The loss of this distinction makes it more difficult for us to understand Paul on his own terms, in his setting. Further, it removes from us an important way to think about Scripture more broadly, about ourselves as image bearers (theological anthropology), about our eschatology, and about life in the here and now.

In part 1 we began thinking about the implications of a mainstream television show presenting a cross-dressing child as a character. Here we want to consider how the Apostle Paul responded to the confusion of the sexes in Greco-Roman paganism.

The first thing we need to realize is that the Apostle Paul was a theologian of nature as well as of grace. This is a category and distinction that is either unknown to or rejected by most American evangelicals. This is unfortunate because the loss of this distinction makes it more difficult for us to understand Paul on his own terms, in his setting. Further, it removes from us an important way to think about Scripture more broadly, about ourselves as image bearers (theological anthropology), about our eschatology, and about life in the here and now. One source of hostility to this distinction comes from those who (whether they know it) are influenced by the Anabaptist tradition(s), which saw nature (creation) less as something to be affirmed and more something to be obliterated by eschatology. The medieval theologians (if we may generalize for the sake of a brief, popular essay) saw nature as inherently defective, something that, by virtue of its inherent flaws, needed the remedy of grace even before the fall. In reaction to this approach to nature and grace, some, particularly those influenced by neo-Kuyperianism, have decried what they describe as “the nature/grace dualism.”

There is a third approach, however, represented by traditional Reformed theology. The older Reformed theologians affirmed the inherent goodness of creation (as had the Fathers and as did the orthodox medieval theologians). They recognized that the fall corrupted nature, especially human nature, and spoke about grace as “renewing” human nature into the image of Christ. They unashamedly distinguished between nature and grace however. They unabashedly distinguished between that which is “secular” (which they did not use prejudicially) and that which is “sacred.” Both spheres or categories they saw under the sovereign providence of God.

They affirmed both categories, nature and grace, in light of the creational narrative wherein God is said to have created all things good. Thus, in Heidelberg Catechism 6, the Reformed churches confess, “God created man good and after His own image, that is, in righteousness and true holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal blessedness, to praise and glorify Him.”

According to the Reformed churches (not that all the theologians spoke exactly the same way), our fundamental problem was not nature. It was not finitude. Our problem became sin. We did not sin because we were created. Why we sinned freely in God’s good and holy garden, after being created in righteousness and true holiness” is a great mystery but it was we and not God who sinned. We and not God introduced corruption and death into the world.

We also saw the distinction between nature (creation) and grace in Romans 1:18–2:15, where Paul prosecuted all humanity for their violation of God’s holy law, which was revealed in the garden and which is known by nature.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse (Rom 1:18–20; NASB).

Read More