Is God’s Selection Arbitrary?

[BobRyan]

HP: The picture you paint is just that. Man is created by God able only to sin and that of necessity with no hope whatsoever for the damned having been created for the sole purpose by God to sin and be damned. I would see your position not a little inconsistent to say that God does not force anyone to sin. What else could sinful man do, overcome necessitated fate, a feat not even God can accomplish?

1. Man was "created by God" sinless in the Garden of Eden without the inner tendancy/desire/urge/drive to sin.

2. Man "chose" to fall - and took upon himself the "sinful nature" that God did not "create for him".

3. God then had a "choice" as sovereign of the universe.

a. Destroy mankind instantly and ensure that no more humans would come into being having a "sinful nature that they did not choose".

b. ENABLE sinful mankind to "choose salvation" by a supernatural means that is unbiased and impartial. "Drawing ALL unto Him".

supernaturally enabling ALL to choose.

And of course I find that second option (option b) to be the one that is best supported by evidence from scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

Again , God does not force anyone to sin . People are accountable -- they want to sin , it comes naturally to them . God can't be faulted . Do you think people should get a reprieve or something ? Because they can't help sinning then that is an excuse for clemency ? Sorry, it doesn't work that way . More and more you sound like one of those objectors in Romans 9 .

If people are elected to damnation before they enter the world, the fact that they may want to sin is not justification for arguing that they are any sense "accountable" or morally culpable. You almost seem to trying to make a "since they want to sin, they are therefore accountable".

Such an argument (and I am not claiming you believe this) would not be true to the concept of accountabilty. I am accountable specifically in virtue of my freedom of contrary choice - this is bundled into the meaning of the term and everyone in society, who is linguistically able, will use and understand the term that way.

Let's say that I want to steal a chocolate bar and act on that desire. Even if my desire is intense, I will be legitimately be held culpable if it can be shown that I have a faculty that allows me to choose to not act on the desire. The issue in regard to accountability is the issue of freedom of contrary choice, not desire.

I will presume, HP, that you believe that if God creates a world in which we are born as sinners - with no possible way to "not sin", it would therefore be unjust for Him to condemn such people on that basis. I would agree with you but offer a different perspective on "original sin".

The best way I can make sense of the "we all die in Adam" is not to even conceive of it in a judicial sense. Perhaps it was simply not possible even for God to create a world in which Adam's sin did not result in death for all people. Perhaps "sin" ripples through creation in an almost "virus-like" manner, infecting everything. So we are not so much morally culpable in Adam as we are "infected" in Adam.

In this manner,one can honour the "death spread to all men through Adam" without having to invoke what I sense you will agree is a conceptually flawed "judicial" imputation of Adam's guilt to people who did not eat the fruit.

 

[BobRyan]

If God allowed humans to be born in a way where they were never given any other viable choice but "rebellion against God" -- then He would be in effect "creating new demons". And that is not taught in scripture. (not saying that humans are demons - but like demons these humans created with no choice but rebellion could only serve as models of demons).

But we know that EVEN the demons (fallen angels ) were created by God as sinless angels without sinful natures and WITH choice.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

No one was pulling his strings.

This is an interesting take and I certainly hope you are not arguing as follows:

1. Fred is born with the inherent property of being irrestistably driven to sin - Fred can no more avoid sinning than can an apple can avoid falling to the ground.

2. Fred is born with a desire to sin and this desire is the engine or motive force that drives him to sin - he cannot resist desire. (Actually, this is really just an expansion on point 1)

3. Because the desire is a characteristic of Fred and not God, no one is "pulling" Fred's strings so we can properly hold Fred morally accountable for his actions since it is Fred's desire that results in sin.

That kind of argument would be obviously incorrect - it would play and fast and loose with the concept of accountability as has already been explained.

 

[BobRyan]

John 12:32 "I will DRAW ALL unto ME" supernatural act of God on behalf of ALL.

Gen 3 "I will put enmity between her seed and the seed of the serpent" God inserts supernatural conflict between man and his own sinful nature - conflict that compels man to make a choice.

The Holy Spirit works on the heart of man - moving like the wind according to John 3 - and man is called to choose.

John 16 The Holy Spirit "Convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR has presented the only ‘logical’ and just conclusion based on the false and unscriptural premise that all are born sinners, in establishing the notion (although unscriptural and unreasonable in light of experience) that God grants to everyman the opportunity of hearing salvation’s message. This, BR obviously believes, frees his theology from the injustice of God condemning sinners, born into a state from which they could not otherwise escape. BR obviously comprehends the point Andre and myself are making about it being totally and completely unjust for God to create sinners as they are and then, without ever having an opportunity to escape, punish them eternally for their sins not of their own choosing due to the necessitated nature of their moral state. (which in reality would not and cannot be properly conceived of as a moral state at all)

To remedy the problem BR has developed the unscriptural notion that all receive the gospel message and that obviously by necessity. It presents God as OBLIGATED to grant the gospel message to all, not freely giving it to men by grace. The problem is that not only is that in direct contradiction with the testimony of Scripture and reason, it reduced salvations message that Scripture represents as grace to mere justice. God is under OBLIGATION to grant men the gospel under the notion BR is presenting. Again, that reduces grace to mere justice, of which it is not.

Rippon is correct when he states that God is under no obligation to grant or give the salvation message to anyone, and that God, in justice, could refuse to grant it to any or all. Rippon is also correct in that God is certainly just in granting the gospel message to any that He so desires or withholding it from others for reasons known only to Himself.

Man is not a sinner by God’s creation or by the imputation of Adam’s sin but rather has freely joined with Adam in willful rebellion in spite of God granting all men the abilities to do something other than what they have done under the very same circumstances. This is simply another way of stating that all moral agents are born with a free will, and can make a contrary choice to sin if they would only form intents of selfishness as opposed to benevolence. Scripture clearly indicates that all have chosen sin and have inherited eternal punishment as a direct result of their own sin, not that of another or because of any sinful nature they were born with. Why have all sinned and enjoined death with Adam? “Because all have sinned” is the Scriptural statement. All men are sinful rebels, not victims of their connection to Adam or having been predestined from eternity by God to be the sinners they are.

Certainly sin has indeed affected the whole human race, but what we inherit from Adam is a sinful disposition, a proclivity to sin via warped sensibilities. That again is properly denoted as an influence to sin, a proclivity to sin, but it is not sin in and of itself. It BECOMES sin as we all have yielded our wills in agreement to the selfish tendencies our sensibilities encouraged our wills through temptation and influence to do. We could have done something other than what we have chosen, but we rebelled and as such sinned and became guilty before God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

As a side note to the last post in relationship to the ideas of BR, I would add that if it was true that all men are born sinners, and yet God holds them accountable upon pain of eternal torment, my mind would be forced by logic to accept BR’s position in spite of Scriptural testimony to the contrary. I would have to adjust the way I read and interpret Scripture, just as BR obviously has done, to make God appear Just at the expense of whatever it would do to grace or mercy.

What I am saying is, IF the doctrine of original sin is true, there is no other possible way to rectify God’s character with the clear intuitive principles God has granted to man concerning justice other than to conclude that God MUST OF NECESSITY grant the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel message. BR is clearly and undeniably consistent with principles of justice in light of his premise of original sin.

Is BR wrong? His premise of original sin is, but BR is very logically consistent with a keen understanding of the principles of justice.

 

[Andre]

We could have done something other than what we have chosen, but we rebelled and as such sinned and became guilty before God.

I used to hold this position but I think I have changed my mind. From Romans 5, we have:

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation (***by implication to all men), but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned (***i.e.affects all men) through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ

I think that this text argues forcefully for the notion that Adam's sin definitely means death for us. And it would not mean death for us if we could choose not to sin.

So I do not share HP's views that we "freely" join Adam in his sin. We are indeed "irresisitably" drawn to sin.

But I hope, HP, that you realize how my view differs from that of Rippon. I do not believe in "imputed guilt". Let me make the following statements to qualify my position:

1. I think it is entirely reasonable to think that God "had no choice" but to let Adam's sin fatally infect all his descendents. It is entirely conceivable that even God could not make universe with all the richness that ours has, without some built-in "risks". And one of these might be the unavoidable "genetic" transmission of a nature that ensures we will all sin.

2. I do not believe the scriptures teach of an eternal hell. Therefore, I can argue that if Fred, indeed born with an inclination to sin that he cannot resist, chooses to reject God's gift of salvation, he is not then judicially punished for his sins (which after all are not his "fault" - here you and I agree). Instead, he is annihilated, with this annihilation being the unfortunate but necessary consequence of his dying in a state of sin. He is not "punished", he merely goes a route that cannot be avoided.

Of course the idea that even God cannot do "whatever He wants" is an intuition of mine and I will not argue the point in this post (and am probably not able to argue it at all). However, I think it would be naive to assume that God can do anything - the nature of any "created reality" may impose some restrictions on what the creator can then do with that reality he has made.

I will be transparent - I "like" the HP position, I just have difficulty reconciling it with texts like the one above from Romans 5.

 

[Andre]

Hello HP:

I just read your latest post after posting my precvious post. At the risk of seeming defensive, do you not see how my position does indeed honour the principles of justice that I think you and I are 100 % in agreement about?

It can be "just" that we die - cease to exist - as the result of sin, even sin we cannot resist committing. God is under no "moral obligation" to let us live forever.

 

[BobRyan]

BR has presented the only ‘logical’ and just conclusion based on the false and unscriptural premise that all are born sinners, in establishing the notion (although unscriptural and unreasonable in light of experience) that God grants to everyman the opportunity of hearing salvation’s message.

Using the bible argument from Rom 10 "They have never HEARD have they? Indeed they HAVE" - we find PAUL (not Bob) arguing that Creation itself is declaring the Gospel to all mankind to a degree "sufficient" for faith and acceptance of the prompting of the Spirit of God.

I am going to have to go with Paul on that one. And the benefit is that God then "so loves the WORLD" not just the few who happen to get "the details given them by an evangelist".

frees his theology from the injustice of God condemning sinners, born into a state from which they could not otherwise escape. BR obviously comprehends the point Andre and myself are making about it being totally and completely unjust for God to create sinners as they are and then, without ever having an opportunity to escape, punish them eternally for their sins not of their own choosing due to the necessitated nature of their moral state. (which in reality would not and cannot be properly conceived of as a moral state at all)

That is true - God had a choice at the fall of man where ALL mankind would then be given "a sinful nature" (even in your own model of the fall).

Either destroy all mankind right then and there so NO one would be exposed to a sinful nature they did not choose -- OR ENABLE all mankind through supernatural means to CHOOSE eternal life and grant that the Holy Spirit should "Convict the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" with Christ "standing at the door and knocking so that if ANYONE hears CHRIST and OPENS the door He would then COME IN and fellowship" Rev 3,

This we see in John 1 "Christ is the light that coming into the world enlightens EVERY one of mankind".

It presents God as OBLIGATED to grant the gospel message to all,

Only to the extent that God SAYS He does it in Romans 10.

Rippon is correct when he states that God is under no obligation to grant or give the salvation message to anyone, and that God, in justice, could refuse to grant it to any or all.

ONLY until God identifies he direction he chose - once He SAYS "He so loves the World" he must really "do it". Saying it then "not doing it" is not just.

 

[BobRyan]

As a side note to the last post in relationship to the ideas of BR, I would add that if it was true that all men are born sinners, and yet God holds them accountable upon pain of eternal torment, my mind would be forced by logic to accept BR’s position

That would be the right solution given that God states clearly that the entire world is under that condemnation.
The Sinful nature of all mankind –


9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, "" THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS [b]NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

[/B]
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.''
13 "" THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,'' "" THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS'';
14 "" WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS'';
15 "" THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.''
18 "" THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.''



The WORLD condemned under the Authority of the Law that continues to define sin –

19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified[/b] in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.



1John 4:14
14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

John 3
16 ""For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 ""For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.


in spite of Scriptural testimony above - not everyone is going to accept this POV.

What I am saying is, IF the doctrine of original sin is true, there is no other possible way to rectify God’s character with the clear intuitive principles God has granted to man concerning justice other than to conclude that God MUST OF NECESSITY grant the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel message. BR is clearly and undeniably consistent with principles of justice in light of his premise of original sin.

Agreed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

Based on the post context, I assume that you believe that Romans 9 addresses God's treatment of individual persons.

It is easy to show that Romans 9 has nothing whatsoever to do with the election of individual persons to salvation or to loss. Romans 9 is about the election of Israel, and like the potter with his pot, God has the right to use Israel to serve a specific role in his redemptive purposes. There is no issue of "election" of individuals at all in Romans 9.

I am more than happy to make that case.

[FONT=바탕]As Webdog agreed to this , I would make another motion on this issue.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]Romans 9[/FONT]
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that callet 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

At a glance the passage looks like predestination of an individual’s salvation. However, it is talking about the destiny of a nation since God foreknew what would happen.

Otherwise, we cannot but conclude the prophecy of God didn’t come true, because Esau never served Jacob in his life. On the contrary we read the followings:

Genesis 33
8 And he ( Esau) said, What meanest thou by all this drove Fwhich I met? And he( Jacob) said, These are to find grace in the sight of my lord. 9 And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself. 10 And Jacob said, Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand: for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me. 11 Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee; because God hath dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough. And he urged him, and he took it. 12 And he said, Let us take our journey, and let us go, and I will go before thee. 13 And he said unto him, My lord knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and herds with young are with me: and if men should overdrive them one day, all the flock will die. 14 Let my lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto my lord unto Seir. 15 And Esau said, Let me now leave with thee some of the folk that are with me. And he said, What needeth it? let me find grace in the sight of my lord.

How many times, is Jacob calling Esau Adonai? Esau never served Jacob.

An interesting article about Spurgeon that I found recently:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Doctrines/Calvinism/spurgeon.htm

 

[Eliyahu]

Spurgeon has been quite contradictory in himself, and especially in this sermon on one day in 1858, he contradicted himself.

- Sovereign Grace-

Again, the grace of God is sovereign. By that word we mean that God has an absolute right to give that grace where he chooses, and to withhold it when he pleases. He is not bound to give it to any man, much less to all men; and if he chooses to give it to one man and not to another, his answer is, "Is thine eye evil because mine eye is good?

The only reason why any man ever begins to pray is because God has put previous grace in his heart which leads him to pray.


Human nature is depraved, and therefore, there must be the extraordinary pressure of the Holy Spirit put upon the heart to lead us first to ask for mercy.

and yet sovereign grace came to them, and they were brought to know the Lord.



- Man's Responsibility -

this day he says to every one of you, "Repent, and be converted for the remission of your sins. Turn ye unto me. Thus saith the Lord of hosts; consider your ways." And with love divine he woos you as a father woos his child, putting out his hands and crying, "Come unto me, come unto me." "No," says one strong-doctrine man, "God never invites all men to himself; he invites none but certain characters." Stop, sir, that is all you know about it. Did you ever read that parable where it is said, My oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready; come unto the marriage." And they that were bidden would not come. And did you never read that they all began to make excuse, and that they were punished because they did not accept the invitations. Now, if the invitation is not to be made to anybody, but to the man who will accept it, how can that parable be true? The fact is, the oxen and fatlings are killed; the wedding feast is ready, and the trumpet sounds, "Ho every one that thirsteth, come and eat, come and drink." Here are the provisions spread, here is an all-sufficiency; the invitation is free; it is a great invitation. "Whosoever will, let him come and take of the water of life freely." And that invitation is couched in tender words, "Come to me, my child, come to me." "All day long I have stretched forth my hands."
And note again, this invitation was very frequent. The words, "all the day long," may be translated "daily"—"Daily have I stretched forth my hands." Sinner, God has not called you once to come, and then let you alone, but every day has he been at you; every day has conscience spoken to you; every day has providence warned you, and every Sabbath has the Word of God wooed you. Oh! how much some of you will have to account for at God's great bar! I cannot now read your characters, but I know there are some of you who will have a terrible account at last. All the day long has God been wooing you. From the first dawn of your life, he wooed you through your mother, and she used to put your little hands together, and teach you to say,

"Gentle Jesus meek and mild,​

Look upon a little child,​

Pity my simplicity;

Suffer me to come to thee."​

​

And in your boyhood God was still stretching out his hands after you. How your Sunday-school teacher endeavoured to bring you to the Saviour!


Now, with regard to myself; you may some of you go away and say, that I was Antinomian in the first part of the sermon and Arminian at the end. I care not. I beg of you to search the Bible for yourselves.


http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0207.htm

 

[Rippon]

Spurgeon has been quite contradictory in himself, and especially in this sermon on one day in 1858, he contradicted himself.

No E-Man . In this Spurgeon was as inconsistent as our Savior , that is -- not at all .

 

[Eliyahu]

Spurgeon has been quite contradictory in himself, and especially in this sermon on one day in 1858, he contradicted himself.

No E-Man . In this Spurgeon was as inconsistent as our Savior , that is -- not at all .

Read the article unless you are illeterate.

 

[Rippon]

Read the article unless you are illeterate.

Well , I certainly don't want to be called 'illeterate' ! Actually it wasn't an article . It was a sermon .

C.H.S. was saying that the two doctrines do not need to be reconciled -- he could not see a discrepancy . He believed in the free and sovereign grace of God as well as the responsibilty of people before God . He went on to say that the truth doesn't lie between two extremes -- not in the middle -- but in them both .

Thanks for sharing Spurgeon's message with us .

 

[Eliyahu]

We cannot find the problem with the Predestination when we think about the Elect from the view of God's Love.

However,
(Quote)
the Problem for the Calvinist is to explain how God can sincerely invite into His kingdom those for whom Christ didn't die, whom He has not elected to salvation, whom He has from a past eternity predestined to eternal torment and who cannot accept because He withholds from them the grace they need-then punish them for not responding to His invitation, for not accepting His grace !

He(The god of Calvinism) could have predestined the reprobates(derelict) to the salvation, extended Irresistible Grace, sovereignly regerate them, given them the faith to believe the gospel - if this is imposed by sovereign will, with no choice by man required (unquote)

But He didn't do it ! That god must go to the Hell ! because he is responsible for all the evil and sins of the world!

Quotation from What Love is this by Dave Hunt.

 

[Eliyahu]

Again, simply speaking, the theory of Predestination sounds humble and exalting the Grace of God and His Sovereignty. In fact, it is absolutely emphasizing the Grace of God, rebuking the Legalism and Unbelievers.
Also, people can easily misunderstand that human works are needed for the Salvation if we ignore the Predestination or that we were chosen by God before.
Therefore in my early years, I was a strong supporter for the Calvinism, even though I said it is a matter of Two Sides of One Sheet.

I read Institutes of Christian Religion translated by Henry Beveridge, published by Eerdmans Publishing, 34 years ago right after I was born again in the Lord. I didn't know much problem with it though I was curious about Infant Baptism etc.

After long time of my life in Christ, I have found many problems, and now I am even doubtful about the salvation of John Calvin who had no other experience than the Infant Baptism, but claimed the followings:

- No Salvation outside Holy Catholic Church
- Infant Baptism
- Baptismal Regeneration ( this is a huge problem too)
- Clergy System
- Children of the Elect are saved unless they reveal grievous rebellion
- Predestination of the Derelict ( Reprobates) to the torment in the Hell.

Now 99% ( we don't know the exact ratio, but let's say so) of the people are not truly born again Believers in Jesus Christ on this earth.

According to Calvinism, they are predestined far eternity before they were born on this world, not to have the grace of God, not to believe in Jesus Christ, but to go to the Hell, though God could have predestined them to believe in Jesus and Gospel as well if He wanted to.

It is time for us to think about 99% of the human race in terms of Predestination, not the 1% of so-called Elect.

99% of the people were predestined not to believe in Jesus, but to reject the Gospel far eternity before their birth, then they are to be responsible for their not believing the Gospel, then to go to the Hell for such predestination.

The God of Love, who called the people to repent, who gave His beloved Son that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life, is full of grace even to His enemy as He asked us to love our enemy, and offers the genuine, wholehearted love to them at any time.

1 John 4:
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God


Matt 23

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Did God predestine the Derelicts ( Reprobates) not to believe the Gospel, then He tried to gather them as a hen gathers her chickens, but they would not come?

Did God predestine all things like that then lament for Himself ?

The god of Calvinism may have some Schizophrenia !

Thousands, Thousands of Bible verses refute the Calvinism !

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: I used to hold this position but I think I have changed my mind. From Romans 5, we have:

HP: I find Romans to be worded often in such a way as to support many ideas, some of those conflicting ideas of necessity must be in error. It has several difficult and confusing passages. Romans 5 is no exception. Rather than to get into a protracted discussion over this passage itself at this time, I will address some broader issues at stake.

Either mans will is free or it is not. If it is not free and under necessity, morality cannot be predicated of it, nor can one be held eternally accountable for that which of necessity is the end product. Do we find ourselves in agreement so far?

Let me repost a former comment of yours.

Andre: “. I am accountable specifically in virtue of my freedom of contrary choice - this is bundled into the meaning of the term and everyone in society, who is linguistically able, will use and understand the term that way.”

HP: I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. I see a sharp logical mind at work fixated on principles of justice. You note clearly that accountability is inseparably tied to freedom of contrary choice. What a great starting point for agreement. :thumbs: You see the need to separate ‘guilt’ from the nature we obtain from Adam. I might add to the credit of most Arminians, they as well see the need to hold fast to that separation. The question then is not whether or not there is a separation that isolates guilt from ones mere nature, but rather are they being consistent in doing so in light of their stated agreement to original sin? I say they are not.

Remember that it is the idea of ‘contrary choice' that must exist for guilt to take place. What matters whether or not necessity is formed before one is born, at birth or subsequent to birth if in fact the results are the same, i.e., a sinner by necessity? What is the difference in our accountability if in fact God is the cause of our sin, Adam is the cause of our sin, or our inherited nature is such that it is the cause of sin? In all three cases contrary choice is eliminated equally. According to you if there is no contrary choice no freedom of the will can exist, and if there is no freedom accountability and ‘guilt’ cannot be predicated. So you see anything or anybody that denies contrary choice to the individual destroys all accountability or guilt, even if you call that ‘anything’ ones sinful nature. If it denies one contrary choice, all morality is destroyed and moral guilt cannot under any circumstances be predicated, nor can punishment be inflicted for failure to comply to any moral demand.

Are we making sense up to this point?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Another way to reduce this discussion to crux of the problem is to simply look at the issue of a cause. In dealing with morals, whatever is the cause of ones intents is the culpable entity. If it is God, He is the cause. If it is Adam, he is the cause. If it is ones inherited moral nature, (fully understand that an inherited moral nature is a oxymoron) it is the cause. Whatever is the cause is the only proper seat of any blame concerning the intent or subsequent action and the only seat of guilt and the only proper object of all associated punishment or reward.

If man is the cause of his sin, and as such is a proper object of praise or blame, nothing can serve as a cause other than his own will, not even his ‘nature,’ inherited that is.