Nature
Nature
1. The revelation of God in Nature.-The basis of St. Pauls appeal to the men of Lystra (Act 14:15 ff.) is that the living God manifests Himself in creation. In Rom 1:19 ff. the Apostle elaborates the same argument, drawing out its sterner implications and showing that the Gentiles were under condemnation because they had repressed the knowledge of God imparted to them in the works of His hands. No countenance is given to either of the two modern extremes of thought: there is no disparagement of Natures teachings; and, on the other hand, they are never set forth as sufficient for mans spiritual needs. St. Pauls purpose is answered when he has asserted the fact that the Gentiles possessed lofty conceptions of God which nevertheless had not proved to them the way of salvation. This true knowledge had been attained very largely through a right apprehension of the natural world which in all ages has been the living garment men have seen God by (R. D. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, Edinburgh, 1903, p. 210). Naturalism and Nature-worship which substitute Nature for God are alike remote from apostolic thought. Gods invisible attributes have been revealed in the universe which proclaims His wisdom and His power. He is, therefore, to be worshipped with adoration and thanksgiving. In Rom 8:19 St. Paul poetically personifies Nature and represents it as sympathizing with humanitys hopes. He conceives of all creation as involved in the fortunes of humanity. Creation is not inert, utterly unspiritual, alien to our life and its hopes. With the revelation of the sons of God humanity would attain its end, and nature too (J. Denney, Expositors Greek Testament , Romans, 1900, in loc.).
2. The light of Nature.-The revelation of God in Nature implies a corresponding responsibility on the part of those to whom it is given; it affects mans moral condition according as he is or is not guided by its light. In Rom 2:14 St. Paul grants that Gentiles may do by nature the things of the law. There is, therefore, a standard by which they may be judged although they do not possess the written Law which is the Jews glory. For whenever any of them instinctively put in practice the precepts of the law, their own moral sense supplies them with the law they need (Sanday-Headlam, International Critical Commentary , Romans5, 1902, p. 54). To appreciate the force of the Apostles argument, it is important to remember that although he regards the light of Nature as insufficient, he recognizes that the knowledge of God derived from Nature is true and good. The hinge on which everything turns is the forsaking of the knowledge. The Theism of the Gentiles failed not because its light was delusive, but because its light was not used. St. Paul is not, therefore, to be understood to mean that the Gentile world of which he wrote was lying in universal wickedness, unredeemed by even a single ray of human goodness (R. D. Shaw, op. cit. p. 216 f.). St. Paul taught that in the visible creation men may discern the workings of a supreme Mind and Will; he also taught that the revelation of God in His Son is the climax, not the contradiction, of His revelation in Nature. He knew that from the depths of mans spiritual being questions arise to which Nature can give no clear and unambiguous answer. Unless men pass from the light of Nature into the presence of Him who is the Light of life, theirs will be the disappointment of all who seek in converse with Nature what can be attained only in communion with God through Christ. In the NT nature is never used in what may be called its prevailing meaning in modern thought; the early Christians had no conception of nature such as is implied in definitions which make it co-extensive with science, which deals with sequences only, reserving all beyond for philosophy, which deals with causes also. Thus nature will not be the sum of things, except for one who maintains that phenomena have no true causes at all (H. M. Gwatkin, The Knowledge of God2, Edinburgh, 1908, i. 47).
3. Nature and grace.-The Pauline antithesis between natural and spiritual has been dwelt upon above (see Natural). Most frequently, however, mans natural condition, moral and spiritual, is, in the NT, contrasted with his experience in a state of grace. St. Paul had an altogether persuasive and beautiful word for the supernatural, which he was never weary of using, and which the Church should count one of her chief treasures-the Grace of God (J. Watson, The Doctrines of Grace, London, 1900, p. 6). St. Paul described Barnabas and himself as of like nature with the men of Lystra (Act 14:15 Revised Version margin). He was disclaiming the ascription to men of divine honours, and acknowledging that he was not exempt from human feelings and infirmities (cf. Jam 5:17). But when St. Paul says to the Ephesians: we were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (2:3), he associates himself with those who before they were quickened and became partakers of grace were dead in trespasses and sins. He regards sin as a constitutional malady. There exists a bad element in our human nature. Our trespasses and sins are, after all, not forced on us by our environment. Those offences by which we provoke God, lie in our nature; they are no mere casual acts, they belong to our bias and disposition (G. G. Findlay, Expositors Bible, The Epistle to the Ephesians, London, 1892, p. 104). In the context of this passage St. Paul explains what it is to be saved by grace. His teaching agrees with the statement in 2Pe 1:4 that the promises of grace are given in order that men who inherit a sinful nature may become partakers of a divine nature.
Literature.-J. Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism, London, 1899; P. N. Waggett, Is there a Religion of Nature?, do., 1902; W. L. Walker, Christian Theism and a Spiritual Monism, Edinburgh, 1906; J. O. Dykes, The Divine Worker in Creation and Providence, do., 1909; C. F. DArcy, Christianity and the Supernatural, London, 1909; R. Eucken, Naturalism or Idealism?, Cambridge, 1912.
J. G. Tasker.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
NATURE
The essential properties of a thing, or that by which it is distinguished from all others. It is used also, for the system of the world, and the Creator of it; the aggregate powers of the human body, and common sense, Rom 1:26-27. 1Co 11:14. The word is also used in reference to a variety of other objects which we shall here enumerate.
1. The divine nature is not any external form or shape, but his glory, excellency, and perfections, peculiar to himself.
2. Human nature signifies the state, properties, and peculiarities of Man 1:1 :
3. Good nature is a disposition to please, and is compounded of kindness, forbearance, forgiveness, and self-denial.
4. The law of nature is the will of God relating to human actions, grounded in the moral differences of things. Some understand it in a more comprehensive sense, as signifying those stated orders by which all the parts of the material world are governed in their several motions and operations.
5. The light of nature does not consist merely in those ideas which heathens have actually attained, but those which are presented to men by the works of creation, and which, by the exertion of reason, they may obtain, if they be desirous of retaining God in their mind.
See RELIGION.
6. By the dictates of nature, with regard to right and wrong, we understand those things which appear to the mind to be natural, fit, or reasonable.
7. The state of nature is that in which men have not by mutual engagements, implicit or express, entered communities.
8. Depraved nature is that corrupt state in which all mankind are born, and which inclines them to evil.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
nature
(Latin: nasci, to be born)
A substance not merely existing by itself (per se), but as containing a principle of action or motion. The terms nature and substance are frequently used as synonyms. In the concrete a natural unitary whole may be regarded first as an entity existing by itself, not merely as a modification inhering in some other being, in which case it is called a substance; or we may regard the unit as belonging to some specific kind of reality, i.e., as being the kind of thing it is, in which case it is called an essence; or we may consider it as the ultimate complete principle from which all the activities of the unit proceed, and in this sense it is called a nature. The nature, then, of a thing is the substance or essence regarded as the complete ultimate principle of the activities of a natural unit. We understand by natural unit (as opposed to artificial combinations of parts), a unit of which the component parts are, of the very intention of their being, parts and not complete entities in themselves. It is clear from thia that substance, essence, and nature are in the order of natural existence one and the same thing. Nature in this sense is only mentally distinct from substance. The term nature is also more broadly applied to the whole collection of single substances or natures. Thus we speak of universal nature, applying the term first to the universe of corporeal substances, e.g., the laws of nature, and again to the universe of all created things, e.g., the natural order.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Nature
Etymologically (Latin natura from nasci, to be born, like the corresponding Greek physis from phyein, to bring forth) has reference to the production of things, and hence generally includes in its connotation the ideas of energy and activity. It will be convenient to reduce to two classes the various meanings of the term nature according as it applies to the natures of individual beings or to nature in general.
I. In an individual being, especially if its constitutive elements and its activities are manifold and complex, the term nature is sometimes applied to the collection of distinctive features, original or acquired, by which such an individual is characterized and distinguished from others. Thus it may be said it is the nature of one man to be taller, stronger, more intelligent, or more sociable than another. This meaning, however, is superficial; in philosophical terminology and even in ordinary language, nature refers to something deeper and more fundamental. These features are manifestations of a man’s nature; they are not his nature. Nature properly signifies that which is primitive and original, or, according to etymology, that which a thing is at birth, as opposed to that which is acquired or added from external sources. But the line that divides the natural from the artificial cannot be drawn with precision. Inorganic beings never change except under the influence of external agencies, and in the same circumstances, their mode of activity is uniform and constant. Organisms present a greater complexity of structure, power of adaptation, and variety of function. For their development out of a primitive germ they require the co-operation of many external factors, yet they have within themselves the principle of activity by which external substances are elaborated and assimilated. In any being the changes due to necessary causes are called natural, whereas those produced by intentional human activity are called artificial. But it is clear that art supposes nature and is but a special adaptation of natural aptitudes, capacities, or activities for certain esthetic or useful purposes. Stars, rivers, forests, are works of nature; parks, canals, gardens, and machines are works of art. If necessary conditions are realized, where the seed falls a plant will grow naturally. But the seed may be placed purposely amid certain surroundings, the growth of the plant may be hastened, its shape altered, and, in general, the result to be expected from natural activities may be modified. By training the aptitudes of an animal are utilized and its instincts adapted for specific ends. In such cases the final result is more or less natural or artificial according to the mode and amount of human intervention.
In scholastic philosophy, nature, essence, and substance are closely related terms. Both essence and substance imply a static point of view and refer to constituents or mode of existence, while nature implies a dynamic point of view and refers to innate tendencies. Moreover, substance is opposed to accidents, whereas we may speak of the nature and essence not only of substances but also of accidents like colour, sound, intelligence, and of abstract ideals like virtue or duty. But when applied to the same substantial being, the terms substance, essence, and nature in reality stand only for different aspects of the same thing, and the distinction between them is a mental one. Substance connotes the thing as requiring no support, but as being itself the necessary support of accidents; essence properly denotes the intrinsic constitutive elements by which a thing is what it is and is distinguished from every other; nature denotes the substance or essence considered as the source of activities. “Nature properly speaking is the essence (or substance) of things which have in themselves as such a principle of activity (Aristotle, “Metaphysics “, 1015a, 13). By a process of abstraction the mind arises from individual and concrete natures to those of species and genera.
A few special remarks must be added concerning human nature. This expression may mean something concrete, more or less different in various individuals, or more generally something common to all men, i.e., the abstract human nature by which mankind as a whole is distinguished from other classes of living beings. In both cases it is conceived as including primitive and fundamental characteristics, and as referring to the source of all activities. Hence nature, as the internal principle of action, is opposed in the first place to violence and coercion which are external principles of action and prevent the normal play of human faculties. It is opposed also, but less strictly, to education and culture which at times may be the checking of natural tendencies, at times also their development and perfection. Education, physical and mental, is not a primitive endowment; it must be acquired and is built upon nature as on its foundation. In this sense habit has been termed a second nature. But although education is due largely to external causes and influences acting on the mind and the organism, from another point of view it is also the unfolding of innate aptitudes, and hence partly natural.
As between nature in general and art, so between human nature and education there is no clear dividing line. Natural is also frequently contrasted with conventional; language, style, gestures, expressions of feelings, etc., are called more or less natural. This opposition becomes more acute in the theories of Hobbes and Rousseau who lay stress on the antithesis between the primitive or natural state of man and the present social condition due to the contract by which men agreed to surrender their rights into the hands of the common authority.
From the theological point of view the distinctions between nature and person and between the natural and the supernatural orders are of primary importance. The former arose from the dogma of the Trinity, i. e., of one Divine Nature in three persons, and chiefly from that of the Incarnation, i.e., of the two Natures, Divine and human, in the one Divine Person in Christ. The Human Nature in Christ is complete and perfect as nature, yet it lacks that which would make it a person, whether this be something negative, as Scotists hold, namely the mere fact that a nature is not assumed by a higher person, or, as Thomists assert, some positive reality distinct from nature and making it incommunicable.
The faculties of man are capable of development and perfection, and, no matter what external influences may be at work, this is but the unfolding of natural capacities. Even artificial productions are governed by the laws of nature, and, in man, natural activities, after they are perfected differ not in kind but only in degree, from those that are less developed. The supernatural order is above the exigencies and capacities of all human nature. It consists of an end to be reached, namely, the intuitive vision of God in heaven — not the mere discursive and imperfect knowledge which is acquired by the light of reason — and of the means to attain such an end, namely, a principle which must be added to natural faculties so as to uplift them and make them capable of knowing and reaching this higher destiny. More specifically it includes an enlightenment of the intellect by a positive revelation of God manifesting man’s supernatural end and the conditions for obtaining it; it also implies for every individual the indispensable help of Divine grace both actual, by which God illumines and strengthens human faculties, and sanctifying, by which human nature is elevated to a higher mode of activity. Hence theologians oppose the state of pure nature in which God could have placed man, to the supernatural state to which in fact man was raised.
II. Nature is frequently taken for the totality of concrete natures and their laws. But here again a narrower and a broader meaning must be distinguished. Nature refers especially to the world of matter, in time and space, governed by blind and necessary laws, and thus excludes the mental world. Works of nature, opposed to works of art, result from physical causes, not from the actual adaptation by human intelligence. This signification is found in such expressions as natural history, natural philosophy, and in general, natural science, which deal only with the constitution, production, properties, and laws of material substances. Sometimes also nature is all-inclusive, embracing mind as well as matter; it is our whole world of experience, internal as well as external. And frequently nature is looked upon as a personified abstraction, as the one cause of whatever takes place in the universe, endowed with qualities, tendencies, efforts, and will, and with aims and purposes which it strives to realize.
The problems to which the philosophical study of nature has given rise are numerous. All however centre around the question of the unity of nature: Can all the beings of the world be reduced to one common principle, and if so what is this principle? The first Greek philosophers, who were almost exclusively philosophers of nature, endeavoured to find some primitive element out of which all things were made; air, water, fire, and earth were in turn or all together supposed to be this common principle. The problem has persisted through all ages and received many answers. Aristotle’s primary matter, for instance, is of the same nature in all things, and today ether, or some other substance or energy is advocated by many as the common substratum of all material substances. After static unity, dynamic unity is looked for, that is, all the changes that take place in the universe are referred to the same principle. Dynamism (q.v.) admits forces of various kinds which, however, it tries to reduce to as small a number as possible, if not to only one form of energy manifesting itself in different ways. Mechanism (q.v.) holds that everything is explainable by the sole assumption of movement communicated from one substance to another. Teleological views give to final causes a greater importance, and look upon the ends of various beings as subordinated to the one end which the universe tends to realize.
If nature includes both mental and physical phenomena, what are the relations between these two classes? On this point also the history of philosophy offers many attempts to substitute some form of Monism for the Dualism of mind and matter, by reducing mind to a special function of matter, or matter to a special appearance of mind, or both to a common substratum.
Finally, is nature as a whole self-sufficient, or does it require a transcendent ground as its cause and principle? Is the natura naturans one and the same with the natura naturata? By some these expressions are used in a pantheistic sense, the same substance underlies all phenomena; by others the natura naturans, as first cause, is held to be really distinct from the natura naturata, as effect. This is the question of the existence and nature of God and of his distinction from the world. Here the question of the possibility of miracles is suggested. If nature alone exists, and if all its changes are absolutely necessary, everything takes place according to a strict determinism. If, on the contrary, God exists as a transcendent, intelligent, and free cause of nature and its laws, not only nature in all its details depends ultimately on God’s will, but its ordinary course may be suspended by a miraculous intervention of the First Cause. (See ARTS; NATURALISM; SUPERNATURAL; GRACE )
———————————–
EISLER, Worterbuch der philos. Begriffe; RICKABY, General Metaphysics (New York, 1900); GUTBERLET, Naturphilosophie (Münster, 1894); HARPER, Metaphysics of the School (London, 1879-84); MERCIER, Ontologie (Louvain, 1902); NYS, Cosmologie (Louvain, 1906), and literature under NATURALISM.
C.A. DUBRAY Transcribed by Kenneth M. Caldwell Dedicated to Dr. Wilfried ver Eecke
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XCopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Nature
I. New.-Test. Usage of the Word. In Jam 1:23; Jam 3:6, the Greek is ,-; elsewhere, as Rom 1:26, . It is variously used for,
1. the laws of the natural or moral world (Rom 1:26; Rom 2:14; Rom 11:21; Rom 11:24).
2. Birth, origin, or natural descent: “Jews by nature” (Gal 2:15; Rom 2:27); “Which by nature are no gods” (Gal 4:8).
3. Genus, kind: “For every kind (marg. ‘nature’) of beasts,” etc., “is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind” (marg. “nature of nman” [Jam 3:4]).
4. The native mode of thinking, feeling, acting, as unenlightened and unsanctified by the, Holy Spirit: “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God” (1Co 2:14; comp. Eph 2:3).
5. Nature also denotes a customary sense of propriety: “Doth not nature itself teach you that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” (1Co 11:14). It was the national custom among both the Hebrews and Greeks for men to wear the hair short.
II. Philosophical Import of the Word. “The term nature is used sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a narrower extension. When employed in its most.extensive meaning, it embraces the two worlds of mind and matter. When employed in its more restricted signification, it is a synonvme for the latter only, and is then used in contradistinction to the former. In the Greek philosophy, the word was general in its meaning; and the great branch of philosophy, styled ‘physical or physiological,’ included under it not only the sciences of matter, but also those of mind. With us, the term nature is more vaguely extensive than the terms physics, physical, physiology, physiological or even than the adjective natural; whereas, in the philosophy of Germany, natur and its correlatives, whether of Greek or Latin derivation, are in general expressive of the world of matter in contrast to the world of intelligence” (Sir W. Hamilton. Reid’s Works, page 216, note).
“The word nature has been used in two senses, viz., actively and passively; energetic (=forma formans), and material (=forma formata). In the first it signifies the inward principle of whatever is requisite for the reality of a thing as existent; while the essence, or essential property, signifies the inner principle of all that appertains to the possibility of a thing. Hence, in accurate language, we say the essence of a mathematical circle or geometrical figure, not the nature, because in the conception of forms, purely geometrical, there is no expression or implication of their real existence. In the second or material sense of the word nature, we mean by it the sum total of all things, as far as they are objects of our senses, and consequently of possible experience the aggregate of phenomena, whether existing’for our outer senses or for our inner sense. The doctrine concerning nature would therefore (the word physiology being both ambiguous in itself, and already otherwise appropriated) be more properly entitled phenomenology, distinguished into its two grand divisions, somatology and psychology” (Coleridge, Friend, page 410).
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
NATURE
By Gods appointment, human beings are the earthly rulers of the created world. From the beginning Gods intention was that as they brought the physical world under their control, nature would enter into fuller glory and people would enter into greater blessing (Gen 1:28). Natures destiny was tied up with that of the human race. Therefore, when Adam and Eve sinned and brought suffering upon themselves, nature also suffered (Gen 3:17-18; Rom 8:20; Rom 8:22). Only when a redeemed humanity enters its full glory will nature enter its full glory (Rom 8:19-23).
Different attitudes to nature
People who do not believe in God may not agree with the Christian that the human race has authority over nature. They may consider that men and women have no more rights than animals, plants, or even lifeless things such as minerals. As a result they may worship rocks or trees, and sometimes may treat animals better than they treat people. The outcome of their belief is not that they raise nature to the level of humans, but that they lower humans to the level of the animals (Rom 1:20-25).
Gods people, while not giving animals, plants and minerals a higher place than God intended for them, should nevertheless realize that these things have a place and purpose in Gods order. This was demonstrated in the law God gave to ancient Israel. He allowed his people to plant trees for fruit or to clear forests to establish settlements (Lev 19:23-25; Jos 17:18), but he did not allow them to chop down trees unnecessarily. People could not destroy forests and orchards simply to use the trees for building siegeworks. They were to use only those trees that were not useful for anything else (Deu 20:19-20).
Likewise God taught his people to be kind to animals. They were to give proper food and rest to the animals that worked for them, and were not to use their animals in any way that could be considered cruel (Deu 5:14; Deu 22:10; Deu 25:4). In killing animals they were not to be heartless or thoughtless. They had to consider the animals instincts and feelings, and remember the need to maintain the balance of nature (Exo 23:19 b; Lev 22:28; Deu 22:6-7). In particular they had to acknowledge that God was the owner of all life, and that they could take the life of an animal only by his permission (Lev 17:13-14; Deu 12:15-16; Deu 12:23-24; Psa 50:10-11; see BLOOD).
Responsibility to God
Although given authority over nature, people are not to treat nature according to their own selfish desires. They do not have unlimited right over nature, for they are merely the representative of God in administering what God has entrusted to them. God is the owner of nature (Psa 24:1-2; see CREATION), and people are answerable to God for the way they treat it (Gen 2:15; Psa 8:6-8).
According to the gracious permission given them by God, people may use nature for their own benefit. God allows them to take minerals from the earth, to enjoy the fruits of plant life, to cut down trees to build houses, to eat the meat of animals, and to kill insects and animals that threaten their lives (Deu 8:7-10; Deu 12:15; Jos 6:21). But God does not give them the right to desolate the land solely for monetary gain, or destroy life solely for personal pleasure. Their attitude to nature should be a reflection of the care over nature that the Creator himself exercises (Psa 104:10-30; Mat 6:25-30; Mat 10:29).
God gave specific laws to the people of Israel concerning their attitude to nature in the matter of farming. He told them to rest their land one year in seven. If they failed to, he would force them to rest it by driving them from it (Lev 25:3-7; Lev 26:34-35; Lev 26:43; see SABBATICAL YEAR). God assured the Israelites that he would use nature as a means of blessing them when they obeyed him, but of punishing them when they disobeyed him (Deu 11:13-17; Deu 28:1-24; 2Ch 7:14).
It seems that God so created the natural world that, when people act towards it without restraint, they help bring ruin to it and to themselves (Isa 24:5-6). Christians know that human sin affected nature from the time of the rebellion in Eden (Gen 3:17-19), but they know also that when they are finally delivered from the effects of sin, nature also will be delivered (Rom 8:19-23).
In their personal lives Christians work towards the goal of their deliverance from the consequences of sin. They should work towards similar deliverance in all things affected by sin. Not only should they purify themselves because of the likeness they will one day bear to Christ, but they should also help towards the healing of nature in view of the full glory God has planned for it (Php 3:20-21; Tit 2:11-14; 1Jn 3:2-3).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Nature
NATURE.The term nature is not used in the OT. nor was the conception current in Hebrew thought, as God alone is seen in all, through all, and over all. The idea came from the word physis from Hellenism. Swines flesh is commended for food as a gift of nature in 4Ma 5:7. In the NT the term is used in various senses: (1) the forces, laws, and order of the world, including man (Rom 1:26; Rom 11:21; Rom 11:24, Gal 4:8); (2) the inborn sense of propriety or morality (1Co 11:14, Rom 2:14); (3) birth or physical origin (Gal 2:15, Rom 2:27); (4) the sum of characteristics of a species or person, human (Jam 3:7), or Divine (2Pe 1:4); (5) a condition acquired or inherited (Eph 2:3, by nature children of wrath). What is contrary to nature is condemned. While the term is not found or the conception made explicit in the OT, Schultz (OT Theol. ii. 74) finds in the Law the general rule that nothing is to be permitted contrary to the delicate sense of the inviolable proprieties of nature, and gives a number of instances (Exo 23:19; Exo 34:26, Lev 22:28; Lev 19:19, Deu 22:9-11, Lev 10:9; Lev 19:28; Lev 21:5; Lev 22:24, Deu 14:1; Deu 23:2). The beauty and the order of the world are recognized as evidences of Divine wisdom and power (Psa 8:1; Psa 19:1; Psa 33:6-7; Psa 90:2; Psa 104:1-35; Psa 136:6 ff., Psa 147:1-20, Pro 8:22-30, Job 38:1-41; Job 39:1-30); but the sum of created things is not hypostatized and personified apart from God, as in much current modern thinking. God is Creator, Preserver, and Ruler: He makes all (Isa 44:24, Amo 4:13), and is in all (Psa 139:1-24). His immanence is by His Spirit (Gen 1:2). Jesus recognizes Gods bounty and care in the flowers of the field and the birds of the air (Mat 6:26; Mat 6:28); He uses natural processes to illustrate spiritual, in salt (Mat 5:13), seed and soil (Mat 13:3-9), and leaven (Mat 13:33). The growth of the seed is also used as an illustration by Paul (1Co 15:37-38). There is in the Bible no interest in nature apart from God, and the problem of the relation of God to nature has not yet risen on the horizon of the thought of the writers.
Alfred E. Garvie.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Nature
See NATURAL, NATURE.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Nature
The inherent qualities of a being manifested in the various characteristics which mark and display its existence: the aggregate of such qualities is what is termed its nature, and one class or order of being is thus distinguished from another. Men by nature are the children of wrath, Eph 2:3; whereas the Christian becomes morally partaker of the divine nature, 2Pe 1:4; of which love is the characteristic: he is made partaker of God’s holiness. Heb 12:10. The work of God in the Christian which forms his nature thus finds its expression in him. The Creator can design and predicate the nature of a being before that being has an actual existence in fact; but we, as creatures, can discern the nature only from the existent being, and cannot therefore rightly speak of the nature save as characteristic of the being.
Nature is also a term descriptive of the vast system of created things around us, to each part of which the Creator has given not only its existence, but its use, its order, its increase, its decay – often called ‘the laws of nature’ – the laws which govern each and which constitute its propriety. Thus nature teaches that a man should not have long hair, 1Co 11:14; and a multitude of other things that are of God’s order in creation.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Nature
A highly ambiguous term, of which the following meanings are distinguished by A. O. Lovejoy
The objective as opposed to the subjective.
An objective standard for values as opposed to custom, law, convention.
The general cosmic order, usually conceived as divinely ordained, in contrast to human deviations from this.
That which exists apart from and uninfluenced by man, in contrast with art.
The instinctive or spontaneous behavior of man as opposed to the intellective.
Various normative meanings are read into these, with the result that the “natural” is held to be better than the “artificial”, the “unnatural”, the “conventional” or customary, the intellectual or deliberate, the subjective. — G.B.
In Aristotle’s philosophy(1) the internal source of change or rest in an object as such, in distinction from art, which is an external source of change. Natural beings are those that have such an internal source of change. Though both matter and form are involved in the changes of a natural being, its nature is ordinarily identified with the form, as the active and intelligible factor. (2) The sum total of all natural beings. See Aristotelianism. — G.R.M.
Fuente: The Dictionary of Philosophy
Nature
from phuo, “to bring forth, produce,” signifies (a) “the nature” (i.e., the natural powers of constitution) of a person or thing, Eph 2:3; Jam 3:7 (“kind”); 2Pe 1:4; (b) “origin, birth,” Rom 2:27, one who by birth is a Gentile, uncircumcised, in contrast to one who, though circumcised, has become spiritually uncircumcised by his iniquity; Gal 2:15; (c) “the regular law or order of nature,” Rom 1:26, against “nature” (para, “against”); Rom 2:14, adverbially, “by nature” (for Rom 11:21, Rom 11:24, see NATURAL, Note); 1Co 11:14; Gal 4:8, “by nature (are no gods),” here “nature” is the emphatic word, and the phrase includes demons, men regarded as deified, and idols; these are gods only in name (the negative, me, denies not simply that they were gods, but the possibility that they could be).
is used in the phrase in Jam 3:6, “the wheel of nature,” RV (marg., “birth”). Some regard this as the course of birth or of creation, or the course of man’s “nature” according to its original Divine purpose; Major (on the Ep. of James) regards trochos here as a wheel, “which, catching fire from the glowing axle, is compared to the widespreading mischief done by the tongue,” and shows that “the fully developed meaning” of genesis denotes “the incessant change of life … the sphere of this earthly life, meaning all that is contained in our life.” The significance, then, would appear to be the whole round of human life and activity. Moulton and Milligan illustrate it in this sense from the papyri. See NATURAL, B.
Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words
Nature
In Scripture the word nature expresses the orderly and usual course of things established in the world. St. Paul says, to ingraft a good olive tree into a wild olive is contrary to nature, Rom 11:24; the customary order of nature is thereby in some measure inverted. Nature is also put for natural descent: We who are Jews by nature, by birth, and not Gentiles, Gal 2:15. We were by nature the children of wrath, Eph 2:3. Nature also denotes common sense, natural instinct: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him? 1Co 11:14.