The Nature of Inclinations

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Are babies guilty of loving light and hating darkenss? If so, of such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: This is NOT mans wisdom nor the product of mans wisdom. It is truth given to us intuitively by God, without which nothing could be truthfully discerned absolutely. I am not trying to spoil you in the least. I am simply trying to examine every truth, regardless of how or where God gives it to us, to test truth against truth.

We might in reality have a lot in common education wise. God is still the best educator.:godisgood:

1 Cor. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

So we are destined to merely trade Scripture for Scripture, proof text for proof text? We can do that. :thumbsup:

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Who gave them this knowledge by nature?? Did the tree they were hugging give it to them or maybe a rock they were examining revealed to them the law? Maybe they were just accidently following the law by wild chance. Somehow, I would believe that God's Spirit by conscience and by nature revealed it to them and in some measure they understood the Spirit of God even though He was an unnamed God to them. What do you think?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

What is amazing to me is that even the heathen in some ways demonstrate more knowledge of God's character than do some theologians with their doctrinal positions.

 

[The Biblicist]

So we are destined to merely trade Scripture for Scripture, proof text for proof text? We can do that. :thumbsup:

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Proof texing is good IF it is a contextually based proof text that validates your particular application of it.

1. Your text speaks of NATURAL things whereas mine speaks of SPIRITUAL things.

2. Your text is in a context of purely MENTAL perception that contextually results in MENTAL and MORAL rejection of what it perceives and thus supportive of my proof text rather than contradictory as your use to pit it against my text.

3. My proof text is introduced by the denial that the eloquence and wisdom of the preacher (man) contributes anything to the salvation but rather it must be found in revelation power of the Spirit of God alone thus providing consistency for my proof text.

There is no contradiction between scriptures and proper exegesis always establishes the spirit of truth from the spirit of error. That is precisely why scripture is its own best commentator.

So again, the "carnal" mindset cannot SPIRITUALLY discern the things of God and your proof text PROVES my point as the only contextual response is MENTAL rejection and MORAL degeneration as the contextual response. However, MENTAL perception is sufficient basis to condemn but not in and of iself sufficient basis to repent (hate darkness) and beleive (love light) as that takes SPECIAL revelation of the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit as the immediate context of my proof text declares.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Why do some heathen offer their children as sacrifices? They clearly recognize them, even in their twisted evil minds, as the pinnacle of purity and innocence. Only in our highly educated theological circles are babies viewed as inherently evil, and that is NOT to our benefit but should and to our shame. It makes the Christian world a laughing stock of even atheists and agnostics as the recognize, by intuitive God given reason via nature and reason, that children are not inherently evil or born evil.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual

 

[plain_n_simple]

Here is one for Plain n Simple: As I read your post you seem to indicate you have no evil propensities subsequent to salvation. I am NOT trying to find fault with your testimony. If that is true in reality we have only God to praise for the work done in your life!!

Would you agree that overeating is an evil natural propensity for some? I am thinking of one of the most godly men I knew that 'might' have had a problem with such a propensity. God be thanked, that is not one that I would find troublesome, and thank God I do not fight that. I wonder if we are thinking on the same level when it comes to inclinations or propensities. I believe that a propensity, (according to scripture reason and experience) even an over indulgence of food say, is not in and of itself sin. It is only as we first have knowledge of what God requires of us, in light of the reason, conscience, and Scriptures He gives us, that sin in regard to the propensity is possible. "to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him itis sin." (forgive me for using Scripture on this thread. Only kidding.)

I would agree with you. Adam and Eve before the fall had the potential to sin. The devil tempting them did not make them guilty. The same for a born again believer. Satan will always tempt. It's our response that makes the difference.

 

[The Biblicist]

Are babies guilty of loving light and hating darkenss? If so, of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Your question is worded carefully so as to entrap the naive. First, the proper question would be do babies love darkness and hate light by their very nature from conception in the womb? The answer is yes and as soon as they are capable of expression that is made clear as you NEVER have to teach a baby to sin as it comes naturally from birth by nature.

Now, are DYING babies held guilty or accountable for their inherent nature to love darkness and hate light? The proper answer to this question must harmonize with three equally taught Biblical principles in regard to sin. The principle of representation by Adam and the principle of personal actions apart from Adam and the principle on judgement day that every man will be ultimately jduged "according to" their own works.

So, in regard to the first Biblical principle that sin and death were attributed to all of mankind BY ONE REPRESENTATIVE MAN -Adam. Hence, all who suffer the wages of sin - death - are condemned to death by that one man's offence. Since death is the consequence of "wages" then no one who has not earned such wages could possibly suffer death. On the cross Christ such wages were imputed to Christ and he suffered death according to those imputed wages.

Do babies suffer death? Yes! Do they justly suffer death? Yes as death is the result of "wages" earnings for sin and the sin that earned them such wages is "by one man's offence". The sin of Adam was willful and intentional and that is the offence that made all mankind sinners by nature.

Now in regard to the second Biblical principle that ultimate judgement is based upon PERSONAL not representative sin or that every man is judged "according to" his own personal works." This is what Ezekiel 18 is all about. The answer is NO in regard to dying infants. They have not committed any willful sin and therefore they have no works comparable to Adam that can be personally and individually accountable.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Plain n Simple: I would agree with you. Adam and Eve before the fall had the potential to sin. The devil tempting them did not make them guilty. The same for a born again believer. Satan will always tempt. It's our response that makes the difference.

HP: You have to understand that on the list here, agreement kills great discussion. :smilewinkgrin:

I would say that I clearly have some tendencies to sin, even as a believer. I have to resist the devil, the flesh and the world on a daily basis through the help of the Holy Spirit to overcome sin in my life. Our honest goal should be to live free from actual sin daily, again by the help of God, living our lives pleasing to God in every way. I fully believe men such as Job did that very thing. I am no Job, but I live believing full well the possibility exist that I can live as pure as he did by relying on the Holy Spirit moment by moment. If men in the OT could walk lives pleasing to God, how much more should we walk in the Spirit with the help proffered us in this enlightened dispensation? God help me. " We aught to walk in all manner of actions and conversations , even as He walked. (you know the Scripture)

A propensity to sin is not sin, Sin cannot be blamed on ones propensities, any more than Adam could have blamed God for his human nature from which in some measure he misused when he sinned. God is not the author of sin, and no propensity is so strong man could not refuse to obey it IF HE WILL. If one comes to the place a propensity in reality 'causes' one to act in a given direction, such a person might be pitied or even kept from society to protect him and others, but moral blame for those actions is not directly predicated of their actions. Our mental institution house many such individuals. They may be morally responsible for actions and intents that got them there, but now are not responsible morally for actions driven by forces outside of their will and ability to resist.

 

[The Biblicist]

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual

Again, what does the immedate context in which this text is found demand as the proper understanding of this text? Paul is systematically showing why the Law cannot justify or sanctify anyone. The problem is not in the law but in the sin nature of man. The Law is "spiritual" but lost man is NOT and there lies the problem. The Law has no power to change that internal problem and therefore it cannot justify or sanctify indwelling sin or the sinful nature that characterizes man.

You can play the proof text game but you fail in one very important point! Every proof text you choose condemns you if context is the decisive factor of what that text means and how that text can be properly used. Notice you have no response but just jump from one proof text to another exactly as every cultist does.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Your question is worded carefully so as to entrap the naive.

HP: No it was not. If babies are guilty of possessing a sinful nature from birth, and all sinners love darkness and hate the light, then babies must love darkness and hate the light. That is simple logic, not designed to entrap anyone.

Biblicist: First, the proper question would be do babies love darkness and hate light by their very nature from conception in the womb? The answer is yes and as soon as they are capable of expression that is made clear as you NEVER have to teach a baby to sin as it comes naturally from birth by nature.

HP: You did not have to teach two thirds of the angels to sin that fell with Satan, Satan himself was not trained to sin, and Adam was not trained by God to sin. Your logic and philosophy that assumes because all have sinned that their must be some training or an inherited flaw in their nature to compel them to sin is false and not supported by Scripture, reason or experience.

If sin is necessitated by any means, i.e., if man could not do anything other then to sin, and that from birth, there could be no moral accountability for sin. One could only blame it on God for creating him that way. God would be seen as inherently evil, blaming and punishing man for something unavoidable and infused into ones nature through no fault on his own. To punish man for something he had absolutely no way of avoiding, i.e., being a sinner from birth, for eternity in a living hell, is beyond absurdity and wicked to the core. Such doctrine is not supported or taught in Scripture.

PS: The damning sin is NOT according to Scripture the rejection of Jesus Christ. Those that reject the cure seal their fate, but God condemns man for his sin. If a man rejects a cure that has cancer, does he die because he rejected the cure or because of his cancer? I say it is the cancer that kills him, not the rejection of the cure. Sin is what damns men to hell, and rejecting Christ if they have that offer given, simply seals their fate.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: You did not have to teach two thirds of the angels to sin that fell with Satan, Satan himself was not trained to sin, and Adam was not trained by God to sin. Your logic and philosophy that assumes because all have sinned that their must be some training or an inherited flaw in their nature to compel them to sin is false and not supported by Scripture, reason or experience.

Your response is based upon pure irrationality. You are assuming babies are in the same condition as prefallen Adam and prefallen angels. Thus circular reasoning - making an argument that assumes your position is true.

 

[plain_n_simple]

I agree with you HP. I just keep my eyes on knowing Jesus more and more rather than being so sin conscience. Not saying it's a bad thing if that works for you, nor am I saying you know Him less. Sorry I killed the discussion lol.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Notice you have no response but just jump from one proof text to another exactly as every cultist does.

HP: That is an unfair and unkind accusation without the slightest evidence. You have not been around long enough or read enough of the thousands of posts I have written, to rmake any such remark.

If you think you are the only one that can determine the use of a verse or the only one with the ability to detrmine its context, you are mistaken. Here is another verse for you. "Scripture is of no private interpretation."

Name calling should include unfair association with cults as well. That is something we both agreed in principle we would refrain from. :thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Plain and Simple, you killed nothing. I believe I will get along just fine with you in our pilgrimage. :jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

" For such is the Kindom of heaven"



Every Biblicist should appreciate the brevity of such a post.:thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: That is an unfair and unkind accusation without the slightest evidence. You have not been around long enough or read enough of the thousands of posts I have written, to rmake any such remark.

I am referring to your repeated responses to me -period! You present proof texts and I respond and give the context but you just give another proof text. That is irrational as it makes proof texting worthless and without end.

If you think you are the only one that can determine the use of a verse or the only one with the ability to detrmine its context, you are mistaken. Here is another verse for you. "Scripture is of no private interpretation."

Now, what do you think that text means?

Name calling should include unfair association with cults as well. That is something we both agreed in principle we would refrain from. :thumbsup:

No, that is exactly what Jehovah's witness do. They give proof texts but when you pin them with its context they simply jump to another proof text. This is what you have done with me and this is what you are doing in this very post.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: I am referring to your repeated responses to me -period! You present proof texts and I respond and give the context but you just give another proof text. That is irrational as it makes proof texting worthless and without end.

HP: I am considering returning to Biblicist roots.