The Nature of Inclinations

Biblicist, I have tried to reason with you in depth, and more often than not all I get is a Scripture and your priuvate interpretation. How about getting back on topic and seeing if we can find some simple agreement in basic revelation and then move into the doctrinal issues?

 

HP: How do I know your intents other than by what you write? May I suggest referring to a cult, things outside of the Church, outside of the faith we both hold, could be better stated otherwise? Thanks.

 

Biblicist, class dismissed!:thumbsup:

Don't take me too seriously.:smilewinkgrin:

 

HP: I needed that. Laughter is good medicine!:thumbs:

 

PnS, we do need to think right and focus of the good.

Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, thinkonthese things.

That is why God has put us together, to keep us thinking right! God bless you!:1_grouphug::godisgood:

PS: That hug is for you also Biblicist!:smilewinkgrin:

 

HP: Are you certain you have the described the state of the believers heart from a Biblical position? If our heart is before the new birth is evil and still evil after we have been regenerated and cleansed from all sin, that sounds like more of being whitewashed than cleansed and 'free from sin" to me.

 

HP: Pardon me, but that is far from the truth. Our will, or volition coerced to act at any given moment by the mental lusts or emotions at the moment? You have to be kidding. That might be the case if you are a robot or in an insane asylum, but not in the life of a moral being responsible for their intents and subsequent actions. It is a false philosophical notion to assume that the will always acts according to the strongest influence. If that was the case all praise or blame would in reality be leveled justly at the influence upon the will and not the will, a preposterous thought in the realm of morality. Your philosophy may well clearly depict the inner workings of a insane person or a robot, but not a moral being responsible for their intents and subsequent actions.

Biblicist, you either need to quit reading philosophical books of men and expounding on their false philosophy, or change your name. :wavey:

I may not have written this post in the best manner, but I could not help myself as my emotions forced me to write this post as I did.:smilewinkgrin:

 

The will of man is a first cause of his intentions and as such is directly responsible for them. Man is not some puppet that simply responds to stimuli from the sensibilities or anything else. God created man to be able to have the ability to withstand or resist the strongest of stimuli, even God Himself at times.

The proclivities we are born with and some we develop ply on the will but if at anytime they become so overpowering that the will is forced to act in accordance to them, the individual ceases to be a moral agent and as such cannot reasonably be held accountable for subsequent actions. We again may protect them from themselves and others but they are no longer responsible for their actions. Mental institutions house many such individuals.

If it was true that man has no real power to resist temptation, of if in fact the will is so weakened by sin that the possibility does not exit to formulate any other response than to do that which under normal circumstances is denoted as sin, or the will can obnly act in agreement withthe strongest influence upon it, the individual is no longer a moral agent and cannot be justly punished by the sanctions of moral law. The same applies for infants before the age of accountability. No reasonable individual could even consider punishing an infant by the standards of moral law, simply because moral law does not speak to such that are not moral agents.

A moral agent is none other than one that knows and understands the intrinsic value of a command apart from rewards or punishments. For a moral agent to be justly judged by moral law, he must have the ability to do something other than what he does under the exact same conditions. If the possibility does not exist that such an individual could have honestly chosen to do something different than what he did, such a one is not under moral obligation of any kind because morality can only be predicated when freedom to form an intention by the will without force or coercion. Any talk of morality or compliance to moral law when freedom to be the first cause of ones formed intents is not possible is sheer folly.

We need to start thinking right about religion and morality.

 

HP: I hear what you are saying but the above is what you wrote.

(using the terms volition and the will as synonymous)The volition serves the function of making a choice between two or more alternatives. It is NOT limited to, nor is its primary function to give expression between emotional or mental lusts. It chooses, or certainly should be constantly used in the suppression of emotion or mental lusts, and by no means subservient to them or to express them. Volition is nothing other than a word to describe freedom of the will to choose. Again, if the wills volitional choice is merely to express emotions or mental lusts, it is driven by force and coercion, not freedom. A will that is not free to formulate contrary choices in spite of the strength of any influence is not free in the least.

The will is the chooser period.

 

Adam will not go away. Adam had the ability to choose, and he at some point choose sin. If in fact the will always chooses according to the strongest influence, he had to have a very strong proclivity to sin, otherwise he would not have sinned, correct? If it takes a sinful nature, or if a sinful nature is why we sin, something had to make Adam sin as well. That begs the question if God put it into Adam's heart to sin by building into his nature the proclivity to sin, as some holding to Calvinism claim.

If in fact Adam sinned apart from any proclivity to sin, why would not have his proclivity to righteousness overpowered his temptation to sin? Those that claim man is born with a sinful nature claim man can only sin due to it. If Adam was born with a righteous nature how could he have done anything other than righteousness? But you say Adam had a choice? Then man does to if he is morally responsible for his intents and subsequent actions just as Adam was for his choice. It takes no sinful nature from birth for man to sin. Sin is caused by nothing more or less than a will that chooses to act selfishly instead of benevolently. There is a mystery to iniquity and why man sins. Being the first cause of his moral intents makes sin possible and responsible for when he does. Jesus, speaking to this dispensation says, all have sinned and that is all that is important to know. All are in need of His salvation.

Why do men try to make the temptation to sin greater than the influences form God is beyond me. Satan is not more powerful than God nor has Satan any power to force man to sin. James said, man sins because he is born a sinner?? Man sins because he has a sinful nature? Man sins because Satan and evil are the strongest motivations in the universe? Man sins because he is drawn away of his own lusts and enticed? NONE of the above. Man is TEMPTED (not sins) when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lusts, but he SINS when his will yields to those influences voluntarily.
Jas 1:15 Then WHEN lust hath conceived, it BRINGETH FORTH sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.