Is God’s Selection Arbitrary?

[BobRyan]

Romans 7
The Believer’s Sinful Nature [/b]

14 For we know that [b]the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.[/b]
15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, [b]I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, [b]but sin which dwells in me.[/b]

18 For I know that [b]nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh[/b]; for the willing is present in me, but the doing[/b] of the good is not[/b].
19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, [b]I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.[/b]
21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.

22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man[/b],
23 but [b]I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war[/b] against the law of my mind[/b] and making me a prisoner[/b] of [b]the law of sin[/b] which is in my members.

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will [b]set me free from the body of this death?[/b]
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, [b]on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the [b]other, with my flesh the law of sin.


The point remains --

In the case of Romans 7 above those wITH a sinful nature have the issue of that war going on within them even if they are saved.

in the case of Romans 3 Paul applies it to both saved and unsaved.

Adam had no such war - no such battle - no such sinful nature -- all agree to that even to this very day.

Yet he could be tempted and DID sin.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Does not every sinner ever born under your theory have the right to point to God and say that He made them as they were born, morally depraved through no fault of their own, and regardless of rejecting the cure or not, the malady that is the rightful cause of their sinful condition can be placed upon none other than their Creator God who predestined them to be born sinful as they were? Regardless of the rejection of the cure, they had no choice whatsoever for the 'guilt' associated with sin for they were guilty before they ever formed their first thought according to you. If they are EVER to be punished for sin, they are going to be punished for something they had no part in becoming, but agin wer only the sinners they were by neccesity.

Your offer of salvation to all does absolutely nothing to eliminate the absurdity of the notion that God punishes man for sin and subsequent guilt that he never chose to inflict upon himself, but rather was a sinner from birth and that by necessity.

To the extent that man has choice - he has responsibility. No amount of "I should have been born on a sinless planet" complaining frees even one soul from this responsibility to exercise the choice given to him at infinite cost to Christ.

I see no way out of that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: To the extent that man has choice - he has responsibility. No amount of "I should have been born on a sinless planet" complaining frees even one soul from this responsibility to exercise the choice given to him at infinite cost to Christ.

I see no way out of that

.

HP: Would you be so kind as to explain to the list just what choice man had in inheriting his nature that you say is sinful and carries with it associated guilt??

 

[BobRyan]

My statement above does not say that "man is to blame for inheriting his nature". NOR does my quote above say "Man had a choice in inheriting his nature"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: My statement above does not say that "man is to blame for inheriting his nature". NOR does my quote above say "Man had a choice in inheriting his nature"

HP: Your failure to answer direct and pertinent questions does nothing to stimulate honest debate.

BR: Your conclusion that anyone with a depraved sinful nature must sin and therefore can not be held guilty is not true SINCE that same person is enabled to CHOOSE life and escape the course of sin. Hence -- their guilt remains.

BR: To the extent that man has choice - he has responsibility.

HP: You clearly associate guilt with ones depraved sinful nature as you term it. Guilt denotes responsibility. You say one is responsible to the extent he has choice. I ask you once more, what choice does man have in inheriting his nature that you say is sinful and carries with it associated guilt??

 

[trustitl]

Men genetically inherits a mortal body - that is only mortal because Adam's act fundamentally altered the very fabric of the universe. Are these men doomed to die on the grounds of being deemed morally accountable for anything? Of course not - you and I agree totally on the "judicial" issues. Will all men die (unless otherwise rescued) as a result of their inherited nature? Yes - God simply cannot prevent this from happening except as a result of the redemption offered at Calvary. Are they being "punished"? No - that's my whole point. The certainty of their death is a "physical" consequence of inheriting a certain nature - there is no issue of being punished.

Here is an interesting question (at least to me). Do the scriptures make it clear that the death that is "the wages of sin" is due simply to our being born with the sin nature or is it the result of actually acting sinfully.

As you might infer, my position depends on the former being the case. The free will question then becomes irrelevant and the scenario I am proposing is this:

1. Adams sins, the world is contaminated with a sin virus that robs man of his immortality.

2. Every human who is born inherits a fallen nature - a nature that is not immortal - there is no issue of accountability any more than a child born with HIV is accountable for getting sick with AIDS.

3. Unless that person freely accepts the gift of the "antidote", that person will indeed die.

Is my view any more clear?

Clear to me. Clearly wrong.

Sin is a virus? Christ blood is the antidote? No, sin is a choice and Christ's blood pays for the penalty due to sinners.

The wages of sin is death. You know, that thing humans naturally don't want to do: die, become deceased, become room temperature, expire... and it entered the world because of Adam.

Adam was created mortal. He just didn't die because of the Tree of Life. Flesh is mortal and was never intended to be immortal. It was not fundametally altered after Adam sinned. Adam could have kept on living forever after he sinned had he kept eating from the Tree of Life. Was the tree of life the antidote for sin? No, it just kept his mortal body from corruption.

We are not born with a sinful nature, we are born into flesh that is mortal and full of lusts. These lusts are not necesarily sinful, they just are the avenue for temptation to get to us.

We do not have access to the tree of life because of Adam. Babies don't have access to it so they are subject to death, not because of some virus floating around the world. Therefore, they will die. If they die having sinned against God they will perish eternally unless they have their penalty paid for by Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: We do not have access to the tree of life because of Adam. Babies don't have access to it so they are subject to death, not because of some virus floating around the world. Therefore, they will die. If they die having sinned against God they will perish eternally unless they have their penalty paid for by Christ.

HP: Are you saying that babies that sin will die and perish eternally?

 

[trustitl]

HP: Are you saying that babies that sin will die and perish eternally?

I don't think they can sin against God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL; I don't think they can sin against God.

HP: With this clarification I believe then your last post is indeed very well spoken. :thumbs: You have some clear insight into truth!

 

[bound]

God's grace moves the heart that is willing. ~ Maximos the Confessor

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: God's grace moves the heart that is willing. ~ Maximos the Confessor

HP: There is a lot to consider in that simple statement. If I were to interpret that statement, the first thing I would say is that it is simply not just ‘all of God’ or pure election or arbitrary predestination. God is working and placing influences upon man in which man still has to voluntarily yield his will in obedience to the demands of grace, by willingly, without force or coercion, repent and by faith believe.

How would you interpret it?

 

[bound]

HP: There is a lot to consider in that simple statement. If I were to interpret that statement, the first thing I would say is that it is simply not just ‘all of God’ or pure election or arbitrary predestination. God is working and placing influences upon man in which man still has to voluntarily yield his will in obedience to the demands of grace, by willingly, without force or coercion, repent and by faith believe.

How would you interpret it?

God's grace moves the heart that is willing. ~ Maximos the Confessor

I can neither add nor take away from what has been said. :flower:

 

[BobRyan]

.

HP: Would you be so kind as to explain to the list just what choice man had in inheriting his nature that you say is sinful and carries with it associated guilt??

HP - you asked me to prove that man is responsible (or had a choice) for his being born with a fallen or sinful nature. You ask that I show how he can be blamed for having the nature he was born with.

My response was that your question was based on a false presmise.

BR: My statement above does not say that "man is to blame for inheriting his nature". NOR does my quote above say "Man had a choice in inheriting his nature"

My argument is that man has choice in accepting the Gospel solution or not -- NOT the man has choice in whether he is born with a sinful nature - a human nature - a fallen human nature etc.

You then respond with a "I don't care if it does not have a valid premise - just answer the point anyway" kind of response.

HP: Your failure to answer direct and pertinent questions does nothing to stimulate honest debate.

Makes no sense.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: To the extent that man has choice - he has responsibility.

HP: You clearly attached guilt to the state we are born in. Then you tell us that responsibility involves choice. How can one be responsible or have any guilt attached before the first choice is ever made, being what he is by necessity with no posssibility of being anything from birth than what you say he is, i.e., a sinner?

BR, cannot you see the problem that you make for yourself when you speak of guilt, responsibility, and choice, yet have men pegged as guilty before the first choice is ever even possible let alone made? Therein lies the false premise that seems to be haunting you, i.e., original sin.

 

[BobRyan]

As I already stated the guilt that man is responsible for is the guilt of not accepting salvation -- and in doing so all other sin is rightly charged to man.

The one who chooses to drink and drive is responsible for ALL the damage done while driving "under the influence". By choosing NOT to accept salvation the sinner is in effect choosing to CLING to the sins that they have "instead".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP: There is a lot to consider in that simple statement. If I were to interpret that statement, the first thing I would say is that it is simply not just ‘all of God’ or pure election or arbitrary predestination. God is working and placing influences upon and in man by which voluntarily yield his will in obedience to the demands of grace, by willingly, without force or coercion, repent and by faith believe.

How would you interpret it?

GE
Your quote can be ambiguous; it also may not appear so. I t depends on the readers preconceptions. Like where John says, "... so that whosoever believes in Him may have eternal life. And you have come very near showing the essential moment that makes the difference. Allow me to use your words, to explain my way of seeing things,

... the first thing I would say is that it is ‘all of God’ and pure election and God's gracious predestination. God is working and placing influences upon and within man through which He creates that 'new man' by which he is enabled and desires to yield his will in obedience to the demands of grace, then willingly, without force or coercion, repents and by faith believes.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

God's grace moves the heart that is willing. ~ Maximos the Confessor

I can neither add nor take away from what has been said. :flower:

GE
God's grace moves the heart that is willing - First God's grace moved the heart that is then willing. It is not a case of the heart that is first willing and only then God's grace is enabled to move it. The enabling comes from God; the willingness comes from God who is first willing to through grace move upon a man's heart, then man's willingness becomes the fruit of God's Grace having been moved upon him.