The Nature of Inclinations

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Why don't you accept the commentary of Christ on this matter? He says that all, not some, but all wrong desires behind all wrong actions originate in and with the heart.

HP: really? Where does He say that??

Biblicist: In other words, NOTHING external to the heart plays any significant factor at all other than providing the opportunity for expression.

HP: Does Scripture say that or is your philosophy showing??

Biblicist: Temptations provide only opportunities for expressing inherent desires of the heart rather than originating such desires.

HP: Says who? Your philosophy or Scripture?

Biblicist: The human will is not something external to the heart or independent of the heart as it is merely the faculty for expressing the desires of the heart.

HP: Again, show us from Scripture the truth of the matter Biblicist. What I cannot understand is why is one with the name of Biblicist consistently pulling philosophical notions out of his hat without Biblical evidence???

Biblicist: You seemingly desire to complicate a very simple issue, indeed, it seems that you actually want to REVERSE the Biblical explanation.

HP: I beg your pardon? I have tried my dead level best to keep it simple, ONE first truth of reason I have repeatedly tried you to either accept or reject clearly without qualification and you have thus far not complied, but rather have led this discussion on numerous rabbit trails in every other direction.

Biblicist: You cannot use Adam whose heart is not the same as our heart. Whose will is not the same as our will. Whose position is not the same as our position.

HP: Adam is the PERFECT one to start with. He starts off perfect in every way with perfect inclinations and desires. If we cannot establish clear principles in a character and attributes as white as the driven snow, how are you going to explain our nature and inclinations as messed up by thousand years of sin and its consequences, only some of which are really known to man???

Biblicist: Again, if Adam's heart was immutably righteous so would be all his inclinations and choices but that is obviously not the case was it?

HP: First who said anything about Adams heart being "immutable righteous?" He was created a man, not God. " God alone is immutably Righteous. If your point is that Adam was not God I would agree. otherwise, I fail to see your point. Maybe you are taking an old Calvinistic approach and will tell us God put it in Adam's heart to sin. Who knows. Your philosophy is once again showing although I have to admit I do not understand all there is to know about your held philosophy or theology.

Biblicist: It is impossible to make the human will independent of the human nature - can't be done with man or any other rational creature of God. To attempt to postulate such a theory is admission of fundemental ignorance of the reality of things.

HP: Again, purely philosophical notions, based on something besides the truth... but that is not the topic of discussion on this thread either. What have you done, besides postulate a philosophical theory?? Is this your admission of your personal ignorance of the reality of things? Just asking you to take a good dose of your own medicine.


Let the reader be aware that all 'Biblicist' has done with the questions he asks me here is to establish his philosophical notions and develop his theories out of thin air. For a Biblicist he certainly utilizes a lot of philosophy.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: The sin nature is not merely a leaning toward sin but it is in principle sin. It is the love of darkness and the hatred of light which is sin (Jn. 3:19-20).

HP: So according to what I hear Biblicist saying, babies are born in sin. If sin is the love of darkness and the hatred of light, babies are guilty of loving darkness and hating light.

While we blindly lay all wisdom and reason and truths of immutable justice on the alter of Augustinian original sin, we willingly swallow the convoluted, unsupported, and preposterous notion the doctrine of original sin imbibes.........while we shy away from a sound, truthful, reasonable, first truth of reason instilled in the heart of men universally that in order to do anything praiseworthy of blameworthy, man must have choice.

 

[The Biblicist]

.

HP: really? Where does He say that??

Mt. 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man:

Can we agree that righteous things do not defile a man?

Can we agree that those things that do defile a man are not righteous things?

Can we agree that Christ provides only one source for things that defile a man and it is the human heart?

Can we agree that he is speaking of more than what comes out of the mouth but also defiling actions originate from the heart as well "murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts"???

Does not Jesus also clearly state "there is none good (agathos - intrinsic goodness) but one and that is God" and does not Paul spell this out in detail in Romans 3:9-18 in regard to all fallen mankind? If no fallen man has any intrinsic goodness (agathos) then how can he have any righteous or good inclinations or choices? Can good come out of an unclean thing(Job 14:4)?

According to your rationale the heart of man is not intrinsically evil but is able to desire and choose that which is good and holy.

You are trying to establish a MIDDLE ground to include both good and evil but Jesus offers only two opposing choices in regard to the essential nature of man:

Mt 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Mt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Mt 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Mt 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

There is no MIDDLE ground according to how Jesus views the essential nature of man.

So to answer your question -THE SCRIPTURE SAYS IT!

HP: Does Scripture say that or is your philosophy showing??

James 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.

What is the source of sin according to James? ANSWER: "his OWN lusts" not external temptations as they only serve to make those lusts manifests? Note "his own lusts" are "conceived." Where are they conceived? Outside or inside of him? Where do DESIRES occur? Outside or inside of a man? Desires are just the "fruit" of the tree. If the tree is good so is its fruit but if the tree is bad so is its fruit. There is NO MIDDLE GROUND!

So to answer your question again - SCRIPTURE teaches all fruit of a man's nature is determined by its source and the source is a BAD heart. A BAD heart, one that is incapable of intrinsic goodness is therefore by definition instrinsically evil and thus BAD and can only produce BAD fruit of which desires are a product.

HP: Again, show us from Scripture the truth of the matter Biblicist. What I cannot understand is why is one with the name of Biblicist consistently pulling philosophical notions out of his hat without Biblical evidence???

I already did this in my previous post where I pointed out that only two Greek terms are translated "will" in the New Testament. The very nature of those terms clearly demonstrate that the will is nothing more or less than the faculty of expression for what you think or feel - both of which are inclusive of the human heart. Can't get much more explicit and detailed than that.

So again, to answer your question - THE SCRIPTURES DEMONSTRATE the human will is the faculty of expression of the human heart.

HP: I beg your pardon? I have tried my dead level best to keep it simple, ONE first truth of reason I have repeatedly tried you to either accept or reject clearly without qualification and you have thus far not complied, but rather have led this discussion on numerous rabbit trails in every other direction.

You did not read my response to that question. I suggest you go back and read it.

HP: Adam is the PERFECT one to start with. He starts off perfect in every way with perfect inclinations and desires. If we cannot establish clear principles in a character and attributes as white as the driven snow, how are you going to explain our nature and inclinations as messed up by thousand years of sin and its consequences, only some of which are really known to man???

It may be the perfect example to start with in your mind but certainly not in the revealed mind of God as set forth in scripture.

Again, when you take into consideration what Jesus said about what is the internal source of evil within fallen man (the heart - Mt. 15) and that there is no intrinsically "good" fallen son of Adam and it is impossible for a bad tree to bring forth good fruit, then the only VALID comparison between the pre-fallen Adam and the fallen Adam is the comparison of a good versus a bad tree - period!

Again, if Adam were created IMMUTABLY good then like God there could be no variations from intrinsic good desires and choices. However, he was not created immutably good was he?

However, the scriptures are clear about the fallen Adam that he is INTRINSICALLY bad - thus a bad tree and thus incapable of bringing forth any "good" fruit. Job infers it cannot be done (Jb. 14:4) but Jesus demands it cannot be done. If it could be done then the solution would not be a "NEW" heart would it? Scripture?

Deut. 29: 4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

Ezek. 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

In both cases the Addressed is the same - Israel
In both cases God is the speaker
The distinction is that in Deut God has not yet given them a heart to "preceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear" whereas in Ezekiel God is promising to give such a heart.

So again to respond to your answer - THE SCRIPTURES TEACH IT.

HP: First who said anything about Adams heart being "immutable righteous?" He was created a man, not God. " God alone is immutably Righteous. If your point is that Adam was not God I would agree. otherwise, I fail to see your point.

You can introduce non-biblical rationalizations and ask me to put the Bible aside but if I do it it is a no, no???

I am pointing out something that even you admit is obvious but unfortunately it does not harmonize with the logic you are attempting to advance.

Adam was obviously not created with an immutable righteous heart but fallen Adam has an immutable evil heart or otherwise God's solution would not be a "NEW" heart (Ezek. 36:26) and we would not have language like "indeed neither indeed can be" (Rom. 8:7) or the two polar opposite alternatives "either good....or bad" and the absolute denial that there is any "good" but God.

HP: Again, purely philosophical notions, based on something besides the truth... but that is not the topic of discussion on this thread either. What have you done, besides postulate a philosophical theory?? Is this your admission of your personal ignorance of the reality of things? Just asking you to take a good dose of your own medicine.

This is quite amusing coming from a fella who is asking me to set the Bible aside and consider his line of logic in an attempt to build a philosophical basis - don't you think?

Let the reader be aware that all 'Biblicist' has done with the questions he asks me here is to establish his philosophical notions and develop his theories out of thin air. For a Biblicist he certainly utilizes a lot of philosophy.

Again, quite amusing that such a charge is brought against me by one who has requested that the Bible be put aside and that I should be willing to follow your philosophical rationale???

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist, I gave this topic a honest attempt with you. You have avoided staying on topic like the plague. You qualified the one answer to my simple question. I asked for an explanation of your qualification and I received none.

Are you willing to explain why the first truth of reason I shared with you is evidently not the whole truth, for you qualified your response? If it is the truth, and all truth comes from God, are you willing to apply it to your philosophy and to your interpretation of Scripture?

What good does it do to trade proof text for proof text, or pit my interpretation for your interpretation, my GK scholar for your GK scholar? If we cannot lay some framework of undeniable truth outside of Scripture (yet not outside of Godly revelation) using God given intuitive reasoning that neither of us can deny, what hope is there of reaching any agreement on each others interpretation? I say little to none.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, I gave this topic a honest attempt with you. You have avoided staying on topic like the plague. You qualified the one answer to my simple question. I asked for an explanation of your qualification and I received none.

Are you willing to explain why the first truth of reason I shared with you is evidently not the whole truth, for you qualified your response? If it is the truth, and all truth comes from God, are you willing to apply it to your philosophy and to your interpretation of Scripture?

What good does it do to trade proof text for proof text, or pit my interpretation for your interpretation, my GK scholar for your GK scholar? If we cannot lay some framework of undeniable truth outside of Scripture (yet not outside of Godly revelation) using God given intuitive reasoning that neither of us can deny, what hope is there of reaching any agreement on each others interpretation? I say little to none.

Remember your repetitive "is that your philosophy or scripture"????????

I answered every single question you asked with exactly what you asked me to provide - SCRIPTURE - and now you whine about providing you with scriptures.


I answered post #10 with affirmative and all you had to do was read the whole post but apparently you didn't as you keep repeating this false charge. So here it is -

"However, in essence I agree." - Post #30

You are the one who has not been able to respond. You are the one who wanted to set the Bible aside and follow logic and philosphy and then when I do exactly that and provide some logic and philosophy you accuse me of setting the bible aside? Are you bi-polar??????

Any reader should see it is self-evident that you cannot possibly use the prefallen nature of Adam as the model for understanding and rightly defining the postfallen nature of Adam as they are polar opposites. The differences are drastic.

1. The prefallen Adamic Nature was in no bondage to sin but the postfallen Adamic nature is in bondage to sin.

2. The prefallen Adamic nature was created "upright" but the postfallen Adamic nature is intrinscially evil.

3. The human will is nothing more or less than the vehicle of expression for the heart of man (thinking - boulomai; feeling - thelema).

4. The prefallen adamic heart was not created immutably upright and therefore the heart could equally express itself by the choice of either good or evil. However, once expressed for evil then the heart of man was immutably enslaved to that choice because the heart lost all intrinsic goodness.

The fact that Jesus explicitly says that there is NONE INTRINSCIALLY GOOD proves the heart is the source of intrinsic evil as Jesus says explicitly in Matthew 15 and as Paull explicitly describes in detail in Romans 3:9-18. Can't get it clearer or more specific.

The fact that Jesus gives NO MIDDLE GROUND between a "good" tree and a "bad" tree and says it is impossible for a "bad" tree to bring forth GOOD fruit is saying the same thing he said in Matthew 15 or to the rich young ruler or what Paul said in Romans 3:9-18 and in Romans 8:7.

 

[DHK]

The crux of the matter is this:

1. The Calvinist believes in Total Inability--that man cannot come to God.
But the Word says in Acts 17:30 that God commands all men everywhere to repent. All men is not simply the elect.
Furthermore, Jesus said in John 5:40, But you will not come unto me therefore you shall die in your sins.
He did not say you cannot come unto me, or you are unable to come unto me; he said you will not come unto me, stating that man makes the choice whether or not to come to Christ.

2.The Biblical position is Total Depravity, or depravity, or that every person is born with a sin nature.

3. HP's philosophical position is that everyman is born in a state of innocence such as Adam and Eve were, with a "propensity" to sin. But they are not actual sinners. This philosophy is not taught in the Bible.

That, as far as I can see it, is the sum of it all.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Original Post: I believe this discussion should be beneficial understanding the nature of 'inclinations,' with the conclusions drawn serving as helpful in determining what is and what is not sin in our lives

Whatever is not faith, is sin. Being born again, I no longer have an "inclination" to sin though the possibility of sinning is there. I am a son or daughter of God. When I do wrong, Papa lets me know so I can "repent and believe the gospel", putting to death the old man, growing in Christ. The devil continually puts thoughts in my head. I take captive every thought. I now have the "inclination" of righteousness.

 

[The Biblicist]

He did not say you cannot come unto me, or you are unable to come unto me; he said you will not come unto me, stating that man makes the choice whether or not to come to Christ.

Perhaps part of this is a matter of semantics or how one approaches this subject. The Bible clearly teaches that the fallen nature has the faculty of will and that all men are responsible to choose that which is good and right. However, as both terms translated "will" clearly show that the will is nothing more or less than the faculty of expression of what man thinks and feels (heart). The will is not independent from the heart of man nor can it act independent from the heart of man. It is the servant of a man's heart and the hearts faculty for expressing only and always what it thinks and feels and nothing more or less.

The Bible clearly teaches that the heart of man is intrinsically evil, desperately and wickedly so. So you are right. The inability of man lies in the fact that he "WILL NOT" and Jesus provides the reason he WILL NOT - because his deeds are evil and he LOVES darkness and HATES the light. As long as that is the condition of his heart that will be the expression of his will (Rom. 8:7).

God commands all men everywhere to repent and NOTHING prevents all men everywhere from repenting but their own refusal to do so which refusal has its roots in the condition of their own heart.

The idea that somehow the depravity of the human heart can be suspended and its faculty of will be temporarily separated from that heart to act independent from the heart is no where taught in scripture. There is no MIDDLE GROUND between unregnerate condition and regenerate condition. Either the tree is good and its fruit good or it is evil and its fruit is evil. There is no such thing as an evil tree bringing forth good fruit.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

It was not my intention with this particular thread to delve into the matter of original sin or the Scriptures surrounding that issue or the lack thereof. Certainly I have and will again address the numerous Scriptures at some point and time. DHK knows full well have covered that ground in depth over the past few years. I was simply trying to take another approach from a slightly different angle. A change on a discussion board can be a good thing I would think. We have traded and expounded proof texts and doctrinal positions, but is it not high time to get to the bottom of the philosophy such doctrine, on both sides, imbibes and indicates? Every good theological school coupled their theology with a course on philosophy because the two are inseparably intertwined.


What I am trying to do is to get us to use the mental abilities God has given and the intuitive knowledge that he has provided, and see if in fact we error as philosophers or as theologians. The simple first truth of reason I presented needs no supporting evidence to establish its validity. Will any one show me why the first truth of reason I have set forth should not be a useful tool to examine any and all truth, Scripture or not? Tell me. Is all such truth God inspired and intuitively given, and should not all truth no matter the source be harmonized to the best of our abilities? Please save your doctrinal positions for a latter time. I will do the same. We will have plenty of time to examine the Scriptures once again when we cover the topic at hand.

PS, I have to work today so I will not be able to respond until later. Thanks!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Welcome Plain n Simple! I like your testimony. I look forward to conversing with you.
Thanks DHK for joining in. I hope we can reach some agreement on some points. I wish Pastor Bob and others would drop by as well. I think we do agree on many things already. Where were you guys yesterday when I had some time??

 

[The Biblicist]

It was not my intention with this particular thread to delve into the matter of original sin or the Scriptures surrounding that issue or the lack thereof. Certainly I have and will again address the numerous Scriptures at some point and time. DHK knows full well have covered that ground in depth over the past few years. I was simply trying to take another approach from a slightly different angle. A change on a discussion board can be a good thing I would think. We have traded and expounded proof texts and doctrinal positions, but is it not high time to get to the bottom of the philosophy such doctrine, on both sides, imbibes and indicates? Every good theological school coupled their theology with a course on philosophy because the two are inseparably intertwined.


What I am trying to do is to get us to use the mental abilities God has given and the intuitive knowledge that he has provided, and see if in fact we error as philosophers or as theologians. The simple first truth of reason I presented needs no supporting evidence to establish its validity. Will any one show me why the first truth of reason I have set forth should not be a useful tool to examine any and all truth, Scripture or not? Tell me. Is all such truth God inspired and intuitively given, and should not all truth no matter the source be harmonized to the best of our abilities? Please save your doctrinal positions for a latter time. I will do the same. We will have plenty of time to examine the Scriptures once again when we cover the topic at hand.

PS, I have to work today so I will not be able to respond until later. Thanks!

Is there anyone that has denied your principle as stated in post #10???? Did you read my response in post #30?? So where is the beef?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist, Glad to see your still here! I was hoping for you to clarify, by reason and logic alone (at this point) why you added "in essence" when you said you agreed. I wanted to see if you believe truth, even the truth I mentioned as a first truth of reason, comes from God, and should be harmonized with all other revealed truths. Does any truth of God contradict other truths of God or should they be harmonized to the best of our abilities? Again, I am trying for a few brief posts, to step outside of Scripture and to examine other revealed truths from God.

Have to run!

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, Glad to see your still here! I was hoping for you to clarify, by reason and logic alone (at this point) why you added "in essence" when you said you agreed. I wanted to see if you believe truth, even the truth I mentioned as a first truth of reason, comes from God, and should be harmonized with all other revealed truths. Does any truth of God contradict other truths of God or should they be harmonized to the best of our abilities? Again, I am trying for a few brief posts, to step outside of Scripture and to examine other revealed truths from God.

Have to run!

In order to do anything blameworthy or praiseworthy choice must be possible. If there is no choice of the will involved, no moral blame or praise can assessed

As a bare principle without placing it in any particular context, Yes! Does truth ever contradict any other truth? Yes, in appearance (paradox) but Never in prinicple or reality!

I don't have the education that you fella's have. All my education is in the Bible. I am not a philosopher and I take the warning of Paul quite seriously when he said,

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

I also take the command of the Lord quite seriously when he told Joshua;

Josh. 1:7 Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.

You are asking us to do exactly what the Scriptures warn us not to do and forbid us to do in seeking truth in the "wisdom" of men rather in the Word of God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist, almost a great answer, but now you ever so slightly qualify it in yet another way. Can you cite one such example logically or by reason alone? If not, go ahead and use whatever you like to illustrate your point.

By the way, I had a change in plans and can type for a while. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: You are asking us to do exactly what the Scriptures warn us not to do and forbid us to do in seeking truth in the "wisdom" of men rather in the Word of God.

HP: This is NOT mans wisdom nor the product of mans wisdom. It is truth given to us intuitively by God, without which nothing could be truthfully discerned absolutely. I am not trying to spoil you in the least. I am simply trying to examine every truth, regardless of how or where God gives it to us, to test truth against truth.

We might in reality have a lot in common education wise. God is still the best educator.:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

Perhaps part of this is a matter of semantics or how one approaches this subject. The Bible clearly teaches that the fallen nature has the faculty of will and that all men are responsible to choose that which is good and right. However, as both terms translated "will" clearly show that the will is nothing more or less than the faculty of expression of what man thinks and feels (heart). The will is not independent from the heart of man nor can it act independent from the heart of man. It is the servant of a man's heart and the hearts faculty for expressing only and always what it thinks and feels and nothing more or less.

The Bible clearly teaches that the heart of man is intrinsically evil, desperately and wickedly so. So you are right. The inability of man lies in the fact that he "WILL NOT" and Jesus provides the reason he WILL NOT - because his deeds are evil and he LOVES darkness and HATES the light. As long as that is the condition of his heart that will be the expression of his will (Rom. 8:7).

I basically agree with you. I am not a Calvinist. Thus my post was worded as such. Thy dying thief turned to Christ out of his own will and called upon him in his dying moments. In God's overall providence he has given man a free will--a will to choose whether to reject or to receive Christ. The responsibility lays upon man, not God, whether he chooses to receive or reject. But it is man that has that choice. Thus the verse by Christ: "you will not come unto me," not, "you cannot come to me." The choice in the will (the heart) is clearly seen.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here is one for Plain n Simple: As I read your post you seem to indicate you have no evil propensities subsequent to salvation. I am NOT trying to find fault with your testimony. If that is true in reality we have only God to praise for the work done in your life!!

Would you agree that overeating is an evil natural propensity for some? I am thinking of one of the most godly men I knew that 'might' have had a problem with such a propensity. God be thanked, that is not one that I would find troublesome, and thank God I do not fight that. I wonder if we are thinking on the same level when it comes to inclinations or propensities. I believe that a propensity, (according to scripture reason and experience) even an over indulgence of food say, is not in and of itself sin. It is only as we first have knowledge of what God requires of us, in light of the reason, conscience, and Scriptures He gives us, that sin in regard to the propensity is possible. "to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him itis sin." (forgive me for using Scripture on this thread. Only kidding.)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, Lets say you were driving paying close attention and a child ran out from behind a parked car and you accidently ran over the child killing the child. Have you committed sin, are you guilty of sin, does God find you guilty of sin, by killing that child? Why?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

This is not a vain discussion nor are we in violation of Scripture to discuss philosophy. What is philosophy in reality but the study of truth? We do want to be careful we are not seeking truth apart from God, and using proper means to establish truth. That is why I believe a look into universally understood and recognized first truths of reason is a very worthy pursuit. We are called upon every day to order our lives in a respectable manner, and are called upon to judge between intents and actions and the morality of such on a daily basis. Although many laws are indeed based directly on Scripture, God has given to all men a sense of truth and justice to guide them. (Romans testifies to this revelation, by the way.) I am trying to show how the very God-inspired truths we possess intuitively are often overlooked and even flatly contradicted in theology by some. This out not to be true. If all truth comes from God, all truth should be harmonized to the best of our abilities. We cannot say thus and thus is a God given principle of immutable justice, yet develop a theology or interpretation of scripture that flatly contradicts or shows God to be opposed to Himself or acting in a capricious or arbitrary manner. God is Just... and ALL the time!

 

[The Biblicist]

I basically agree with you. I am not a Calvinist. Thus my post was worded as such. Thy dying thief turned to Christ out of his own will and called upon him in his dying moments. In God's overall providence he has given man a free will--a will to choose whether to reject or to receive Christ. The responsibility lays upon man, not God, whether he chooses to receive or reject. But it is man that has that choice. Thus the verse by Christ: "you will not come unto me," not, "you cannot come to me." The choice in the will (the heart) is clearly seen.

It seems that you are circumventing the very problem you admit to.

We agree that the issue is not whether man has the ability to choose, but the issue is whether the heart has the ability to love light and hate darkness and make that desire expressed through the will?

Is the heart the governer of thinking and feeling, love and hatred or is the will? Can the inherent condition of the human heart be suspended, and the will be separated to function independent of the love and hatred of the heart? Your position demands it can. However, the very terms used and translated "will" in the scriptures deny it can act independent of man's thinking and feeling faculty or the human heart but rather is the vehicle for expressing thinking and feelings.

For example, take Romans 8:7. The problem is a mindset that is "enmity" against God. That is not a disfunctional will but a disfunctional heart. His words "neither indeed CAN be" does not deny the will has capacity of choice but only denies the will can express any choice contrary to that mindset of hatred toward God. This is a denial that the will can operate or function contrary to the inherent heart condition in man. This is precisely why the solution is that God must give a "NEW" heart (Ezek. 36:26) as the old heart is incapable of loving light and hating darkenss and that is why the will "will not" choose life.

For your position to be correct, it is not enough to simply quote scriptures that call upon men everywhere to make the responsible right choice but you must prove there can be a MIDDLE GROUND between a "good" and "bad" tree so that a "bad" tree can bring forth "good" fruit as that is precisely what must occur for a mindset/heart that loves darkness and hates light to express love for light (faith) and hate for darkness (repentance).

Jn. 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Jn. 3:7 Marvel not I said unto thee, Ye MUST be born again.