Affective thinking: we might have all the critical thinking skills in the world; we might be able to cross all our modal t’s and dot our logical I’s; we might be able to put together the tightest syllogisms and identify all the formal fallacies in the world; but if we have values or ‘loves’ that are awry our conclusions, no matter how sound they are per our leading premises, will ultimately be wrong. The 
Apostle Matthew writes of Jesus’s viva voce “19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” This is an illustration of how affective thinking will shape how we conclude; no matter what skill we have in deploying all the analytic tools at our disposal. In short: what we love will determine the values we operate with in all of our life choices on a daily basis; whether those are little choices and acts, or big paradigmatic types of choices and acts.
I simply want to register how important the ‘root’ is towards determining how we arrive at our conclusions about life and reality. As James writes (in echo of Jesus’s teaching): “11 Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Nor can salt water produce fresh.” A bad tree produces bad fruit, and a good tree good fruit; our aim ought to be to be good trees.” As Christians we know, because of Jesus’s teaching, that there is no one good but God. If this is so, if we want to be ‘good’ then it is clear that we must be attached to or participant in the life of God. As we are brought into union with God’s life through Christ’s life for us, it is at this point that God’s ‘affections’ or ‘values’ become our own (in a sanctifying way), and we are on the way to deploying all the analytic and other tools towards God’s aims and telos for our lives, in particular, and the world, in general. This is why holiness is so important; as the epistle of Hebrews writes: “14 Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.” Without holiness, without being joyfully participant in God’s Holy life, in His Good and Gracious Life, we will not have the means to see God; and if we can’t see God how will we be able to bear witness to God? But if we are participant in this life of holiness we will come to have the affections of God shaping our choices and determining our theological, ethical, political and a whole host of other conclusions that have meaning towards our place in God’s Kingdom in Christ.
I want to press this idea of affections, and the role they play in everything. This can be taken both positively and negatively. Negatively the Apostle Paul writes of affections this way:
17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
The pagan heart determines the conclusions that the world arrives at in their journey to exist in a meaningless world. It shapes the choices they make, and the acts they participate in through their daily lives. We all have affections, and without Christ they can only be for the self; this is what Luther was after in his language of the ‘bondage of the will’ (with riff on Augustine). We need an ‘alien righteousness’ an extra nos (outside of us) life to break through our self-possessed affections, and give us the affections from above. It is as Christ breaks through these ‘in bondage’ affections, and gives us His, as He ‘sheds His love abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit,’ that we have been brought into the center of God’s triune Love Live. It is herefrom that we have been given capacity to operate with an otherworldly approach, and have our lives ‘poured out as drink offerings on the sacrifice and faith of others.’ We need this ‘logic of Grace’ (cf. TF Torrance) to be the active ground of all that we do, say, and think.
The world does not have this transcendent ground, as such their values are skewed from God’s. They can have all the good intentions in the world; they can be philanthropic and compassionate towards others; but without the heart of Christ as their heart, at the end of the day, they are being philanthropic and compassionate from a heart that ultimately is seeking some sort of praise of the self rather than the other. If someone hasn’t been ‘transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of the Son of His love’ then all this person can do is attempt to do the best they can do in mimicry of what they see in the lives of people who are genuinely bearing witness to the living Christ. The point is, is that a pagan can have all the analytic and other tools in the world, and without having the value center of Christ’s as theirs, they will only and ever seek their own end rather than God’s. Their choices will be conditioned not by love of Christ, but love of self; and this will have fallout in ways that we can only point to the broader world now and say “see.”
As a former professor and mentor (Ron Frost) of mine was wont to emphasize: “23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.” It is the faith of Christ that serves as the ground of the new affections we will have once we have entered into the Kingdom of God. The pagan does not have this faith by definition; as such they are incapable of making choices and arriving at conclusions that are corollary with God’s values. As Christians we are to bear witness to others of God’s affections as those are present in our lives, and invite everyone else to the banqueting table of the living God. Once people take this invitation they have now entered into God’s affections, into God’s values; and the way they think will have the capaciousness to think God and the world rightly. They will be able to utilize all the analytic and other intellectual tools God has provided for in and from their proper orientation in Jesus Christ. This is not say, as Luther was quick to point up, that we aren’t simul justus et peccator (simultaneously justified and sinner); we are that still. But even though we still are sinners, we now have the new creation of God’s life for us in Jesus Christ as the primacy of our lives wherein we can put to death the sinner and walk with the affection of Christ as our affection for God and the world. May we live this way, and not the other way (the pagan way).
Hi Bobby – always appreciate your writings – they force me to think much deeper than I normally do. But where in scripture are Christians ever referred to as ‘sinners’? Not that Christians don’t sin, but because they do sin does that now make them ‘sinners’? I can’t find anywhere in scripture where Christians are called ‘sinners’. Please let me know your thoughts as I consider it an important issue which can leave a lot of Christians hopeless and confused and I think it diminishes the work of Christ.
Please use name next time. And thanks. If we still sin we’re still sinners. That’s how I use the word sinner. I Jn 1 and 2 are quite clear about that; Gal 5.17; Rom 7 so on and so forth. You seem to be using “sinner” in a different ontological way. But we are still sinners if we still sin. Our natures in Christ are brand new, but we still have sinful natures as well; that’s why Paul tells us (in the present tense) to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ. Clearly the new creation has won, but we still inhabit the old as well. Romans 7 is the clearest in re to describing how these things are, and the surrounding context makes it clear that we still have this “principle” of sin at work in us; even tho we are now new creatures. I would see it as an asymmetrical relationship. We don’t have to sin, but we still will, and when we do we can confess our sins. But that’s how I’m using “sinner,” as descriptive of the fact that we still sin and will continue to sin until we receive or glorified bodies.
Where in scripture does it say that we still have sinful ‘natures’? I think that ‘old nature/man’ was crucified with Christ. I think presenting the idea that we have two natures is confusing and unhelpful (and most importantly I don’t see it in scripture). I don’t think a Christian is both ‘in Adam’ and ‘in Christ’ at the same time, nor do we move in and out of Adam and Christ as Christians. Yes I understand and completely agree that we still ‘sin’ and will continue to sin this side of our glorification at the consummation. Yes, we still are susceptible to the sinful desires of our ‘flesh’. Scripture does refer to Christians as many things – the elect, faithful brothers, beloved, children of God, holy nation and most frequently saints. But it is curious that nowhere, that I am aware of, are they referred to as ‘sinners’. It may just be semantics, but I do think it is important enough to consider. Rick
It’s semantics, Rick (and thank you for using at least your first name). If we don’t still have a sinful nature where do we sin from? It’s a theological conclusion. I don’t necessarily need Scripture to use the exact words in order to know that something is there conceptually; such as Trinity etc.
The fact of the matter is that we still live in a fallen world and in fallen bodies. If this were not so the Apostle Paul would not command us to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ on a moment by moment basis. I’m not saying we are not fully new creations in Christ, but we still live in-between the first and second advents of Christ. Glorification is when what and who we are will be fully realized. I’m not saying that we can’t fully realize that now, but there is a battle. If not why would Paul say this?:
The fact that we still sin militates against your position. I’m not sure where else you think our continual sinning comes from if we don’t still have the old man in the members of our body.
What was crucified with Christ when He died? Is the ‘old man’ still alive in the believer? Or did he die with Christ?
Where do we currently sin from? You need to answer that first. We still live in bodies of death. If we no longer have sin dwelling in the members of our bodies (to use Paul’s language), then why does Paul tell us to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ? What do you think sanctification is? Why would Paul call his redeemed body a body of death that he longs to be delivered from? Honestly, Rick, it is very unclear to me what you are arguing for; like I don’t get your position. Of course Christ ultimately put to death the old man, but that last enemy, which is death (I Cor 15) still remains to be put under Jesus’s feet. The creation cries out longing to be set free from the futility it currently lives under (Rom 8). We live in between and in sanctification not glorification or consummation. Again, where do we sin from if we no longer have sin in our bodies. You must answer that question. When you do, whatever you are attempting to argue will no longer follow. Yes, in Christ we are new creations, but we wait longingly to be fully and consummately redeemed from these bodies of sin we continue to inhabit (not my language but Paul’s).
A couple of thoughts prior to drifting off to sleep last night. Unlike ‘Trinity’, the word ‘sinner’ is in scripture, but curiously never applied to a person after regeneration. Also, why don’t we say that we are simultaneously a believer and non-believer; object of mercy and object of wrath; child of God and child of the devil; redeemed and unredeemed; forgiven and unforgiven?
What I am arguing for is that I think there is a significant enough difference between viewing myself as a ‘saint who occasionally chooses to sin’ vs. ‘simultaneously a saint and sinner’; again I think my view is more hopeful, places the responsibility for my choices where they belong, exalts the work of Jesus more, and is in keeping with scripture.
And I agree with all of your statements in your last comment. I just don’t believe that it is scripturally sound to view a Christian as somehow having a dual nature and referring to a Christian as both saint and sinner. Again I think this can create confusion and hopelessness and weaken our sanctification.
Where does sin come from? I think it is the result of us as saints choosing to gratify the desires of the ‘flesh’ when tempted (choosing to give in to temptation). Or another way of looking at it is when we choose not to walk by the indwelling Spirit and according to His desires (or live by the Spirit, or be led by the Spirit, or keep in step with the Spirit). But I don’t believe it is a second nature within us.
Just something to ponder, I don’t think we are going to change each others minds at this time.
Rick, your view is incoherent. We are clearly saved sinners, and will remain such till we get glorified bodies. You can’t mystically posit that somehow we still sin, and then not acknowledge that we still have sin in the members of our bodies. Do you believe we have redeemed bodies at this point in realized form? The Apostle Paul didn’t think that. It seems to me that your view has more to do with psychological consequences rather than biblical theological facts. But again: you have consistently dodged the question of: ‘where does the capacity for a Christian to sin come from?’ This is why I say your position is incoherent; you simply assert that the Christian does not have a sin nature any longer (when clearly Gal 5.17; Rom 6–8 etc argue just the opposite). As long as we live in these fallen bodies we will still be sinners. We have been saved from the power of sin in our lives, and now by the new nature can say no to it. But we haven’t as of yet been saved from the presence of sin in our lives, which I Jn 2 etc make clear.
Luther’s simul justus et peccator is right on the money.