. Paul, when St. Paul would do good, he didn't have somebody else that was doing the evil. But there was a principle in St. Paul that let him know that evil was present with him. Now close examination, and comparing Scripture with Scripture, you will find that the Bible teaches that the renewed man is one man, one nature still, and though he is imperfectly new, he is new. Having two principles mixed in his motive, even at the same time and in the same act. But not two men, or not two natures in that sense. Just two principles in all of his actions. Now it may appear like two wills. It may, maybe we can express it by two, by saying two natures. But it's not, he does not have two natures. Sometimes Scripture expresses it in ways that would lead us to believe it, but we must take all the single passages of Scripture and interpret it in the light of the whole. I say sometimes there are a few passages of Scripture that talk about, that makes it sound like two men. The old man and the new man. The inward man and the body of death. The two natures are not as natural faculties, but moral principles of operation. There are two moral principles of operation in the Christian. This keeps all the Christian's moral actions from being perfect and absolute. That's why even when the Christian prays, he can't pray perfectly. Or when he preaches, it's always possibility of mixing with pride or selfishness or some other thing. Any of the Christian's actions, this fact, this fact that there are two principles, moral principles operating in the Christian, this is what keeps all of his moral actions from being perfect or absolute. He does good with his whole heart as far as sincerity is concerned, but he does not do good with his whole heart as far as perfection is concerned. It's not perfect. I say his prayer, his witnessing, his worship. Likewise, when he does evil, when the Christian does evil, there is still the non-submitting. There is that part of him that doesn't submit to it. There is that part of him that's not consenting to the principle of even. That's what we have in Romans 7, 19 to 22. We have it in these words. And I'll read it again. The good that I would, I do not. But the evil which I would, that I do. Not two people, not two natures. Paul's talking about one person, me, I. He's not talking about two. Not two natures, but one Paul with two conflicting principles within. Now if I do that, I would not. It is no more I that doeth, but sin that dwelleth in me. That remaining sin. Sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law that when I would do good, evil is present with me. Notice, there is an I and an opposition. If you study this passage carefully, you'll see this. That there is a willing and a not willing. There is a doing and a not doing. There is a delighting and there is a not delighting. But get this. All in the same person. All in the same person. Not two people. Now, and I suppose here is one of the basic differences between the sins of believers and the sins of others. Though the principle of sinning is the same. Sin is sin, whether it's a believer or whether it's an unbeliever. All sin is sin. In either case. And in both cases, it's the being tempted by his own lust. Now in the unregenerate man, that is, those of you who are not Christians, you won't know much about what I'm talking about tonight. But in the unregenerate man, lust possesses the whole soul. Despite some, maybe possibly, checks by the conscience or maybe some checks by the light of his judgment, which may restrain the unregenerate in some ways. He's not as bad as he could be unless he's already reprobate. And I think that we don't say enough about that today. I believe there are lots of people who are already reprobate. Now if you want to see what that's like, you read Romans 1 and read verse 24 and 26 and 28, you'll find statements like this. This is a picture of people who are not dead and gone to hell. This is a picture of people who are living. But they've turned from God. They've turned from the truth to the place where we have language like this. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own heart, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves. That's a person who is alive, quite alive, but he's reprobate. He's gone. There's no hope that he'll ever be saved. Because God gave them up. You have it in verse 26, this kind of language. For this cause God gave them up to vile affection. Even their women did change the natural youth. And this goes into the sexual immorality and homosexuality. You have it in verse 28. Even if they did not like to retain God in their knowledge. And you have this words again. God gave them over. To me, if I were an unchristian who was raised in a Christian ministry week after week, and month after month, and year after year, and had godly Christian parents, these passages of scripture would certainly bother me. Because I see it so plainly that there's a time when you can be comfortable let go by God. And I believe there's a lot of people who reprobate already. Now I say the unregenerate, his lust, the possessed, the despite, there may be some checks in his lust. By virtue of his, by virtue of his judgment or something like that. Unless he's already reprobated. But the regenerate, but in the Christian, there is a restraining, an unconsenting principle. And that's the man. That's the man himself. That unconsenting principle. This is the man himself. And this, this man himself does not concur with sin. This dissent and sin will not reign ultimately in the truly Christian man. Because, Romans 6.14, he is not under the dominion of sin, but he's under the dominion of grace. When you read Romans 6.14, don't ever fail to see the great promise there. To me, that's one of the, one of the best promises in the Bible. We usually don't think of Romans 6.14 as being a promise. It's one of the greatest promises in the Bible. Sin will not have dominion, is not under law, but under grace. A Christian does not sin with the whole and full consent in any sin that he does. Now consent, I think I ought to qualify a little bit when I say the Christian does not sin with the whole or full consent of his will. Consent may be used and is used at least two ways in the Bible. Morally and physically. Morally and physically. In Romans, if you look at chapter 7, verse 16, you see the inward man. It talks about the inward man. He consented to the law of God that it is good. In other words, he approved it as good. He delighted in it. This part of him that said the law is good, it is part, is the part of him that does not, never consent to sin. The regenerate man or the Christian, if we want to use that language, is so far from consenting to sin that before he sins, when he's sinning, after he sins, in all three cases, he condemns it. He disallows it. He hates it in a moral sense. Although, in a physical sense, he may consent to it and enjoy it. That's what I mean by there's two consents. Two ways that we think of consent. Morally, he'll say, it was wrong, I did it, it was wrong, God is right. And so he never consents morally, though he may consent physically and enjoy it. Now, the unregenerate man sins with the full consent of his will. There may be in a person as he's tempted, something that seems like this, I used to see you that they think loves them, they'll take one of these flowers. Something like that goes on with the person who's tempted sometimes. He says, I will, I will not. I should, I should not. Now, that's a battle that goes on within. But, it's not a plurality in will. In a physical sense, not two wills, it's not two persons. A principle of good and a principle of evil, seeming maybe like two natures, seeming maybe like two wills, but it's one man. Example, the same person here tonight, I mean, a vivid example I think would be from the same person here tonight, he may love God and hate the devil. He may love good and hate evil. But it's not this little man in me, one little man in me, that loves good and another little man in me that hates evil. It's all the same. It's the principle within. Now, the point I'm laboring to get across is this, you're not two people. And this dualism that some people, and we'll come to the dangers of it, in a little while. So the same persons may love God and he may hate evil, but it's not two little people inside, you see. Well, another example would be the man who had to throw his goods into the sea to save his life. Now here's a man with all his goods and possessions. And it may be because of a storm that it's necessary for him to depart with all his goods. Now there's something in him that wants to keep the goods, but there's something in him that wants to save his life. So here's one act. When he throws it overboard, there's two, two wheels, as it were, operating inside. But they're not two wheels. It's all this man. But one, he says, oh, I want to save my goods. And the other says, oh, I want to save my life. So the one act, he's got one act, but two principles going along the inside. And that's exactly the way it is. The actions are mixed in the Christian and in every good act that the Christian does. As we learn in verse 21, evil is present with him. I say present in the Christian, but not prevalent. That's the difference. It's present with him, but not prevalent. The flesh intermixes with goods. Sometimes even to the point to defile the good action. Preaching could be, be a good action, but it could be ruined by the presence of sin. Or any Christian service could be a wonderful action, but it could be ruined by the presence of sin. So even to the defilement of good actions. So the spirit mixes with the evil actions. The spirit mixes with the evil actions as well as the evil mixing with the good actions. The spirit, the Bible tells us, lusteth against the flesh. And sometimes it prevails, but it does not always prevail. You see, what I'm trying to say is this. There are not two thrones within the heart of a Christian man where Jesus is on one throne and the devil is on the other. There are not two thrones. There are not two dominions in the same man at the same time. There is not the dominion of Satan and the dominion of grace. The dominion of Satan and sin may struggle for the throne, but it's not on the throne. There are not two thrones. Sin and Satan, and that's where the warfare comes. It really is that struggling for the throne place in your life. Two principles, not two persons. If it were two persons, then which one sins when we do sin, you see? Which one does the sinning? Or which one's here tonight worshipping? Which one goes to heaven? Where's the other man? When the one's gone to heaven, where's the other man? So you take the old man out tonight, put him in the bed, and the story's told of an old ungodly bishop who lived, or even he was being charged in a sacred office. And so he said to the... You see, I represent... He said, I represent both being a clergyman and a baron. He can't be doing when the old man is... There are not two, there's one. And this is what we see in Romans 7. Look at verse 23 again. But I see another law in my members. Just me, Paul, warring against the law of my mind. That's the battle. The renewed man is one man, one nature still. Imperfectly having two principles, mixed in his motives, even in the same act, but not two men. Now, man's one nature, originally it was holy, sinful, is by regeneration made imperfectly holy. Though it's imperfectly holy, it's progressively so. That's why you have a verse like Galatians 5.17. And I give you this, that you may understand yourself. Some people are too hard on themselves. With this old man battling, they first thing you know, they think, well, I'm not a Christian. Because of this warfare. We have this. Galatians 5.17. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. These are contrary, the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that you would. But what is it, that the spirit in Galatians 5.17 lusts against? What does the spirit lust against? Another person? No. The spirit does not lust against another person, or the other. It lusteth against the flesh. That's that principle. That's Romans 7.21. That's that law. In fact, it could be translated flesh. Now, if you hold the two nature theory, that's very widely taught, and what usually the teachers believe is not so bad as what the people believe that receive the teaching, not fighting about words. But if you hold to the two nature theories, then you must say, the all nature is unchanged in regeneration and sanctification. That's what you have to say. If you hold to the all nature, if nothing happens to it, I just get a new nature. And now I got these two natures. What you're really saying is that if you hold to the two nature theories, that nothing happens in regeneration or sanctification to the all nature. It's unchanged. If the all nature is not changed, then what is changed in regeneration? What is changed? Colossians chapter 1, verse 21 and 22, we have this. And you that were sometimes alienated as enemies in your minds by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death to present you holy, unblameable, unreprovable. You see, the point is this. The nature that was changed had been alienated. It was the all nature that was changed. The all nature didn't stay unchanged. It's the all nature that was changed. The nature that was, that he was referring to in that passage, was now changed. It was the all nature that was now made holy. Ephesians 4, 23, like this. But ye renewed in the spirit of your mind. Turn with me quickly. Just take a couple verses in Ephesians chapter 2, verses 1 to 5. Ephesians chapter 2, verses 1 to 5. And tell me this. We want to ask this question before we begin. What is quickened in these five verses? What is it that's quickened? Well, I'll tell you the answer because I want you to see it, but I want you to see it. The thing that is quickened in these five verses is that which is dead, spiritually. That's the old man. That's the old nature. Ephesians 2. And you hath he quickened. He, regeneration is doing something to that which is. Not bringing in something new that never existed and having it alongside of that which is already there. It was the quickening of something that was there. And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein in time past he 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 children of disobedience, among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of our flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, did something for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses and sins, hath quickened us. Now my point is just simply this in that, that he quickened that which was dead in trespasses and sins. So in speaking of the two nature theory, I want to be sure to state it generally as it's generally understood. And it's generally understood that you're two people. And I have to bow my head and say I taught people this or tried to teach people this myself. So I don't want to just be stating this to quibble about words. There may be some who use this expression properly. I wouldn't get upset if somebody talked about the old nature. It wouldn't upset me. Or if somebody talked about the new nature, there's a sense in which we could use that. But in the strictest sense, if you study what nature is, and if you want to know where to study it, and you'll know where I got some of the things I'm sharing with you tonight. If you want to, you ought to study what nature is. That's not included in my study. But if you want to do it tonight, I suggest you read Robert Dabney, Volume 1, page 196. And there you'll find out what nature is. So I'm saying this so that we know ourselves, that we don't think there's some little man down in there doing all the bad things, and another little man down there. Oh, I used to have some. Again, I say the renewed man. For if he did, he would be two men. And if he were two men, this would be the, this would, this is what he would be. It would be one perfectly holy, and another one completely sinful. Now that's the way the two natures, maybe that's not what the teachers mean, but that's the way it comes through to many people. That there's one man that's perfectly holy, that's the new man. And then there's another man that's completely sinful, that's the old man. It's not that way. If it were that way, if there were two natures, one completely holy, and one completely, or perfectly holy, and one completely sinful, where would sanctification come into that picture? How would you fit sanctification into somebody that's perfectly holy? He doesn't need sanctifying. And if somebody is completely sinful, he needs regeneration, and so there's no place for sanctification in that sort of a, positively no place for sanctification at all. There would be, we talk about all those passages, and I have at least a dozen that I'm not going to use. If you want them afterwards, I'll give them to you. I have at least a dozen passages that teach progressive sanctification and growth and grace. But if I was two people, one perfectly holy, and one completely sinful, where would growth and grace come in? If you were perfectly holy, you wouldn't need to grow in grace. And if you were completely sinful, you couldn't grow in grace, because you've never tasted grace. That man that's completely, totally, 100 percent sinful doesn't know he's never tasted the beginning of grace. The whole idea of sanctification would go out. Support progressive sanctification. What dominion? I might ask another question. What dominion is destroyed in the two-nature theory? There cannot be two thrones, as I've already said. You're not serving two masters tonight. You may think you are. Those of you who think you are, are self-deceived. No man can serve two masters. No man can serve two masters. You're not serving two masters. You may think you are. There are not two on the throne of your heart tonight. There is not Christ himself. It's one or the other. There are not two thrones. So I say on the two-nature theory, there's no dominion to be destroyed in the two-nature theory. Because the old dominion of sin stays just the same. We get a new man. He comes in. So we have these two thrones. There cannot be two thrones. There may be war for the throne. I want to say it again. There may be war and a struggle. A newborn baby is the handiwork of a perfect creation. But he's not a perfect man yet. And so as the regenerate person grows in grace, so the unregenerate, the depravity also grows in the unregenerate. Some of you who are not saved, you'll progressively, unless God in his mercy saves you, you'll progressively get worse and worse. Maybe not in outward conduct. And I'll give you the verse for it. 2 Timothy 3.13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. Now why do I raise such questions? Is it just to bring out some novel theory and to take up your time with a novel theory, something to be different? Why do I raise such questions? Well, because, as I said at the outset, because of some of the dangerous implications with this, with the proper or with understanding of this two-nature error. Now, I've already mentioned one, and I'm going to say a little more about it. I'm going to mention now the dangers in coming to the end, and I am going to come to the end, but I've got to finish, and I can't leave you hanging here. I've got to tell you why I'm doing all this. I just laid the foundation of why, and I want to tell you why. First of all, because it destroys the biblical doctrine of sanctification and growth and grace, and therefore it destroys the relationship between, a proper relationship between justification and sanctification. If you have two natures, then neither the regeneration, as I said before, neither regeneration or sanctification changes or weakens the carnal nature. They don't do anything to it if you have two natures. This carnal nature cannot be modified. If you have two natures, the way it's generally taught, this carnal nature cannot be modified. It cannot be improved, but the believer must have it and act with it and struggle with it to the end, undiminished, undiminished. It doesn't change. It's as strong today as it ever was if there's a two-nature theory. As I said before, in this presently or dominantly sanctified, but imperfectly so, there is a sin in which remaining corruption and the new law or the godliness is complementary. These two things are complementary to each other in this sense. And if there's two, then this other principle is out too. Now here's how they're complementary. As sanctification is a process as well as a complete, it's complete, it's also a process, but as sanctification progresses, what happens? It eliminates the remaining sin. The godliness extends and increases. And as the godliness increases, what happens to the remaining sin? It decreases. But if you're two, there's not that. It can't be that. To put it another way, the increase of the new principle of godliness is at the same time the principle of exclusion of the principle of remaining sin. I don't know a better illustration than to take it from Acts chapter 26 where Paul is telling the king why he was called and what Christ told him to do. He told him to do this, to open the eyes of the blind and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God. I think a good illustration about this is that very principle of darkness and light. To die to sin is to live unto righteousness. To die to sin is to live unto righteousness. Just as to turn the light on in this room. If we come in this room and it's totally dark and we turn the light on, two things happen, not just one. We expel the darkness, but we bring light to bear. There is a time when it's totally dark, totally day, space in between, but they both do not perfectly exist at the same time. Not perfect day and perfect dark, but they do not both perfectly exist at the same time. Now the period of mixture, the glow to perfection, not finished with me yet. You can say God is not back there, don't be shocked, but you're not totally saved yet. Oh, there's a sense in which you are, but there's a sense in which you're not. You won't be totally saved until you get to heaven. Now the two nature theories mitigate against the proper Bible view of progressive sanctification. Now I know that there are some texts for this dualistic teaching, and they claim to teach this system, but they're texts for the perfectionist people. John Wesley found a few texts for perfectionism. But everybody drags out a text, so the fact that there's a two-text, the thing that you must do is be sure that you're comparing Scripture with Scripture and taking the whole of the Scripture. Among the texts which seem to support the dualistic view, I suppose there's none more claimed. Probably the one most claimed is Ephesians chapter 4, verse 22 to 24. And I'm not going to take time to go into that, but I'm going to ask you one question about that passage. You asked yourself the question, who is the old man, and who is the new? And when you do that, look at the obvious parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 15, 22, and you'll find this. I'll give you the answer. If you don't come up with the same one, then you see me. But who is the old man and who is the new? If you look at 1 Corinthians 15, 22 and verses 45 to 49, you'll find that the old man is Adam and the new man is Christ. Now, believers have put off Adam and they've put on Christ. If you haven't put off Adam and put on Christ, you're not a believer. They have severed the connection. A true believer, he severed his connection with Adam as the federal head, and he, in order to enter into a connection with the second Adam, Christ as the federal head. Now, the second thing that I say is dangerous about this doctrine. One, it obliterates, it mars, it makes heretical the true doctrine of biblical sanctification and even regeneration. But the second thing is the problem, the danger, and I hope the young people hear this tonight, there is a danger of carnal security. That is, a right hope on insufficient ground. Because the presence of flagrant, indwelling sin will not even suggest a doubt or question whether your faith is superior. Doesn't matter how flagrant sin is, if you hold the two nature theories, you'll just say, well that's the old man, that's the old man, and therefore you can be hiding behind a false security and never been confronted at all. And the fact is, you can just keep blaming it on the old man. Oh, that's not me, that's just, that's that old man, that's that other, that's that other fellow, that's not me. I picked up this, somebody recommended this to me and I usually don't take recommendations until I did it and I got a whole gang of these before I realized how bad this thing was. But I want to read to you how far they go with this idea that it's not me. In this same passage, this is not a translation, it's a butchered, not even a paraphrase, but this is what it says. So I'm not really the one who does the thing. Now imagine that. Here's somebody who sins, you go get mad tomorrow and then you turn around to your wife and say, that wasn't really me, it was man. That's what it is, that's the two nature, that's the, I'm not making it too strong. That's quote verbatim. So, I am not really the one who does the thing. And then Down Father says this, if I do what I don't want to do, this means that I am no longer the one who does it. Well brother, you can just do about anything you want. Anything you want to do and when somebody questions you about it, all you do is say, well it really wasn't me. And that's the two nature. Oh, some people don't take it to that extreme, but that's the teaching. And I say, therefore, one of the dangers is carnal security. A whole host of people thinking they are saved while they're enslaved by what they call the old man. And they don't know anything about the principle of life. I say that this teaching of the two natures, the way it's generally taught, now don't think I'm going to get mad if you say two natures, that's alright, you can go ahead and say it. I say the way it's generally taught is the mother of antinomianism and its fall. The old man cannot continue unmortified in the opposite principle. To die to sin, again I say, is to live unto righteousness. The power that regenerates and sanctifies us is always, will be, partly, sure, incomprehensible to us. I don't understand how that all works, though we might not comprehend it, we can comprehend the effect of that in our life. If you don't have any effect, then you ought to question whether regeneration, whether anything was ever, now the, in the carnal, or unregenerate state, there will be, or there is, absolutely, exclusive, godlessness. In the regenerate state, it is prevalent, but not completely godly. But the godly is prevalent. In the glorified state, it is absolutely and exclusively godly. Motives in the Christian are complex. Subjective motives are usually dominated in the Christian by the godly. Yet there is a mixture, as we've already gone over, and yet not all to be created after God's sharing. You see that passage we use so much, he's a new creature. He's a new creature. It didn't say somebody else came alongside. It's that old man that was made new. So the second dangerous area is, is that false security. Let me, in about three minutes, just tell you the greatest errors in this doctrine and theory. The greatest errors, dualism. You get people like they're two people. And that's a form that does away with the Bible that still remains in every creature. God renews the man. Part of a man is renewed to some extent. And the whole man needs to continue in sanctification. God just doesn't come in and get somebody to quit smoking. The whole man is renewed to some extent. His mind, his affections, his will, every part of it where if you have this true nature theory, you don't have the whole man being renewed because there can be whole areas of carnality. And then I say carnal security, that is a disassociating faith from the proper fruits of faith, the improper view of assurance. I don't have time for that. Denial of responsibility in actual sin. And that's probably one of the chiefest errors of this, this teaching. It's a denial of the responsibility of actual sin. Whereas if you're one person, every lie you tell, every time you get mad, everything you do wrong, you don't say it's the old man, you say, Lord, it's me. I need to be forgiven afresh. And I need fresh repentance. Let me ask you two questions in closing. Do you know anything about that conflict in Romans 7? Are you here tonight and know between remaining sin and re-creation? Listen, my dear, if you don't know anything about that conflict, let me tell you something. You don't know anything about God. Or you don't know anything about yourself. Does the law of God, do you and the law of God agree? The law of God and Paul was agreeing with the sin. When the law shined upon him and he saw his sin, he didn't say, well, that's the old man. He says, who shall deliver me from this body of death? The law was telling me the sinner. And Paul was saying, it's right, I am. Of all the things I said tonight, don't miss that verse, it says. After he asked that question, and I'm just asking you. Do you and the law of God agree about your sin? If you do, then you say, oh, who shall deliver me? But don't stop there. Paul didn't stop there. He stopped because that makes me flee to Christ. I thank God. I don't say, oh, that's my old nature. That's the old man. That wasn't me at all. I say, no, Lord, that's not Your law said it's me. I'm saying it's me. Therefore, I must run to Christ. You young people, especially those of you who just come to know the Savior lately, when this goes on, you'll be over the honeymoon. If you're not over that spiritual honeymoon yet, you just wait. You will be. And when you get over the honeymoon, you'll know that there's a war going on. And when you find out about that war, don't try to blame it on somebody else that lives down here. That's you, dear. That's you. And you just tell God, yes, Lord. Your law said it's me, and I'm agreeing it's me. Lord, give thy people discernment tonight. And for those who are strangers to your grace, and strangers to your salvation, we pray that thou would accompany them with restlessness until they rest truly in thee. And for your own, we pray that you'd help us in our battle with the remaining sin that's in us. Hear our prayer tonight, for Jesus' sake. Amen.