Problems for Baseless Theories

[BobRyan]

What questions did I miss?

You yourself argue that the fallen nature is given to humans at birth.

You yourself admit that the fallen nature includes the proclivity to sin not present in the sinless nature of Gabriel or Adam.

What question am I missing?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: You yourself argue that the fallen nature is given to humans at birth.

HP: What I do not do is to attach sin to the sensibilities as opposed to the will as you obviously do. Ones ‘fallen nature’ as you put it, speaks directly to the physical, to depraved sensibilities which again are not sin in and of themselves but are resistible influences upon the will. Sin does not occur until they are yielded to selfishly by the will. The sensibilities, the depraved nature, is not sin nor can it be.

BR: You yourself admit that the fallen nature includes the proclivity to sin not present in the sinless nature of Gabriel or Adam.

HP: That is true, but the same comment applies that I gave above. Because we have additional influences to sin in no wise makes sin irresistible nor does it make the influences of the sensibilities sin. There is a clear distinction between an influence to sin and sin itself of which you seemingly ignore.

Now let me continue with yet another pertinent line of questioning that to my knowledge you have never answered or even attempted an answer to my knowledge. Is it possible for a human being to die before one hears the gospel? Is it possible for one to sin and die before one hears the gospel? If either of these two questions is possible, what will one be judged for that has sinned yet has not heard the gospel? According to your scheme of things, there could be no just punishment until one hears, for you readily admit that sin is a necessitated element of being human, and as you put it , Here is your statement from another thread

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

If he is born a necessitated sinner, choice is impossible to conceive. All intents are in line with that which necessitates the will, and as such are sinful. There is no ‘choice’ in sinning for there is only one possible consequence, i.e., sin, given the antecedent of original sin. If there is no choice, you clearly indicate that there can be no responsibility. If there is no responsibility, no just moral punishment can be inflicted because no morality can be predicated where necessity rules.
So again, tell us if in fact one can sin and be guilty before God prior to hearing the gospel and if it is possible for one to die after having sinned and prior to hearing the gospel. Show us, with your scheme of original sin, the justice in condemning such a one. Possibly you feel that even babies, small children and all teens even in the darkest regions of heathendom have had the gospel presented to them?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Why the silence BR when asked pertinent questions concerning ideas you have openly conveyed to the list? Have you lost the heart for meaningful debate?

 

[BobRyan]

BR: You yourself argue that the fallen nature is given to humans at birth.

HP: What I do not do is to attach sin to the sensibilities as opposed to the will as you obviously do. Ones ‘fallen nature’ as you put it, speaks directly to the physical, to depraved sensibilities which again are not sin in and of themselves but are resistible influences upon the will. Sin does not occur until they are yielded to selfishly by the will. The sensibilities, the depraved nature, is not sin nor can it be.

It is beyond dispute that our depraved nature is given to us at birth - call it what you will.

It is beyond dispute that this is the direct result of Adam's fall and that we can NOT take this with us to heaven.

It is beyond dispute that we have no power in and of ourselves to rid ourselves of that nature - we NEED a "savior to do for us what we can not do for ourselves".

Since we agree to these basics it is hard to get animated over what is left.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:

BR: You yourself admit that the fallen nature includes the proclivity to sin not present in the sinless nature of Gabriel or Adam.

HP: That is true, but the same comment applies that I gave above. Because we have additional influences to sin in no wise makes sin irresistible nor does it make the influences of the sensibilities sin.

Easily said - difficult to prove from the Bible given Romans 3 and Romans 7 "Sin dwelling IN me". Since already agree that a Savior is needed to solve the problem of the sinful fallen nature inclined to evil and given to us at birth - I have no problem if you want to argue that "His services will be needed to deal with actual sinful desires and weaknesses but not the willful act of comitting sin -- if the person is an infant".

There is a clear distinction between an influence to sin and sin itself of which you seemingly ignore.

As soon as you come up with a "sinless man" statement from scripture you have a case. For now the "sin dwelling" factor is more of a "presence" than a "choice".



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP
Now let me continue with yet another pertinent line of questioning that to my knowledge you have never answered or even attempted an answer to my knowledge. Is it possible for a human being to die before one hears the gospel? Is it possible for one to sin and die before one hears the gospel? If either of these two questions is possible, what will one be judged for that has sinned yet has not heard the gospel? According to your scheme of things, there could be no just punishment until one hears, for you readily admit that sin is a necessitated element of being human, and as you put it , Here is your statement from another thread

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

It is not possible to sin such that your sin is not covered by the blood of Christ AND YET you have had no "Gospel" message of the Romans 10 kind.

"Surely they have not heard have they? Indeed they HAVE" is Paul's argument.

In the ministry of God where the Holy Spirit "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" we have the same Romans 10 and Ps 19 Gospel work going on -- for all mankind.

So though a small child may sin - I believe their sins are covered by the blood of the Lamb. But once they reach an age of accountability they must respond to the omni-present drawing of the Holy Spirit or be held responisble for resisting. "If I be lifted up I will DRAW ALL MANKIND".

If he is born a necessitated sinner, choice is impossible to conceive. All intents are in line with that which necessitates the will, and as such are sinful. There is no ‘choice’ in sinning for there is only one possible consequence, i.e., sin, given the antecedent of original sin. If there is no choice, you clearly indicate that there can be no responsibility. If there is no responsibility, no just moral punishment can be inflicted because no morality can be predicated where necessity rules.

I never argue that punishment is inflicted on those who do not choose to sin.

"More quotes of me" are needed to make your case that I am in opposition to something.

And BTW - I believe I have stated my position above a few dozen times.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR, as see it, part of the problem is with your defintion of sin. Show us in Scriptrure, with as many colored fonts as you so desire, where sin is defined consistent with your views, in that babies or those that have not reached the age of accountability can be guilty of sin, and then show us where the blood of Christ is said to cover such 'sins' as you define sin to be, again in infants and those not having reached accountability, that as I say have never even made a single moral choice. Show us this responsibility to moral law that you insist must be there when one is not even yet a moral agent.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul states "SIN IN ME" is conducting a war. He does not limit his comments to "I made a bad choice and I sinned" in Romans 7.

Those who argue that "there is no SIN IN Paul there is only Paul deciding to sin" are the ones who need "a text".

I have mine.

That is where I see your POV having a weakness.

Having said that - there are some people in my denomination that argue as you do and though I think their position is missing this key element of Romans 7 and of Romans 3 -- I do not see it as a huge difference -- just a difference from my POV.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Paul states "SIN IN ME" is conducting a war. He does not limit his comments to "I made a bad choice and I sinned" in Romans 7.

BR: Those who argue that "there is no SIN IN Paul there is only Paul deciding to sin" are the ones who need "a text".

HP: So is this really your argument, that this one text not only sums up your definition for sin, i.e., this “sin in me” Paul speaks of, but amounts to the estoppel of all argument on the issue of what constitutes sin?

I for one would see the ‘sin that is within me’ as mute on shedding light as to what constitutes sin. You simply beg the question with your remarks. What you have given the reader so far is to define a word with the word. It would be like someone asking me to define ones 'soul' and for me to respond that the definition of ones soul is ‘the soul that lieth within them.’ You have offered absolutely no light as to how the statement made by Paul concerning the ‘sin that lieth with me’ defines sin in any way shape or form. Enlighten the reader as to how this verse defines sin.

 

[trustitl]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

It is beyond dispute that our depraved nature is given to us at birth - call it what you will.

It is beyond dispute that this is the direct result of Adam's fall and that we can NOT take this with us to heaven.

It is beyond dispute that we have no power in and of ourselves to rid ourselves of that nature - we NEED a "savior to do for us what we can not do for ourselves".

Since we agree to these basics it is hard to get animated over what is left.

in Christ,

Bob

Depraved nature. Don't remember reading about that in the scripture. I think my dispute is with trying to get rid of something that doesn't exist. If the neighbors dog is getting into the henhouse you don't go out into the woods trying to find a fox.

Forget the depraved nature thing and look at what Paul talks about - FLESH. A baby is born into flesh, that is where there is no dispute. Adam was created to live in flesh as was Christ. Still no dipute on the BB.

Have you ever wondered why people claimed that Christ did not come in the flesh. It is of upmost importance that he did. Look at what it accomplished: "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh".

Does anybody think he came with a sinful nature? If he did, he was a sinner, no? If he didn't and we did, he sure doesn't understand my plight. No, he came in the likeness of sinful FLESH just like you and me. That is, flesh that wants to do its own thing. It is not sin to have flesh or to even have the temptation of the flesh. It is sin when we use our flesh to sin against God. The lust of the flesh is any amazingly powerful force trying to control us. When we choose this over God we have become sinners before him.

Our only hope is to be freed from this body of flesh. "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." How can this be? says the carnal mind.

Only God could perform such an operation: "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: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

Don't believe it? Then you don't believe what the Bible says and you will keep trying to find that fox that doesn't exist. The neighbors dog is too obvious, I guess.

This unbelief is what leads people to turn back to the law for help. Yet they don't see " what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh" and try to stop sinning with the help of the law.

Some will say "now we can keep the law" when what the bible says is: the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

What is the righteousness of "Thou shalt not commit adultry"? Don't hop in the sack with the neighbors wife? It is harldy righteous to resist that. No, the righteousness of that command is to not lust after her. That we can do when we walk after the Spirit. The law cannot help us with our lust because it is weak through the flesh.

 

[BobRyan]

The argument here is not "the law is the way to get forgiveness" And it is not "the law gives us victory over sin". The only thing the law is doing in this discussion is 'defining what sin is".

As for "Sin in ME" mentioned in Romans 7 that "is at war with my mind" -- I think this is a "sin problem" that the Gospel addresses through Christ. Not something "we solve while we are on earth" so to speak.

The "depraved sinful nature" teaching is in Romans 3 "none who does good no not even one" and Romans 7 "sin IN me at war with the law of my mind".


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: Does anybody think he came with a sinful nature? If he did, he was a sinner, no? If he didn't and we did, he sure doesn't understand my plight. No, he came in the likeness of sinful FLESH just like you and me. That is, flesh that wants to do its own thing. It is not sin to have flesh or to even have the temptation of the flesh. It is sin when we use our flesh to sin against God. The lust of the flesh is any amazingly powerful force trying to control us. When we choose this over God we have become sinners before him.

HP: Yet another fine example of gospel truth. :thumbs:

God help us to get this truth firmly implanted in our minds, and may it be the stimulus for a revival of religion in our hearts and lives via heart felt repentance, faith, and a consistent holy walk before You.

 

[BobRyan]

BR: Paul states "SIN IN ME" is conducting a war. He does not limit his comments to "I made a bad choice and I sinned" in Romans 7.

BR: Those who argue that "there is no SIN IN Paul there is only Paul deciding to sin" are the ones who need "a text".

HP: So is this really your argument, that this one text not only sums up your definition for sin, i.e., this “sin in me” Paul speaks of, but amounts to the estoppel of all argument on the issue of what constitutes sin?

The sin problem is in 3 parts.


1. The sin nature that is "sin in us"
2. The sins we have committed
3. The sins we ARE committing.

These interactive with each other in some ways. The sins we have committed make it easier to commit the sins we are committing and also continues to warp the deffective moral character of "sin in us" waging war with us even before we decide to do somthing wrong.


I never take an "either-or" tac with that list.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: 1. The sin nature that is "sin in us"
2. The sins we have committed
3. The sins we ARE committing.

These interactive with each other in some ways. The sins we have committed make it easier to commit the sins we are committing and also continues to warp the deffective moral character of "sin in us" waging war with us even before we decide to do somthing wrong.


I never take an "either-or" tac with that list.

HP: I can appreciate your last sentence, yet that alone does not eliminate the problem your theory embibes. The problem lies in the fact that no matter what your list includes, sin is a necessitated and unavoidable notion in which choice has absolutely no impact according to your theory. If man is simply reacting to the coercion of OS as you set forth, no responsibility can be justly predicated and no just penalty inflicted.

You fail once again to establish the nature of this sin that lieth within us according to Scripture or reason as being the necessitated notion your presupposition of OS makes it.

I believe that the ‘sin within us’ spoken of by Paul is the influence that is wielded by past choices of sin, the force of habit and the lingering sensations of pleasure sin for the moment so often produces, together with all the depraved natural sensibilities that lure the mind to indulge in selfishness. These things can, in a sense, be seen or spoken of as sin, yet in reality, strictly speaking, are temptations to sin or proclivities to sin and not sin in and of themselves. Just as we might refer to a temptation as being sin, when what we are really saying is that IF we allow our wills to form intents in agreement with those temptations it would be sin for us to do so.

Often in common parlance we speak of sin as if though it was an entity in itself, when in reality and in the strictest sense it is not. I believe this to be the case as Paul speaks of the sin that lieth within us. Paul is addressing the draw, the lure, the feelings of ‘sinful pleasure’ that reside within us that serve as an occasion to yield ourselves in the formation of intents consistent with this luring, which in reality ‘become actual sin’ when yielded to. READ James as to the progression and development of sin again. Notice that sin is conceived subsequent to not antecedent of our choices of selfishness.

 

[BobRyan]

HP: I can appreciate your last sentence, yet that alone does not eliminate the problem your theory embibes. The problem lies in the fact that no matter what your list includes, sin is a necessitated and unavoidable notion in which choice has absolutely no impact according to your theory. If man is simply reacting to the coercion of OS as you set forth, no responsibility can be justly predicated and no just penalty inflicted.

I always argue that man has the drawing of the Holy Spirit that "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" -- drawing of "All mankind unto God" John 12:32 such that they ALL have the choice to submit to the new Birth experience and "escape" the slavery to sin described in Eph 2:1-5 -- escape that is also described in Heb 6:4-6.

Just as the drunk driver is responsible for choosing to drink -- no matter whatever else they may do after getting totally drunk.

BTW - there is no argument in James -- or anywhere else - where scripture admonishes the lost to stop sinning while lost.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Just as the drunk driver is responsible for choosing to drink -- no matter whatever else they may do after getting totally drunk.

HP: I thought responsibility only exists as choice exists? In the scenario you paint coming from a perspective of OS they are born as drunkards, unable from first light of moral agency to do anything but drink to excess and that continually? Tell me BR, how is one that has no choice in being a sinner responsible for his sin? The only way the drunk is responsible is IF in fact there was a time in which he honestly had a choice to drink or not to drink.

BR: BTW - there is no argument in James -- or anywhere else - where scripture admonishes the lost to stop sinning while lost.

HP: God commands men everywhere to first repent. Repentance is a turning from sin, a cessation of their old life of sin. If repentance is not ceasing from sin, how is it biblical repentance? A word study on the admonition to ‘turn’ is indeed in order.