The Nature of Inclinations

Are babies guilty of loving light and hating darkenss? If so, of such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

So we are destined to merely trade Scripture for Scripture, proof text for proof text? We can do that. :thumbsup:

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

 

Who gave them this knowledge by nature?? Did the tree they were hugging give it to them or maybe a rock they were examining revealed to them the law? Maybe they were just accidently following the law by wild chance. Somehow, I would believe that God's Spirit by conscience and by nature revealed it to them and in some measure they understood the Spirit of God even though He was an unnamed God to them. What do you think?

 

What is amazing to me is that even the heathen in some ways demonstrate more knowledge of God's character than do some theologians with their doctrinal positions.

 

Why do some heathen offer their children as sacrifices? They clearly recognize them, even in their twisted evil minds, as the pinnacle of purity and innocence. Only in our highly educated theological circles are babies viewed as inherently evil, and that is NOT to our benefit but should and to our shame. It makes the Christian world a laughing stock of even atheists and agnostics as the recognize, by intuitive God given reason via nature and reason, that children are not inherently evil or born evil.

 

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual

 

HP: You have to understand that on the list here, agreement kills great discussion. :smilewinkgrin:

I would say that I clearly have some tendencies to sin, even as a believer. I have to resist the devil, the flesh and the world on a daily basis through the help of the Holy Spirit to overcome sin in my life. Our honest goal should be to live free from actual sin daily, again by the help of God, living our lives pleasing to God in every way. I fully believe men such as Job did that very thing. I am no Job, but I live believing full well the possibility exist that I can live as pure as he did by relying on the Holy Spirit moment by moment. If men in the OT could walk lives pleasing to God, how much more should we walk in the Spirit with the help proffered us in this enlightened dispensation? God help me. " We aught to walk in all manner of actions and conversations , even as He walked. (you know the Scripture)

A propensity to sin is not sin, Sin cannot be blamed on ones propensities, any more than Adam could have blamed God for his human nature from which in some measure he misused when he sinned. God is not the author of sin, and no propensity is so strong man could not refuse to obey it IF HE WILL. If one comes to the place a propensity in reality 'causes' one to act in a given direction, such a person might be pitied or even kept from society to protect him and others, but moral blame for those actions is not directly predicated of their actions. Our mental institution house many such individuals. They may be morally responsible for actions and intents that got them there, but now are not responsible morally for actions driven by forces outside of their will and ability to resist.

 

HP: No it was not. If babies are guilty of possessing a sinful nature from birth, and all sinners love darkness and hate the light, then babies must love darkness and hate the light. That is simple logic, not designed to entrap anyone.

HP: You did not have to teach two thirds of the angels to sin that fell with Satan, Satan himself was not trained to sin, and Adam was not trained by God to sin. Your logic and philosophy that assumes because all have sinned that their must be some training or an inherited flaw in their nature to compel them to sin is false and not supported by Scripture, reason or experience.

If sin is necessitated by any means, i.e., if man could not do anything other then to sin, and that from birth, there could be no moral accountability for sin. One could only blame it on God for creating him that way. God would be seen as inherently evil, blaming and punishing man for something unavoidable and infused into ones nature through no fault on his own. To punish man for something he had absolutely no way of avoiding, i.e., being a sinner from birth, for eternity in a living hell, is beyond absurdity and wicked to the core. Such doctrine is not supported or taught in Scripture.

PS: The damning sin is NOT according to Scripture the rejection of Jesus Christ. Those that reject the cure seal their fate, but God condemns man for his sin. If a man rejects a cure that has cancer, does he die because he rejected the cure or because of his cancer? I say it is the cancer that kills him, not the rejection of the cure. Sin is what damns men to hell, and rejecting Christ if they have that offer given, simply seals their fate.

 

HP: That is an unfair and unkind accusation without the slightest evidence. You have not been around long enough or read enough of the thousands of posts I have written, to rmake any such remark.

If you think you are the only one that can determine the use of a verse or the only one with the ability to detrmine its context, you are mistaken. Here is another verse for you. "Scripture is of no private interpretation."

Name calling should include unfair association with cults as well. That is something we both agreed in principle we would refrain from. :thumbsup:

 

Plain and Simple, you killed nothing. I believe I will get along just fine with you in our pilgrimage. :jesus:

 

" For such is the Kindom of heaven"



Every Biblicist should appreciate the brevity of such a post.:thumbs:

 

HP: I am considering returning to Biblicist roots.