The Nature of Inclinations

.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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???

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.