Problems for Baseless Theories

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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.

BR: 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: I am not picking on BR here, but rather am using his comments because he is such a prolific writer his comments are easy to find.

BR claims that sinful man has a fallen nature that is "clammering to do evil” and that this fallen nature, i.e., original sin, eliminates free will, and implies that man in his sinful state is only able to sin and that continually. Sinful man has no choice in the sin, (for sinful man lacks the ability of choice) for again it is necessitated by his sinful nature. He sees only pure angels, Satan before the fall, and Adam in his created state as having a free will and actually being able to make a choice. BR suggests that choice (free will) is granted by Christ to man as part and parcel to hearing the gospel message.

To start off this thread, I will ask but one simple question to establish a point. Am I right in assuming that no one with a sinful nature i.e., original sin, has a free will as BR suggests?

 

[trustitl]

I was born with a body of flesh clamoring to fulfill it's lusts. I was not born with a sinful nature. There is a huge difference and understanding it will go along way in understanding the gospel and the law. I know it won't go very far here, but I thought I would throw it in early and watch it get buried :tear: with baseless theories.

Read Romans 7 with the husband being the flesh and you will see why Paul says:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Col 2:10 "And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised(aortist passive) with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ"

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustintL: I was born with a body of flesh clamoring to fulfill it's lusts. I was not born with a sinful nature. There is a huge difference and understanding it will go along way in understanding the gospel and the law.

HP: I would encourage others such as TrustitL has, to share with the list their differences from those set forth in the OP. Fire away. You say that you do not believe we are born with a sinful nature. Could you explain your views to us? Are we as men and women honestly created with a free will or is our will in bondage as many claim it is from birth?

 

[EdSutton]

HP: I am not picking on BR here, but rather am using his comments because he is such a prolific writer his comments are easy to find.

BR claims that sinful man has a fallen nature that is "clammering to do evil” and that this fallen nature, i.e., original sin, eliminates free will, and implies that man in his sinful state is only able to sin and that continually. Sinful man has no choice in the sin, (for sinful man lacks the ability of choice) for again it is necessitated by his sinful nature. He sees only pure angels, Satan before the fall, and Adam in his created state as having a free will and actually being able to make a choice. BR suggests that choice (free will) is granted by Christ to man as part and parcel to hearing the gospel message.

To start off this thread, I will ask but one simple question to establish a point. Am I right in assuming that no one with a sinful nature i.e., original sin, has a free will as BR suggests?

I have nothing to add to this theologically, at least at the moment, but do have two ideas.

The first is that you identify the poster, whom you are allegedly quoting, by the full posting name. There are more than one BB member, with more than a few posts, who could also be described as "a prolific writer", that could be 'tagged' "BR", or thought to be that individual, by one such as I am, who does not have a clue as to what you are referring.

The second is there are all sorts of "baseless theories" floating around on the Baptist Board, from what I have seen over two years. So this is not a one-person phenomena, by any means, IMO.

Please continue.

Ed

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ES: The first is that you identify the poster…..The second is there are all sorts of "baseless theories" floating around on the Baptist Board

HP: Sorry Ed. First, I was referring to Bob Ryan and the ideas he has set forth or at least they are my understanding of what he has said. I tried to quote him carefully so as to establish his views fairly.


Secondly, space will not permit in the title of a thread to always give the best idea as to what the object is of the thread. Glad to see you came to check it out and look forward to any input on the OP you might have. :thumbs:

 

[Sgt. Fury]

You might have titled the OP, "Sinners by birth or by choice?"

I think trustitl put it pretty well if I understood correctly. God is the Father of spirits.

Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

I'm not about to attribute the birth of a sin-sick, black as midnight spirit to Him.

All we inherited from Adam were dying bodies, not dead spirits. Adam was created fully mature in body and mind, and sinless. When faced with temptation, he knew two things:

1. What God had said about it.
2. What he wanted.

When a child is born, he does not have all the knowledge that Adam had. He only knows what he wants. Until that child learns what God's will is, he will operate based on the knowledge of what he wants, and in doing so, he will act against the will of God.

Later, when this person learns what God's will is, and is faced with the truth that he has often transgressed the commandment of God, he will understand that he has sinned. Until he knows what God has said, sin is not imputed to him, though it does exist.

Adam knew going in. He already knew what God had said about the tree. He chose his own will instead of God's will, and sinned knowingly.

trustitl, thusfar you have an ally here.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Sgt Furry: You might have titled the OP, "Sinners by birth or by choice?"

HP: Where were you when I needed you most?

SF: All we inherited from Adam were dying bodies, not dead spirits. Adam was created fully mature in body and mind, and sinless. When faced with temptation, he knew two things:

1. What God had said about it.
2. What he wanted.

HP: I believe that is well stated. I might simply add that those dying bodies were filled to overflowing with temptations or influences to sin via the depraved sensibilities associated with that dying body.

Here is a question for you. In #2 you mention ‘wants.’ Being a bit more specific, are those wants in and of themselves sin? Where did Adam get his wants that obviously played a part in influencing his will to sin? How about Satan? Where did the temptation of pride come from?

SF: When a child is born, he does not have all the knowledge that Adam had. He only knows what he wants. Until that child learns what God's will is, he will operate based on the knowledge of what he wants, and in doing so, he will act against the will of God.

HP: Is he acting against the will of God or simply according to his wants? Can one act against the will of God if in fact they have no knowledge whatsoever of God’s will? (I am thinking of infants or small children.) Can one transgress a commandment that they have absolutely no knowledge of it? Apart from salvation, can one transgress against God without incurring the penalty for sin? Can one said to under the law yet be entirely devoid of its demands?

SF: Later, when this person learns what God's will is, and is faced with the truth that he has often transgressed the commandment of God, he will understand that he has sinned. Until he knows what God has said, sin is not imputed to him, though it does exist.

HP: The issue of God not imputing sin to one is interesting. Sin is a judgment of God upon certain actions that incur a penalty, God’s law is a rule of action with sanctions. The passage you refer to states that where no law is sin is not imputed. If sin is not imputed, no law has been broken. If God’s law had been broken sin would have been imputed. To impute is simply to charge one with the penalty. It would seem to me that if sin is NOT imputed, no actual sin has taken place although the action might be, in light of God’s law, selfish and heinous.

God is no respecter of persons. Every act of sin will receive a just recompense of reward unless one has repented and it is under the blood, will it not?

SF: Adam knew going in. He already knew what God had said about the tree. He chose his own will instead of God's will, and sinned knowingly.

HP: The question is, if Adam had not been told about the tree, would it have been sin for him to eat of it?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Am I right in assuming that no one with a sinful nature i.e., original sin, has a free will as BR suggests?

HP: Are there any that might take a shot at this question? I would say that if no free will exists, neither can sin.

I believe it can be shown that if one takes the position that sin cost man his free will and that free will is only possible in the lives of the sinless, and that God grants to all free will when all are given the gospel message and granted the abilities to respond one is setting up a false notion that is chocked full of problematic questions and notions.

How about it Bob Ryan and any or all others that care to respond? BR, do you care to defend your remarks? Are there any others that would desire to weigh in and give us your opinions?

 

[BobRyan]

BR claims that sinful man has a fallen nature that is "clammering to do evil” and that this fallen nature, i.e., original sin, eliminates free will, and implies that man in his sinful state is only able to sin and that continually. Sinful man has no choice in the sin, (for sinful man lacks the ability of choice) for again it is necessitated by his sinful nature.

A few corrections -

1. I never call "the sinful nature - original sin" but I do claim that as a result of Adam's sin -- all humans are born with a sinful nature that Adam was not created with. As far as I know - you make the same claim about your own belief in that regard.

2. While I do argue that the sinful nature results in the condition Paul describes in Romans 3 such that man is not inclinded to accept salvation without the grace of God "drawing mankind to himself" as we find in John 3 and John 12:32 -- I also argue that "God draws ALL so that ALL are enabled to make that choice". I never make the argument that "ALL" have no choice.

He sees only pure angels, Satan before the fall, and Adam in his created state as having a free will and actually being able to make a choice.

Correction.

I agrue that free will is "supernaturally enabled" by God's drawing of all mankind (drawing is not the same thing as "story telling") and that free will exists for the lost primarily in the area of choosing to yield to the Holy Spirit or reject him.

BR suggests that choice (free will) is granted by Christ to man as part and parcel to hearing the gospel message.

"Hearing the Gospel" not so much as in "stories told". Rather I point to the John 12:32 concept of the drawing work of the Holy Spirit on the heart.

To start off this thread, I will ask but one simple question to establish a point. Am I right in assuming that no one with a sinful nature i.e., original sin, has a free will as BR suggests?

A more precise question might be --

"AM I right in assuming that no lost person has the inherent natural ability to choose to be righteous on his own without Christ and then actually do it"?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: 1. I never call "the sinful nature - original sin" but I do claim that as a result of Adam's sin -- all humans are born with a sinful nature that Adam was not created with. As far as I know - you make the same claim about your own belief in that regard.

HP: I see no meaningful difference in what you are saying and original sin. Both arrive at the very same conclusion, i.e., that man is a sinner by necessity, am I not correct?
I do have a correction. I do NOT believe that man is born with a sinful nature nor could he be. He is born physically depraved with the results being naturally depraved sensibilities. That is in no wise properly denoted as sin or sinful nature.

BR: 2. While I do argue that the sinful nature results in the condition Paul describes in Romans 3 such that man is not inclinded to accept salvation without the grace of God "drawing mankind to himself" as we find in John 3 and John 12:32

HP: I agree with the exception of the ‘sinful nature’ wording.

BR: I also argue that "God draws ALL so that ALL are enabled to make that choice". I never make the argument that "ALL" have no choice.

HP: You do make the case that all have no choice or free will to do anything other than sin antecedent to this drawing, do you not?

HP: He sees only pure angels, Satan before the fall, and Adam in his created state as having a free will and actually being able to make a choice.

BR: I argue that free will is "supernaturally enabled" by God's drawing of all mankind (drawing is not the same thing as "story telling") and that free will exists for the lost primarily in the area of choosing to yield to the Holy Spirit or reject him.

HP: Now you are trying to have it both ways. You hint at some free will but deny it until subsequent to the drawing by God. Which is it? Either a man has a free will or he does not. Because one does not choose to do something that he knows nothing about does not have an effect upon his will being free or not. So I ask you again. Is the will free or is it not antecedent to any drawing or subsequent to being drawn but having rejected the offer?

HP: BR suggests that choice (free will) is granted by Christ to man as part and parcel to hearing the gospel message.

BR: "Hearing the Gospel" not so much as in "stories told". Rather I point to the John 12:32 concept of the drawing work of the Holy Spirit on the heart.

HP: Scripture states that “If I be lifted up I will draw all men to myself.” If they hear, God has promised to draw, and one cannot be drawn without hearing. There is no separation between hearing the gospel and being drawn to it that can see.

HP: To start off this thread, I will ask but one simple question to establish a point. Am I right in assuming that no one with a sinful nature i.e., original sin, has a free will as BR suggests?

HP: I asked the question in a precise manner. You suggest another question. Address the question I asked and ask me your question if you so desire.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Here is a question for you. In #2 you mention ‘wants.’ Being a bit more specific, are those wants in and of themselves sin? Where did Adam get his wants that obviously played a part in influencing his will to sin? How about Satan? Where did the temptation of pride come from?

HP, we both know that these "quoted" responses can be wordy, and I doubt some of the longer ones even get read completely, so I'll try to keep things short.

I don't think the natural desires and appetites of the body are sinful in and of themselves. Temptation is the desire to fulfill these natural wants in an ungodly way. At least I think that's a fair definition of temptation. Anyway, Heb 4:15 tells us that Jesus was "...in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." There is no sin in being tempted, only in giving in to the temptation.

HP: Is he acting against the will of God or simply according to his wants? Can one act against the will of God if in fact they have no knowledge whatsoever of God’s will? (I am thinking of infants or small children.)

Infants and small children would seem to fall under the condemnation of God if the "original sin" POV is correct. I don't think that it is, though. Certainly a small child can do things that are wrong.

Parent - "Did you make this mess?"

Normal 3 year old - "No." (Even though he's the only one in the room. You know how it goes.)

The child has just told a lie, one born out af the natural desire for self-preservation. He didn't want the consequences of having made the mess, so he lied in an attempt to avoid them. He has no idea that God has commanded us to speak truth with one another.

Can one transgress a commandment that they have absolutely no knowledge of it? Apart from salvation, can one transgress against God without incurring the penalty for sin? Can one said to under the law yet be entirely devoid of its demands?

I believe one can sin in ignorance. Paul said that if the rulers had known Who Jesus was they would not have killed Him.

1Co 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The hearers of the first gospel sermon in Acts 2 came to understand that the Jesus they had crucified had been made both Lord and Christ, and that they were under the condemnation of God.

Their ignorance did not excuse them from guilt. They knew what they did was wrong, they just didn't know HOW wrong it was.

You've asked some great questions, and I will do what I can with them, but not tonight. Perhaps not tomorrow either, my wife and I have a date. But I'll get back to them. Not that my say is the final say, of course, but I'm enjoying the conversation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Sgt. Furry: I don't think the natural desires and appetites of the body are sinful in and of themselves. Temptation is the desire to fulfill these natural wants in an ungodly way. At least I think that's a fair definition of temptation. Anyway, Heb 4:15 tells us that Jesus was "...in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." There is no sin in being tempted, only in giving in to the temptation.

HP: I believe that is a great response. I am in complete agreement with this as I understand you. :thumbs:

SF: Infants and small children would seem to fall under the condemnation of God if the "original sin" POV is correct. I don't think that it is, though. Certainly a small child can do things that are wrong.

HP: Again, a great response that I am in agreement with. :thumbs:

SF: The child has just told a lie, one born out af the natural desire for self-preservation. He didn't want the consequences of having made the mess, so he lied in an attempt to avoid them. He has no idea that God has commanded us to speak truth with one another.

HP: You are batting 1000! :thumbs: Exactly. Children at a young age are responding to punishments or rewards, not the intrinsic value of the commands. Only when they are able, APART from punishments or rewards, to understand the intrinsic nature of what they have done right or wrong are they morally accountable. We often term this age as the age of accountability.

Sgt Furry: I believe one can sin in ignorance. Paul said that if the rulers had known Who Jesus was they would not have killed Him.

HP: We have much to discuss on this point. I as well am going to be pressed for time this week. If we both have patience we will get around to points that are interesting to both of us. I am looking forward to discussing many more issues with you. We have a good platform of agreement to build upon. I hope you see it the same.

SF: They knew what they did was wrong, they just didn't know HOW wrong it was.

HP: For now I will just say that is far from ignorance in my opinion. The same could be said for Adam and Eve's sin in a sense.

Have a great date!

 

[BobRyan]

BR: 1. I never call "the sinful nature - original sin" but I do claim that as a result of Adam's sin -- all humans are born with a sinful nature that Adam was not created with. As far as I know - you make the same claim about your own belief in that regard.

HP: I see no meaningful difference in what you are saying and original sin.

That probably explains why every time I say "sinful nature" you say "original sin".

But the fact that you do it -- does not mean that I also do it.

Both arrive at the very same conclusion, i.e., that man is a sinner by necessity, am I not correct?

By "nature"? That Man's nature is a fallen sinful nature "inclined to sin" or as you would say "having a proclivity to sin"? Yes.

I do have a correction. I do NOT believe that man is born with a sinful nature nor could he be. He is born physically depraved with the results being naturally depraved sensibilities. That is in no wise properly denoted as sin or sinful nature.

I do call it a sinful nature -- "depraved" moral sensitivy and in fact a "proclivity to sin" not merely "knowledge that sin exists".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I was born with a body of flesh clamoring to fulfill it's lusts.

I call that a "sinful nature".

I was not born with a sinful nature.

Then we have a difference in semantics. OR else we have cognitave dissonance in your position. Choose one.

There is a huge difference and understanding it will go along way in understanding the gospel and the law.
...
Read Romans 7 with the husband being the flesh and you will see why Paul says:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If our human nature at birth is "Clammoring for sin" then whether or not you call that "the husband of Romans 7" or "the flesh" it amounts to a fallen human nature that desires sin (clammors for it) as you say.

i.e. a sinful nature.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[trustitl]

Bob Ryan:
If our human nature at birth is "" then whether or not you call that "the husband of Romans 7" or "the flesh" it amounts to a fallen human nature that desires sin (clammors for it) as you say.

Look closely at how clammoring to fulfil it's lusts was changed to "Clammoring for sin". There is a difference, a huge difference.

My flesh wants to be full, feel good, be the right temperature, ... These are not sin. We were put in a body of flesh by the Creator. He saw it was good. These lusts are not sinful. Look at church history and see how the ascetics tried to impress God with their ability to "crucify themselves". Oh how foolish we say yet the same is going on today. Look at how we try to gain victory over sin: self help psychology, accountability partners, will power, letting people check our internet history, ...

The Puritans became popular because they were "holy" people. However, if you look at their methods you will see the flesh controlling the flesh. Luther was frustrated by the lack of holy living among "his" people so he tried to start preaching "law". Not OT law, but what I call christian law. This is why zealots (not according to knowledge) like legalism. It gives them things to do.

A baby is born and wants to eat. That is good. A baby comes out of a warm cozy atmosphere and into a big cold world wanting to be wrapped up and kept warm. That is good.

A baby is not born hating God. It doesn't even know there is a God. It just wants to live.

God wants us to desire Him, but our flesh couldn't do it even if it wanted to. It has no ability to connect with God. God is Spirit and we must worship Him is spirit and in truth. There is a battle going on. It is talked about in Romans 7. We need to be freed from the body which wars against us. There will never be a man that will live teir entire life choosing God over the lusts of the flesh. They need only one time to choose "pleasure" over God's ways and they have sinned.

Paul was confronted with the Law. His mind new it was from God and desired to keep it. He willed to, but his body kept serving sin. That is not salvation, but it makes one see that they are a sinner. (7:25 So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.)

Rom 8:3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

The flesh likes the law in a perverted kind of way because it can at least try to keep it. It cannot worship is spirit and in truth. That is why a lot of people still like the law, they can do it in the flesh (or think they can).

I don't think God intended to leave Adam in his body of flesh forever. Having a knowledge of good and evil and living in a body of flesh is not the best way to exist. Knowing this, God sends Christ, the second Adam. It is through him that we can be free.

Romans 6:6 "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

Col. 2:11 "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ"

An ye are complete in Him. Walking in this "Truth" is what sets us free.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: I do call it a sinful nature -- "depraved" moral sensitivy and in fact a "proclivity to sin" not merely "knowledge that sin exists".

HP: If you desire to convince me that I am mischaracterizing or misunderstanding your position, you are going to have to try harder not to add fodder to my case. Here you are exhibiting a lack of understanding as to what constitutes moral characteristics as opposed to physical characteristics that serve as mere ‘influences’ upon the will. You term that depraved nature or that proclivity to sin a “depraved moral” sensitivity. If it is ‘moral’ it has blame or praise rightfully attached to it. You fail to distinguish between that which is a tendency or proclivity to sin which part the sensibilities play in inducing temptation, with the will or the chooser itself. Morality is NOT predicated of the influences of the sensibility. Morality can only be predicated of the intents formed by the will itself. The sensibilites produce influences to sin upon the will but it is the will itself that forms intents that are properly denoted as being moral in nature. One is an influence to sin and the other is a choice to sin. You consistently confuse the sensibilities with the will itself.

If one is depraved ‘morally’ that is indeed sin. If one is born morally depraved he is indeed born in sin, born with original sin, and as such is under nothing other than necessity. You cannot have a will that is free that is born in a state that it cannot do anything other than it does or you eliminate choice and in doing so you make morality a matter of necessity which destroys the whole meaning of morals. You are spelling out to a tee the position of the doctrine of original sin, yet you desire evidently to distance yourself from it. If you do not desire to be told you believe in original sin, and that man is created under a compulsion to sin and thereby eliminating choice and free will altogether, you are going to have to reword your definition of what you call a sinful nature with words other than to denote it as a depraved ‘moral’ sensitivity. You can have all sorts of selfish influences upon the will that serve as influences upon the will to make moral decisions, but the influences themselves are simply influences, and are not properly denaoted as being 'moral.'

Morality is predicated only of the formed intents of the will NOT the influences upon it. Influences from the sensibilities do not make moral decisions, they serve as influences upon the will to make moral decisions. The will itself, not the influences upon it, is seat of all morality. It is where all moral decisions take place.

It is clear from your stated position that indeed you eliminate all power of contrary choice and free will when you make the will serving sin and as such sinful, as denoted by your denoting of being morally depraved from birth before the will ever makes its first choice. That is why I asked you a simple straight forward question that you have still failed to respond to. Let me ask it once more in some slightly different ways. Am I right in assuming that no one with a sinful nature i.e., original sin, has a free will as BR clearly implies by denoting the state we are born in as being “morally depraved?” Do you deny that man has a free will to choose something other than it does under the very same set of circumstances? Is it born in such a condition that the intents formed by the will are determined by the necessitating influence of its morally depraved nature you say it is born with?

 

[BobRyan]

... You fail to distinguish between that which is a tendency or proclivity to sin which part the sensibilities play in inducing temptation, with the will or the chooser itself. Morality is NOT predicated of the influences of the sensibility. Morality can only be predicated of the intents formed by the will itself. The sensibilites produce influences to sin upon the will but it is the will itself that forms intents that are properly denoted as being moral in nature.

Being "aware" of right and wrong --
Having a "Clear understanding of right vs wrong"
Impacts the moral sensitivity of "the lost person".

Obviously.

Being "inclined to do what you know to be wrong" ALSO results in a moral judgment about the lost person.

You may be surprised to learn that Paul is pretty accurate in describing it in Romans 3.

One is an influence to sin and the other is a choice to sin.

According to Romans 3 the sinful nature is not merely "inclined to sin" it "chooses to sin" as Paul argues in Romans 7.

Rom 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.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: According to Romans 3 the sinful nature is not merely "inclined to sin" it "chooses to sin" as Paul argues in Romans 7.

HP: What you are doing is reading into the text the notion of a sinful nature from birth as a presupposition you approach the text by. Certainly as one comes to the age of accountability one starts formulating habits of sin which indeed do form what can be denoted as a sinful nature. There is not the least shred of evidence that anything prior to the age of accountability is denoted as sin or a sinful nature.

The word ‘nature’ does not necessarily denote something from birth. One may be said to have a nature to do many things that cannot be directly attached to an inherited state. That especially goes for a state of sin that implies guilt which cannot be predicated without a choice on the part of the individual themselves, and that subsequent to the age of accountability.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul says nothing in Romans 3 or Romans 7 about "A law of sin that was created through long years of repeated sins while in my youth"

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Paul says nothing in Romans 3 or Romans 7 about "A law of sin that was created through long years of repeated sins while in my youth"

HP: Neither does it say anything about a ‘sinful nature’ and associated guilt inherited from Adam, or anything about God creating the souls of man sinful and then holding them accountable for failing to overcome necessity.

It may be time to look carefully at other revelations from God to man, starting with God granted intuitive wisdom and knowledge concerning matters concerning justice, guilt and accountability.

Why are you having such a hard time answering my direct questions to you? This is a debate list. How is your position seen as viable when you refuse as you have to answer simple straight forward questions?