Is God’s Selection Arbitrary?

[BobRyan]

That is only true of sinless perfect beings. They alone "sin" solely because they choose to and for no other reason.

The Romans 3 statement of depravity does not apply to them.

Mankind as a "being" is "defective" even in your own discussions of this you admit that mankind now has a sinful nature -- "inclined to sin" that Adam did not have.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: That is only true of sinless perfect beings. They alone "sin" solely because they choose to and for no other reason.

HP: I disagree. Although it is amply evident that we have a far greater proclivity to sin due to our depraved sensibilities, even Adam or the angels that fell had to have some influence or temptation to one degree or another that made contrary choice to even be a consideration in their mind. Listen to our first parents. They had plenty of reasons to sin, even if they were sinless prior to sinning, and had no inherited proclivity at least in the same way we experience it. “¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” And never forget the influence of Eve upon Adam. The ‘She made me do it’ influence or temptation. Trust me, they had their reasons just as all have today.

I say again that if there is any other cause why men choose to sin other than their will itself, whatever the cause is remains the only just seat of guilt and the only proper object of blame and punishment.

BR: Mankind as a "being" is "defective" even in your own discussions of this you admit that mankind now has a sinful nature -- "inclined to sin" that Adam did not have.

HP: I would again not call mans nature that he is born with a sinful nature due to the fact sin cannot lie in ones inherited nature. Sin IS a transgression of the law. We indeed have a proclivity to sin, but a proclivity to sin is not sin in and of itself. Refer to James as to how we sin. Sin is not conceived until we yield our wills in relationship to selfishness as opposed to benevolence. I do not believe that Scripture ever uses the term ‘sinful nature.’ It refers to the sinful flesh, but not sinful nature. That is one of the obvious flaws in many new translations following the Westcott Hort text.

 

[BobRyan]

If "our fallen nature" now contains "A proclivity to sin" and it did not contain that desire/proclivity/inclination in the case of Adam's unfallen nature -- then this qualifies for what many call the sinful nature.

However -- at the very least it qualifies as a burden that we bear that Adam did not.

It also argues for a "source" or factor in our decision to sin today that did not even apply to Adam.

Only a sinless being can argue that nothing at all influenced him to sin other than his own choice.

However when we look at the Romans 3 total-depravity texts we do not see "they do not have any reason to sin -- but on occasion they choose to sin anyway". That does not appear to be the sense of the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP: I disagree. Although it is amply evident that we have a far greater proclivity to sin due to our depraved sensibilities, even Adam or the angels that fell had to have some influence or temptation to one degree or another that made contrary choice to even be a consideration in their mind.

Adam had "a devil" to tempt him but NOT a sinful nature (proclivity-desire-urge to sin).

Lucifer had neither one.

Both Lucifer and Adam "were confronted with choices" but neither of them had a sinful or even fallen nature "clammoring to do evil".

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Adam had "a devil" to tempt him but NOT a sinful nature (proclivity-desire-urge to sin).

HP: It might appear that his only proclivity was Eve, but he still had one.

BR: Lucifer had neither one.

HP: Now how do you know that? He had to be given the power of contrary choice and it is obvious that he sinned. It would appear to me that his proclivity consisted of the temptation of pride, but he had one.

BR: Both Lucifer and Adam "were confronted with choices" but neither of them had a sinful or even fallen nature "clammoring to do evil".

HP: The lesson we can learn from that is that it does not take a fallen nature to sin. There is an element of mystery in sin and to ‘why’ a person sins that I do not believe we will ever understand. Even Christ wept wondering why some chose to go their own way.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

God has a contention with sinful man. It is impossible to know all the whys when it comes to sin. What we need to have clear in our mind is that God has a just contention with all fallen creatures, and blames and punishes them for their choices of selfishness denoted as sin. The fact that a Fair and Just God affixes blame to us individually is living proof that it is each one of us individually that is the proper center of blame as the sole ‘cause’ of our intents of selfishness denoted as sin.

 

[Andre]

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?

I agree with you but it seems that I have not effectively communicated an alternative way to conceive of things - a way where moral accountabilty, and all the problems you correctly identify is not even an issue.

Imagine that some "small - g" god creates a universe "U" with "humans" in it. Let's say - and this is of course highly speculative - that in order to make U as rich as he wants to make it, that god has no choice but to create some deadly virus and place it under a glass in the center of some garden. I think we too easily assume that our God (big "G" this time) can do whatever He wants. Perhaps this is not so - perhaps the nature of created reality "ties God's hands" in some respects.

Anyway, this "god" instructs his "Adam" to leave the glass alone. But this Adam breaks the glass and the virus infects Adam and is then genetically transmitted to all his descendents. And the effect of this virus is to introduce death, a phenomena that otherwise would not exist.

Do you see my point? All "humans" born in that universe will die due to the virus they are born with. Is this is a "punishment"? Of course not - it is an unfortunate side of effect of something that "god" really had no choice over.

One need not see the "born unto death" situation as being any kind of an issue of morality whatsoever. Accountability is not an issue.

Transposing back into the world of our God, I hope you read that I am an annihilationist. I do not believe that the fate of unredeemed man is an eternity in conscious torment. Instead it is annihilation.

So I think one can believe that men are born, with an irresistable urge to sin, and with death as the result, without any principle of justice being violated at all.

I want to be clear - I agree 100 % with your views about justice. I just see another way to think about this where those considerations become irrelevant.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: So I think one can believe that men are born, with an irresistable urge to sin, and with death as the result, without any principle of justice being violated at all.

HP: If it is irresistible, you have just eliminated all freedom, all choice, all accountability, as well as all morality. Sin is impossible to conceive of in such a setting of coercion.

Read your own words over again.

“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: How do you have contrary choice if the urge to sin is "irresistible?"

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

A principle that cannot be stressed too much is the principle regarding choice. If there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent, there is no choice involved. That is the picture of necessity not freedom or choice. Only if there are two or more possible consequents for a given antecedent can choice be predicated.

If one is “irresistibly” drawn to a specific consequent such as sin, no choice can be predicated. In such a case one is clearly under a state of compulsion or necessity. If one is under a state of necessity, free will is annihilated. Where free will is not present, moral accountability cannot be predicated.

When God holds man morally accountable, it is clear evidence that indeed man does have a free will and in fact does posses the power of contrary choice. Being morally accountable mandates that one can do something other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances and that one is not ‘irresistibly” drawn to the formation of only one possible consequent.

 

[Andre]

Hello HP: I am describing a conceptualization where man is born "destined to die" as a result of the actions of Adam and yet the issue of moral accountablity being completely irrelevant. You seem to not acknowledge this position.

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?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: I am describing a conceptualization where man is born "destined to die" as a result of the actions of Adam and yet the issue of moral accountablity being completely irrelevant. You seem to not acknowledge this position.

HP: You are right. I do not acknowledge this position as consistent in the least. You cannot say that it is the ‘cause’ of our sin being irrestable and then try and separate moral accountability from it. If in fact this physical depravity you speak of is that which makes sin irresistible, you have just made that which is physical the very root and cause of morality.

You confuse the sensibilities with the will. The heart of morality is indeed influenced by the influences of the sensibilities, bit if the sensibilities ever reach a point of absolute sway over the will, the will is no longer free. Again, the fact that God does hold man morally accountable is living proof that man could choose to formulate different intents other than to sin. The sensibility cannot hold total sway as you describe or free will, choice and accountability are destroyed.

If you desire to believe that the sensibilities indeed do hold sway over the will in that the will is necessitated to sin, as you put it, ‘sin is irresistible,’ you indeed make the issue of accountability and morality irrelevant, and that by necessity.

Andre: Men genetically inherits a mortal body - that is only mortal because Adam's act fundamentally altered the very fabric of the universe.

HP: Have you really thought this issue out? Where is the proof that mans physical body was immortal before the fall? I do not find that substanciated in Scripture, nor do I find that in the least bit scientifically or logically feasible. If what you are saying is true, no flesh could escape a physical death. That is an unscriptural position. Both Enoch ad Elijah did not see physical death. There might have been others in the OT that did not see death as well, their stories were simply not recorded. If there is one thing that Scripture is certain about, it is that everything we see is temporal and will pass away. I will not go into a protracted discussion on all the evidence that refutes your position now, lest we drift even further away from the OP. I have had threads before that discussed the matter. Possibly we need to revisit them or start one afresh.

I will say this. It would have been consistent with the nature in which this world and everything in it exists, i.e., temporally, for God to simply remove Adam as he did others at an appointed time if in fact they lived above sin.

Andre: 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.

HP: Early on in this discussion I would have been inclined to agree with your comment concerning agreement on ‘judicial issues’ but I am inclined at this juncture to withhold any such agreement. If what you propose is true, in that man cannot escape sinning due to the ‘irresistible’ influence of his physical nature, one can throw any moral or judicial principles to the wind. All is necessitated, and freedom, choice, and a free will are destoyed.

Andre: Will all men die (unless otherwise rescued) as a result of their inherited nature? Yes

HP: I totally disagree on the plain account of Scripture. It plainly states that men will die, NOT because of their inherited physical nature, but because, “All have sinned.”

Andre: God simply cannot prevent this from happening except as a result of the redemption offered at Calvary.

HP: God ‘caused’ it to happen in the lives of at least two individuals Andre. What do you mean when you limit God by stating that He ‘cannot’ avoid or advert its happening?

Andre: 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.

HP: I will completely agree that physical death is not the punishment for sin but rather is a consequence of sin and cannot in all cases be seen as a ‘punishment for sin.’ Just the same, when I see God killing some directly for their actions, I can say that at least ‘in these cases’ the timing of physical death is indeed related to their sin and ‘in a sense’ can be seen as part and parcel to God’s punishment for sin.

Andre: 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.

HP: The death that is the wages of sin is eternal separation from God.

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

Hp: Sin is no virus. I challenge you to make a list as I have done of every passage of scripture that you can find that either defines sin or contribute to establishing a definition for sin and then show us the ‘virus’ factor. Strictly speaking, nothing is sin other than the willful disobedience of a known commandment of God.

Andre: 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.

HP: Certainly nothing that is inherited and is simply a part of our nature has any moral accountability attached to it. Where you start to destroy any and all moral accountability is when you say that it produces an irresistible force upon man that he cannot resist. That insures that he never could be accountable for any thing he does which again is unscriptural.

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

HP: No question about it. In our dispensation I will totally agree. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

I see you, as well as BR, changing grace into justice on more than one account. IF man is born with such a nature so as to ‘irresistibly’ force him to do evil, it is not illogical to conclude that no one can do nothing other than to sin and that by necessity. He is a victim of his circumstances and is likened to that dead log floating down that Calvinistic stream. You by necessity have to admit that in order to be saved, God has to grant to this individual some power to resist that which you say he cannot resist, and instill in him the freedom of choice to accept the solution to the sin problem. Freedom of choice can only exist subsequent to receiving this power along with the gospel message. Does God grant it to some and withhold it from others? Are you going to join with BR and tell us that all have the gospel presented to them and all have to be empowered equally by God supernaturally to not only hear the gospel message but be granted the power to accept this offer?

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
BR: Both Lucifer and Adam "were confronted with choices" but neither of them had a sinful or even fallen nature "clammoring to do evil".

HP: The lesson we can learn from that is that it does not take a fallen nature to sin.

Indeed. So using your defintion for sinful nature as having "a proclivity to sin" neither Adam OR Lucifer had one - yet they chose sin.

The "choice" for sin is not biochemically determined by sinless beings -- they do not have to sin -and as we see from the loyal angels they do not all choose to sin.

By definition choice - is not forced for them.

You can not "blame it on their nature".

But after the fall you get the "sinful nature" -- the "proclivity to sin" as you put it.

HP

There is an element of mystery in sin and to ‘why’ a person sins that I do not believe we will ever understand.

That is true of sinless beings with no bent to evil to start with -- but it is not surprising when it comes to sinful natures as Paul descirbes them in Romans 3.

Even Christ wept wondering why some chose to go their own way.

Christ enables choice for all. But the sinful nature still exists and FEW there are that choose the way of life according to Matt 7.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Quote:
BR: Both Lucifer and Adam "were confronted with choices" but neither of them had a sinful or even fallen nature "clammoring to do evil".

Quote:
HP: The lesson we can learn from that is that it does not take a fallen nature to sin.

BR: Indeed. So using your defintion for sinful nature as having "a proclivity to sin" neither Adam OR Lucifer had one - yet they chose sin.

HP: If there is absolutely no desire to do something other than what one does, how can one be tempted to si? If one sins it is proof that in some way they were tempted. Take Satan for instance. His temptation had to come from within for without was a Pure and Holy environment. That is indeed a proclivity in some sense. If not, tell me why Satan sinned and what motivated him to do as he did. Something had to motivate him.

BR: The "choice" for sin is not biochemically determined by sinless beings -- they do not have to sin -and as we see from the loyal angels they do not all choose to sin.

HP: Sin is not biochemically induced in any human being. A proclivity to sin in no wise mandates that sin must happen. If ones intents formed are the product of necessity, no sin can be predicated period. A proclivity to sin serves as an influence, but not as a coercive influence if blame or praise is to be predicated.

BR: By definition choice - is not forced for them.

You can not "blame it on their nature".

But after the fall you get the "sinful nature" -- the "proclivity to sin" as you put it.

HP: There is no sinful nature from birth mentioned in Scripture. We know sin has indeed affected the sensibilities in the form of physical depravity. This physical depravity obviously adds to the degree of temptation men have compare to what Adam had, but that is not to say that Adam had no proclivity at all. Adam obviously had temptation from within to some degree, just as Satan did. I do not pretend to understand exactly what it consists of, but it obviously involves contrary choice and some measure of desire that would serve as the motivation to sin if acted upon. Just as the angels that did not fall proved, sin never under any circumstances has to be engaged in.
Quote:

HP: There is an element of mystery in sin and to ‘why’ a person sins that I do not believe we will ever understand.

BR: That is true of sinless beings with no bent to evil to start with -- but it is not surprising when it comes to sinful natures as Paul descirbes them in Romans 3.

HP: There is nothing in Romans 3 that establishes a sinful nature from birth. Look at some of the strongest words in this passage. Ro 3:12 “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable.” Where is the indication that their nature forced them from birth to sin? Where is a sinful nature addressed at all? I can readily see sinful actions but I see nothing from force or coercion and that from birth. That is a presupposition you take to the text the is simply not established by the text.

BR: Christ enables choice for all. But the sinful nature still exists and FEW there are that choose the way of life according to Matt 7.

HP: It is God Himself that enables choice for all and that as a direct result of the nature God instills within us being created in His image. There is not a shred of evidence that sin is something that is coerced upon man, or that man irresistibly has to sin. To entertain such thoughts concerning sin is to have a wrong conception as to the nature of sin. Sin is the willful transgression of a known commandment of God not some contagion that coerces its victim depriving him of any and all ability to do otherwise.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
BR: Indeed. So using your defintion for sinful nature as having "a proclivity to sin" neither Adam OR Lucifer had one - yet they chose sin.

HP: If there is absolutely no desire to do something other than what one does, how can one be tempted to si? If one sins it is proof that in some way they were tempted.

Christ was "tempted in the wilderness" but that is not because "He desired to worship Satan in his human nature".

Temptation does NOT imply a sinful carnal desire to sin.

But HAVING a sinful nature - a carnal desire to sin DOES result in temptation.

(All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares).

Adam was not created with "a disire to eat of the tree that God forbade".

"Crack-babies" are born with a physical biological dependancy on the illegal drugs provided to them by their mothers.

As children of Adam we have a 'natural proclivity - desire -for sin" that Adam did not have.

We sometimes hear about famous Hollywood personalities that go into a store and "Shop lift" not because they have no money to buy things - but because they have an urge to steal.

Adam did not have one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
BR: The "choice" for sin is not biochemically determined by sinless beings -- they do not have to sin -and as we see from the loyal angels they do not all choose to sin.

HP: Sin is not biochemically induced in any human being. A proclivity to sin in no wise mandates that sin must happen. If ones intents formed are the product of necessity, no sin can be predicated period. A proclivity to sin serves as an influence, but not as a coercive influence if blame or praise is to be predicated.

Your statement is ONLY true IF no other option was available. But as already stated - that option is available to the sinner. 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.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Indeed. So using your defintion for sinful nature as having "a proclivity to sin" neither Adam OR Lucifer had one - yet they chose sin.

HP: If there is absolutely no desire to do something other than what one does, how can one be tempted to sin? If one sins it is proof that in some way they were tempted.

BR: Christ was "tempted in the wilderness" but that is not because "He desired to worship Satan in his human nature".

HP: Are we thinking correctly about the desires concerning the temptation of Christ? If I tell you to fall down and worship me and I will give you a million dollars, is the desire I am invoking the worshiping of me? I would think not.

If there is no desire whatsoever, temptation would be impossible. Christ had some natural desires stemming from His inherited natural propensities that would serve to draw or lure His will or He could not have been tempted. Not only was He tempted, but was in ALL points as we are. What does James tell us about how sin is incurred?

BR: Temptation does NOT imply a sinful carnal desire to sin.

HP: Well, that is questionable. All sin is selfishness, so in a sense when the temptation to selfishness arises it is indeed a temptation to sin. Sin is not the object of desire, but rather is the results of yielding ones will in the formation of selfish intents.

BR: But HAVING a sinful nature - a carnal desire to sin DOES result in temptation.

HP: Show me one Scripture that states that we have a sinful nature and that from birth. There simply is none.

While you are on the subject, tell us how Jesus was tempted, in ALL points as we are. What incited His will to choose selfishness as opposed to benevolence? We know and agree that He did not sin but he was indeed tempted.

BR: Adam was not created with "a disire to eat of the tree that God forbade".

HP: Who said he did? What he did have was a desire of selfishness to some degree or another, as evidenced by his actions and God classifying his action as sin.

BR: "Crack-babies" are born with a physical biological dependancy on the illegal drugs provided to them by their mothers.

HP: Are you going to tell us that such a desire in those babies is sin?

BR: As children of Adam we have a 'natural proclivity - desire -for sin" that Adam did not have.

HP: Indeed we are born with depraved sensibilities that Adam was not born with. Just the same, that does NOT equate to being born with a morally depraved nature, but rather we are born with depraved sensibilities that influence us to selfishness. As for Adam, he had to have some innate desire for selfishness that he could fulfill if he so desired or he could not have been tempted to do so. He was born with the abilities requisite of selfishness just as to benevolence. There was obviously influences that came to bear upon those abilities, that when they were presented to him he yielded selfishly and sinned.

BR: We sometimes hear about famous Hollywood personalities that go into a store and "Shop lift" not because they have no money to buy things - but because they have an urge to steal.

HP: Were those desire the results of their sinful natures from birth or their acquired selfish desires resulting from selfish choices from their youth up? Those words are indeed used in Scripture, “from their youth up.”

BR: Adam did not have one.

HP: One what? You have not established that those caught shoplifting were doing anything other than fulfilling habits of selfishness and greed developed again 'from their youth up.'

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
BR: Indeed. So using your defintion for sinful nature as having "a proclivity to sin" neither Adam OR Lucifer had one - yet they chose sin.
Quote:

HP: If there is absolutely no desire to do something other than what one does, how can one be tempted to si? If one sins it is proof that in some way they were tempted.

Calvinism argues that a person can not choose to do anything they are not pre-programmed to choose.

You seem to be making that argument even against your own position for it is YOUR position that the inclination - proclivity to sin - exists in fallen man not in Adam AND YET Adam sinned as we all know.

In God's free will system for sinless beings "being pre-programmed to sin" is not in the equation at all. NEITHER is their any room for the argument "if they do not already desire sin then they will not sin and can not be tempted.".

Christ was tempted in Matt 4 but did not "desire to worship satan".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
BR: Christ was "tempted in the wilderness" but that is not because "He desired to worship Satan in his human nature".

HP: Are we thinking correctly about the desires concerning the temptation of Christ? If I tell you to fall down and worship me and I will give you a million dollars, is the desire I am invoking the worshiping of me? I would think not.

If there is no desire whatsoever, temptation would be impossible. Christ had some natural desires stemming from His inherited natural propensities that would serve to draw or lure His will or He could not have been tempted. Not only was He tempted, but was in ALL points as we are. What does James tell us about how sin is incurred?

The point is that "Desire to sin" which is the desire of the sinful nature which is what is meant by "proclivity to sin" IS NOT "desire to survive" or "desire to eat when hungry" as we see in Matt 4.

The point is that WITHOUT the "proclivity to sin" WITHOUT the "desire to sin" both Adam and Christ were tempted -- Adam fell - Christ did not.

You keep arguing that they could not fall if they did not desire evil. I keep pointing out that they DID NOT desire evil and yet Adam sinned AND Christ was truly tempted.


Why keep going around on circles on this one?


Temptation and sin are not predicated on the "desire to sin" that is in the sinful nature. EVEN beings WITHOUT sinful natures (such as Christ and Adam) can both be tempted AND as in the case of Adam and Lucifer can SIN without first having a nature that "desires sin".

The point remains.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You are clearly floundering here --

Quote:
BR: Temptation does NOT imply a sinful carnal desire to sin.

HP: Well, that is questionable. All sin is selfishness, so in a sense when the temptation to selfishness arises it is indeed a temptation to sin. Sin is not the object of desire, but rather is the results of yielding ones will in the formation of selfish intents.

Wrong.

The fallen depraved nature HAS the ability to desire rebellion - desire sin - reject selflessness - as Paul states in Romans 3 and Romans 7. No question about it.

Christ did not have that desire to sin and neither did Adam. Yet BOTH were tempted and in fact Adam sinned even WITHOUT a sinful nature WITHOUT a pre-programmed desire to rebel against God's law of unselfish living.

Rom 3

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;

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Quote:
BR: The "choice" for sin is not biochemically determined by sinless beings -- they do not have to sin -and as we see from the loyal angels they do not all choose to sin.

Quote:
HP: Sin is not biochemically induced in any human being. A proclivity to sin in no wise mandates that sin must happen. If ones intents formed are the product of necessity, no sin can be predicated period. A proclivity to sin serves as an influence, but not as a coercive influence if blame or praise is to be predicated.

BR: Your statement is ONLY true IF no other option was available. But as already stated - that option is available to the sinner. 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.

HP: That is simply not the case. Are you going to actually try and make a choice SUBSEQUENT to being a ‘morally depraved individual,’ as you put it, the ‘reason why’ something done antecedent to that choice has rendered one guilty for being a sinner or not? If one is guilty antecedent to any choice of salvation, how does being given a choice in salvation eliminate the fact that one is guilty regardless of having a choice of salvation or not? Granting to all men a choice of salvation in no way affects the notion that all are guilty for being born into the state God created them in through no fault of their own. You have but one end of your argument. You, whether or not you have a desire to admit it or not, indeed believe in the predestination of all as sinners, for they had nothing to do with the state of moral guilt you place them all in and that from birth. That is indeed the logical end of your argument.

Again you place guilt upon the individual for being born in what you term is a morally depraved state. How is it again that you do not hold to original sin along with induced moral guilt?? You clearly associate guilt antecedent to any and all choice, thereby eliminating free will completely. Is that not clearly and absolutely your position?

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.