The Nature of Inclinations

I believe this discussion should be beneficial understanding the nature of 'inclinations,' with the conclusions drawn serving as helpful in determining what is and what is not sin in our lives

What are inclinations? Where do they come from? Are inclinations sin, or are they influences to sin? Are their differing types of inclinations? Can inclinations force one to doing something or do they serve again as influences? Are inclinations moral in nature? Is, or if not, why?

I am certain many more questions can be asked and will arise as the discussion proceeds.

 

We often hear of a proclivity, or proclivities to sin. Do the words proclivity and inclinations refer to one in the same idea?

 

Biblicist, indeed your remarks did spur this discussion, but it is one often misunderstood IMHO. I will try to concentrate playing with one of my grandchildren at the same time. I hope it does not confuse my use of logic )

Let me state at the beginning that you will never hear me name call you for disagreeing on this subject. My saintly mother did not see eye to eye with me on this issue, although in fairness others have completely agreed. It is certainly NOT an issue that I believe would be a salvation issue. Godly individuals have been on both sides of this issue.

I understand clearly what you refer to as a sinful nature, yet even this term is used by men differing as to the nature of a sinful nature. Can we start with inclinations or proclivites first, and clear up those definitions the best we can? We can quickly move into a discussion of a sinful nature from there.

 

For the purpose of this discussion I would use the terms proclivity and inclinations to be one and the same. One main definition of proclivity is inclination, proneness or tendency. If there are no objections, the words will be assumed as one in the same.

 

There are many type of inclinations or tendencies, but for this discussion we will focus mainly on physical tendencies or proclivities and their origin and nature. Adam is a great place to start. Adam had many tendencies and inclinations built into his physical body from His creator. There was wide range of proclivities, some involving desires to eat, most likely exercise, tendencies to exercise ones creative abilities (for instance when he set to the task of naming the animals, curiosity, affection and physical attraction, etc. etc. All these were in the beginning given to Adam by His Creator for differing purposes, such as multiplying on the earth, sustaining life, fellowship with God, so on and so on. I believe we would all agree that in the beginning Adam had perfect natural propensities unmarred by sin or selfishness. Now my question to the list would be, was Adam responsible for these propensities, was he to be justly held accountable for their existence? If so why or why not?

 

BillWald will be happy to know I am not writing a book or taking advantage of cloud storage. I am simply trying to lay groundwork for a meaningful discussion.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Biblicist, speak of jumping in with both feet! Seriously, if we desire to reach some possible agreement we are going to have to addresss this issue a step at a time. I promise, we will get to all your questions the Lord willing in due time. Can we start examining inclinations involving a pure man for starters and see if there is anying we can glean from his original state? Lets see if there are some principles we can apply to our thinking.

 

Here are some ideas I can glean from Adam. First, Adam could not be held responsible for inclinations, good or bad, that he had absolutely nothing to with, nor could he be held accountable for the color of his hair, skin color, stature or the lack thereof, etc etc. No moral blame or praise can be predicated of any of these things due to Adams will not being involved in any way in their existence or the lack thereof.

The principle involved is a first truth of reason. In order to do anything blameworthy or praiseworthy choice must be possible. If there is no choice of the will involved, no moral blame or praise can assessed. Agree or disagree so far?

 

I want the list to know clearly I am NOT avoiding any of the points Biblicist made in his last post to me. The problem is that he injected several ideas that need to be addressed on their own. One such idea was the notion of lust. For instance, lust is nothing more than a strong desire as its root or heart. That may or may not be sin. In time as we progress we will indeed look closely at lust, when it is and when it is NOT sin. We have some groundwork to lay first, without which we will never see the truth of lust, when it is and when it is not sin.

 

Augustine brought into the Church the pagan notion that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will alone.

Now I am getting way ahead of myself. See what you do to me Bill?

 

Biblicist, have you read post #10? Can you answer that posts simple question for me as it lies at the heart of this discussion. Thanks

 

Note on Biblicists last post:
Inclinations or proclivities are not in and of themselves, in reality, moral in nature for they do not directly involve choice, therefore cannot be accurately or justly described as being "righteous."

All the more reason to slow down and work through some foundational principles carefully if the truth is our honest object. :thumbs:

 

Note: Righteousness differs from proclivities or inclinations in that it involves a choice of the will. In order for righteousness to be predicated of someone, a choice of the will in agreement to God's law coming from a proper motivation of benevolence towards God and man must be present.

 

HP: Being made upright is not synonymous with being righteous. Simply being created pure with a clean slate is upright, but righteousness involves an act of the will in agreement to Gods law from a motivation of benevolence as opposed to selfishness. Righteousness is not a created state nor could it be. Adam was created pure and blameless and with the capacity to do righteousness, but Adam was not righteous until he made his first correct righteous moral choice.

Forgive me. Now for a little fun.

If the writer had desired to use the word righteous instead of upright why didn't He? There is a word in the Hebrew for both of them is there not? (all in good humor Biblicist.:thumbs