Do Christians have a dual identity as both sinners and saints? There are several ways of thinking about this that I don't like because they're essentially static.
Paul though talks about our "old self" and "new self". There are several things to note about the way he uses this language:
- The use of temporal language implies a movement from one to the other.
- This implied movement also includes an implied priority of the latter over the former. We are not equally saints and sinners, but are saints more than sinners because in the Bible the end defines us more than the beginning.
- Our "old self" is still our "self". I.e. it is still who we are, not a different person.
- The movement from old to new has happened in Christ, happened in our new birth/baptism, happens continually in our lives now (Romans 8:13; Colossians 3:5) and will be completed in our physical death and resurrection. I think it is in an exclusive emphasis on one battle in this continuing war (in which the decisive battle has already occurred) that all problems with affirmations/denials of this doctrine emerge.
is language becoming a problem? do we tend to polarise wrongly? should we think in 3d?
ReplyDeletee.g.
saint, righteous, godly, spirit, new
vs
sinner, unrighteous, ungodly, flesh, old
are these all polar?
perhaps, for instance the polar to saint should be "the rest", or "not my people"? But what is going on is that the term "sinner" tends to be taken to be a catch-all term for an intuition that includes all or some of the others.
hence the problem that (i think) dan is getting into by using the phrase simul justus et peccator (ie "at one and the same time righeous and a sinner") - this seems to be covering different bases - perhaps deliberately so, but not without consequence. Am I making sense?
language is a permanent problem... at least for me!
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you mean by 3D, but if the 3rd dimension is time I think it might help.
While I don't think saint=righteous=godly=spirit=new I do think they are inseparable and the same with the sinner words. So if I understand you rightly, I do think they are all polar.
I also think that the polar opposite to 'saint' could also be 'not my people', but only imprecisely, like 'godly' is the polar to 'old'. 'Sinner' is actually pretty close to an exact polar opposite. Although, I once read a Jimmy Dunn article once making the point that the word 'sinner' meant something like 'outside the covenant' (hence its regular connection with the word 'gentile'). BUT where perhaps we get problems is because we want rightly to equate 'Christian' with 'saint' (because as we get hammered home often, contra Roman Catholicism, all Christians are saints) but then also want to say all Christians are sinners. But Paul sees us as 'sinners'/'unrighteous' before we are Christians and not after. So perhaps we should say simul Christian et non-Christian, or simul Israelite et gentile. But this is never a question about WHAT we are apart from action, to be non-Christian is to be called to repent, put yourself to death and look for God to grant you forgiveness and new life.... As a Christian we live out our new life by not counting it something to grasp but pouring ourself out in service with a thankful heart for all we have received. To be simul justus et peccator is to be simultaneously living these two MOVEMENTS within a broader MOVEMENT from the old to the new personal identity which will only be completed at the resurrection of the dead.
The Christian doesn't sin, and the Christian doesn't die. It is the non-Christian me who sins and dies. Thank God I have a dual identity, to be resolved into one, and not just permanently the one doomed to everlasting sin and death.
What I'm trying to express is that to me the issue has become clearer by asking what the FRUIT of being a sinner/saint is, and working backwards to those terms. The fruit of one is death the other life (no overlap). Then asking where do we find death and life? I find them occurring at one and the same time in me. Don't we all? But I am more fundamentally eternally alive, than I am temporarily dying.
Does that make any kind of sense?
I've expanded a long way, sorry.
(a) so defined with jimmy dunn, "saint" & "sinner" would indeed be polar. Im really quite open to that suggestion (that was the idea i was referencing with "not my people").
ReplyDelete- it would certainly shed some interesting light on Paul as "chief of sinners" (cf "seeking a righteousness of my own" in romans 9/philippians 3)
- but it would be harder to square with 1 john "i write this to you so that you will not sin"
So it seems that "sinner" in reformed circles tends to mean one who's missed the mark, morally, and, perhaps crucially, judicially. And there it becomes interchangeable with unrighteous, ungodly (both taken in terms of moral performance - eg my equivocation over dan blanche's "righteous acts")
(b) 3d was figurative, i was initially trotting out some other dimensions/aspects, but hadnt considered time. Given my interest in "the ages", I will think about that.
(c) I like your "more fundamentally" comment, but wouldnt agree with your "simul israel & gentile", or "simul Xn & non Xn" - there is a massive no longer element in Paul, and the only way I could square your idea would be to say that what is no longer is the "or"
- ie no longer male OR female, Jew OR Gentile, slave OR free, but all are one in christ jesus
I'd venture that perhaps considering the
"so then...no longer" terms in paul would be a good way to go. I'll explore that.
I liked your comment about "righteous acts" on Dan's blog. I think all these terms link together in a messy way (like all language). So I don't think 1 John is a problem. I'd like a bit of a merger between covenantal and judicial categories.
ReplyDeleteMaybe with the dimensions, direction of movement is the thing I'd most like to see included. Technical terms are less helpfully explained by definitions than by stories.
The key thing about Gal 3:28 is the "in Christ Jesus". We are not united as a unified person in Christ Jesus yet because his life is still breaking into ours. Otherwise we wouldn't die. We are still Gentiles, but also the Israel of God. Our identity as God's covenant people is what we should be seeking to live out, so Paul in his ethics appeals to us to live out our NEW identity, but our old identity still persists as we put it to death.
I think that's what I think though.
Ephesians 2:19 is certainly an interesting "so then...no longer" passage. In context we were/are in the flesh Gentiles and aliens, now in Christ Israel/Temple etc. A word search of the phrase "in the flesh" would give some interesting food for thought. Are we or are we not still "in the flesh"? Yes and no. Hence are we still sinners? Yes and no. Are we still Gentiles? Yes and no.