Humans and pit bulls

[billwald]

From another thread:

>>Trotter: Man is a sinner by his nature, and yet he freely chooses to sin.


>HP: That is nothing short of a contradictory statement.

A pit bull is bred to be vicious and thus is vicious by nature. Is this a parallel to humans being sinners by nature?

When God cursed Adam did he change the nature of the human race? If so, have humans cursed the pit bull breed? (race and breed are equivalent terms)

Some pit bulls, because of upbringing and training, are civilized critters. Is this the moral equivalent the Holy Spirit regenerating some people?

Is there a moral equivalency between humans "putting down" some pit bulls and God "putting down" some humans by sending them to hell?

Don't know, just asking for the sake of clear thinking.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Although I have a sin nature (as do ALL people), that does not mean I HAVE to sin. I do it by choice out of rebellion, anger, frustration, or for self-gratification. Afterward, I regret it and usually repent of it. If I don't repent of it, then God makes sure I regret that decision. I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and resisting sin is available to me. If I sin it is by choice and not because I am destined to sin because of my sin nature.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jon-Marc: If I sin it is by choice and not because I am destined to sin because of my sin nature.

HP: Well I do not know how you arrived there from your position of having a sin nature, but You arrived at truth with your last remark.:thumbs:

Sin breeds a sin nature in and of itself. As we begin from an early age to develop sinful habits, it certainly can be termed a ‘sinful nature’ or a ‘nature to sin,’ just not guilty of sin from birth as original sin implies. IF original sin is true, righteousness would be a natural impossibility period. Scripture tells us otherwise and give us great examples of lives that chose to obey God rather than their own selfish wills. Enoch, Elijah, Abraham, Noah and on and on the list goes.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

HP: Well I do not know how you arrived there from your position of having a sin nature, but You arrived at truth with your last remark.:thumbs:

Sin breeds a sin nature in and of itself. As we begin from an early age to develop sinful habits, it certainly can be termed a ‘sinful nature’ or a ‘nature to sin,’ just not guilty of sin from birth as original sin implies. IF original sin is true, righteousness would be a natural impossibility period. Scripture tells us otherwise and give us great examples of lives that chose to obey God rather than their own selfish wills. Enoch, Elijah, Abraham, Noah and on and on the list goes.

Question: do you agree that in everyone (ie unregenerated) there is tendancy toward sin in which it is easier to sin than to choose not to sin?

 

[billwald]

>IF original sin is true, righteousness would be a natural impossibility period.

(Maybe) That is why the Dutch variety of the Reformation developed the doctrine of common grace.

Jesus at least implied that every person is either owned by God or by Satan. Why would Satan encourage his people to do righteous deeds?

Some - I was on a list of OPC Reconstructionists but they drove me further crazy - say that only "real" Christians - mostly them - can do good works. The rest (of us) only appear to do good works but we do them selfishly. (They also claim that only a "real" Christian - one of them - can know anything)

Bull pippy. If an unregenerate person does a good work it is because the Holy Spirit is working on him.

 

[BobRyan]

Although I have a sin nature (as do ALL people), that does not mean I HAVE to sin. I do it by choice out of rebellion, anger, frustration, or for self-gratification. Afterward, I regret it and usually repent of it. If I don't repent of it, then God makes sure I regret that decision. I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and resisting sin is available to me. If I sin it is by choice and not because I am destined to sin because of my sin nature.

That is the view the Bible gives of this situation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Doubting Thomas: Question: do you agree that in everyone (ie unregenerated) there is tendancy toward sin in which it is easier to sin than to choose not to sin?

HP: Absolutely all are born with a proclivity to sin, and the testimony that all have sinned shows that it is indeed easy to find ourselves yielding to that proclivity. That in no wise says that it is 'impossible' to choose anything else but sin, but that all, at least in our dispensation, that have reached the age of accountability, have sinned.

If it ever reached the point that the 'possibility' did not exist that one could not sin if they so chose, man would cease to be a moral agent and accountable for their intents and actions. Only by allowing for the ‘possibility’ of contrary intents and actions is moral accountability valid.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BW: If an unregenerate person does a good work it is because the Holy Spirit is working on him.

HP: I would basically agree if one fully realizes that even though an unregenrate person might do something that could be classified as 'good,' it would by no means be classified as righteous or meritorious in any way in regards to salvation. No amount of good performed by a sinner has any righteous merit to it. If we are to do anything righteous, one first needs to have all their sins that are past placed under the blood via salvation.

 

[billwald]

>No amount of good performed by a sinner has any righteous merit to it.

OK, agreed. But are not some actions intrinsically good or evil in themselves? A person pulls another person out of a burning building. It is intrinsically a good act, yes? Maybe the puller or the pullee end up in hell, doesn't matter, does it?

 

[canadyjd]

...When God cursed Adam did he change the nature of the human race?...

I don't remember reading that God cursed Adam. He cursed the ground that Adam would till. He cursed the serpent.

Certainly there are consequences to man's rebellion. Part of those consequences is the imputation of sin to all born of woman, but that's man's fault, not God's. Where did God curse Adam?

peace to youraying:

 

[steaver]

HP: Well I do not know how you arrived there from your position of having a sin nature, but You arrived at truth with your last remark.:thumbs:

Sin breeds a sin nature in and of itself. As we begin from an early age to develop sinful habits, it certainly can be termed a ‘sinful nature’ or a ‘nature to sin,’ just not guilty of sin from birth as original sin implies. IF original sin is true, righteousness would be a natural impossibility period. Scripture tells us otherwise and give us great examples of lives that chose to obey God rather than their own selfish wills. Enoch, Elijah, Abraham, Noah and on and on the list goes.

Didn't Abraham commit the sin of adultery and Noah commit the sin of drunkenness? I believe Abraham also lied to a King about his wife also.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

HP: Absolutely all are born with a proclivity to sin, and the testimony that all have sinned shows that it is indeed easy to find ourselves yielding to that proclivity. That in no wise says that it is 'impossible' to choose anything else but sin, but that all, at least in our dispensation, that have reached the age of accountability, have sinned.

If it ever reached the point that the 'possibility' did not exist that one could not sin if they so chose, man would cease to be a moral agent and accountable for their intents and actions. Only by allowing for the ‘possibility’ of contrary intents and actions is moral accountability valid.

HP, you just defined "original sin", the curse handed down through Adam's seed. Otherwise, all born would have no proclivity to sin, they would be as pure as Adam before he chose to sin.

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: HP, you just defined "original sin", the curse handed down through Adam's seed. Otherwise, all born would have no proclivity to sin, they would be as pure as Adam before he chose to sin.

HP: No, I did not define original sin. A proclivity sustains to the will the relationship of an influence, not a cause of sin itself. Sin lies in the will, the creator and chooser between influences. Sin is not conceived until subsequent to the choice by the will. Remember the admonition of James? Notice carefully when it is that sin takes place.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

 

[steaver]

>No amount of good performed by a sinner has any righteous merit to it.

OK, agreed. But are not some actions intrinsically good or evil in themselves? A person pulls another person out of a burning building. It is intrinsically a good act, yes? Maybe the puller or the pullee end up in hell, doesn't matter, does it?

ALL are created in the immage of God and therefore will have attributes of God. Because of the curse of sin a struggle between good and evil was begun in man. Mankind now has two natures. This is why one chooses evil at times yet the good nature is still applied at times.

Luk 11:13If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

 

[steaver]

HP: No, I did not define original sin. A proclivity sustains to the will the relationship of an influence, not a cause of sin itself. Sin lies in the will, the creator and chooser between influences. Sin is not conceived until subsequent to the choice by the will. Remember the admonition of James? Notice carefully when it is that sin takes place.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Yes you did brother. Original sin is all about the proclivity to sin.

proclivity...."natural or habitual inclination or tendency;" That is what original sin is all about.

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Didn't Abraham commit the sin of adultery and Noah commit the sin of drunkenness? I believe Abraham also lied to a King about his wife also.

HP: You call whatever you so desire in their lives sin. I personally would not agree with your judgments, but God knows who is right.

The important thing is NOT whether any sinned at one time or another, but rather were their sins that were past under the blood and were they walking righteously with the Lord? The argument seems to go, if I can judge their actions as sin, it somehow proves that the law cannot be kept or that one cannot walk sinless before the Lord. That is simply a false conclusion. Because one sinned, that is no indication he cannot be forgiven, made righteous by the blood of Christ through repentance and faith for sins that are past, and subsequently walk righteously before God with the help proffered by the Holy Spirit.

 

[steaver]

HP: You call whatever you so desire in their lives sin. I personally would not agree with your judgments, but God knows who is right.


The important thing is NOT whether any sinned at one time or another, but rather were their sins that were past under the blood and were they walking righteously with the Lord? The argument seems to go, if I can judge their actions as sin, it somehow proves that the law cannot be kept or that one cannot walk sinless before the Lord. That is simply a false conclusion. Because one sinned, that is no indication he cannot be forgiven, made righteous by the blood of Christ through repentance and faith for sins that are past, and subsequently walk righteously before God with the help proffered by the Holy Spirit.

HP;

Scripture tells us otherwise and give us great examples of lives that chose to obey God rather than their own selfish wills. Enoch, Elijah, Abraham, Noah and on and on the list goes.

They had their moments of "selfish wills", just like ALL of us. So when the scripture speaks of those who walked blameless and in the commandments of God it DOES NOT imply that they were "sinless". They were just like ALL believers, not one being sinless.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

HP: You call whatever you so desire in their lives sin. I personally would not agree with your judgments, but God knows who is right.

So you don't think they sinned?? It was ok for Abraham to lie to the King and it was ok for him to have intercourse with his servant?

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver, IMHO you confuse the nature of a proclivity with sin itself. Original sin implies one is born as a sinner, not that one is born with a tendency or proclivity to sin. Original sin implies moral corruption from birth, wheras a proclivity to sin implies strong temptation or influence to sin, but no 'moral' corruption until the will 'yields' to the influences, subsequent to the age of accountability, of the corrupt sensibilities.

 

[billwald]

>Steaver: Didn't Abraham commit the sin of adultery and Noah commit the sin of drunkenness? I believe Abraham also lied to a King about his wife also.

Lying is a sin.

Drunkenness is a violation of which commandment?

Abraham committed which sin (commandment, law) of adultery?