plain_n_simple
Active Member
I'm in the cult of Jesus.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Nature of Inclinations
- Thread starter Heavenly Pilgrim
- Start date
The analogy of a "cultist" was in regard to the manner of how they proof text and jump from one text to another. That was all that was intended. To take my comment further than that misrepresents my intent.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Biblicist, I have tried to reason with you in depth, and more often than not all I get is a Scripture and your priuvate interpretation. How about getting back on topic and seeing if we can find some simple agreement in basic revelation and then move into the doctrinal issues?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: How do I know your intents other than by what you write? May I suggest referring to a cult, things outside of the Church, outside of the faith we both hold, could be better stated otherwise? Thanks.
The context of 1 Peter 2:20 has no resemblance to the idea you are using it for. He is speaking of the WRITERS of scripture not the READERS or interpreters of Scripture. Just look at the next verse.
No sense in continuing this discussion as you are making it personal. Anyone reading my statement about the cultist method of proof texting knows exactly what I am referring to. It was no personal attach upon your person but upon your method which is plainly repeated in every post you have made the last four or five posts. I have put everyone of your proof text back in context and do you respond? No! you just JUMP to another proof text. Hence, the cultic method of proof texting. Hence, no real discussion.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Biblicist, class dismissed!:thumbsup:
Don't take me too seriously.:smilewinkgrin:
Don't take me too seriously.:smilewinkgrin:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I needed that. Laughter is good medicine!:thumbs:
plain_n_simple
Active Member
Lol. I do think that babies are innocent....until they sin. Who knows what age they are. They are born under the curse and will need born again regardless. Though I'm against abortion sometimes I smile when I think of all those babies because I know they are all in heaven with our Father. Love always thinks the best.
Ok! I like that! Without that kind of attitude a debate can get too serious and vindicative.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
PnS, we do need to think right and focus of the good.
Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, thinkonthese things.
That is why God has put us together, to keep us thinking right! God bless you!:1_grouphug::godisgood:
PS: That hug is for you also Biblicist!:smilewinkgrin:
Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, thinkonthese things.
That is why God has put us together, to keep us thinking right! God bless you!:1_grouphug::godisgood:
PS: That hug is for you also Biblicist!:smilewinkgrin:
Thanks, I can use all the hugs I can get. Also, can you throw in a sprinkling of prayers as I can use all the prayers I can get too!
Your post is confusing because I believe that the Bible uses the heart, mind, and will interchangeably. What it differentiates between is the soul and the spirit, and even then some are dichotomists and believe these are one and not separable.
However, Jesus said out of the heart proceed: evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: (Mat.15:19). Notice that each of these acts are acts of the will, but Jesus says they come from the heart. Or they proceed from the mind which is the heart, also the source of the will. These words are used interchangeably.
Paul said: "with the mind I myself serve the law of God."
But we follow God with our hearts.
We choose to follow him with our will. It is still an act of the mind. The mind expresses intellect and the heart perhaps emotion. But to put a cut and dry differentiation between them as you are doing does not make sense to me.
A very confusing statement. What is the inherent condition of the human heart? Whether saved or unsaved it is still evil.
A disfuntional heart is a disfunctional will.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)
--"He that believeth." Clearly, Christ leaves the choice up to man.
I beleive it is a bit more complex. Each term expresses what aspect is predominate without exclusion of the other aspects. For example, the word "mind" emphasizes the intellectual ability of man without excluding his emmotional or volitional aspects. The same is true for the term "heart." This primarily emphasizes the emotional aspect of man but without excluding the emotional and volitional apsects. The very terms used to translate will, emphasize the volitional aspect as the expression of either the emmotional aspet (thelema) or the intellectual/determinative aspect (boulomai). The volutional aspect serves to express either the emmotional (heart) or mental (mind) and that is its only function.
Jesus uses the term heart as the source of such things because he taught that man "LOVES" darkness and "HATES" light. The term "heart" emphasizes the emotional aspect of man expressed volutionally (thelema). However, the term "heart" does not exclude the intellectual aspect any more than the term "mind" excludes the emotional aspect. These terms simply express on what aspect is predominate. The root of sin lies chiefly, predominately in the "heart" or his love and hate perspectives.
In Romans 7 there are three divisions. (1) the flesh/members/body where indwelling sin lies; (2) "with the mind I myself" the conscious self; (3) the inward man - new creation/regenerated spirit of man.
In our warefare with indwelling sin, it is not the emotional aspect that leads but the determinate aspect - the mind. Walking in the Spirit is a determinate action in spite of feelings/emotions or circumstances. We must DETERMINE to walk in the Spirit through intentional submission and recognition of the Spirit. Indwelling sin has been removed from the heart of man to his members/flesh. However, his heart is still subject to the influence of indwelling sin even though it is inclination is toward righteousness in connection to the inward man (v. 21). The problem is that the neither the inward man or the heart of man have power to overcome the influence of indwelling sin. However, the WILLINGNESS is there (Rom. 7:15-16;19-20) but not the power. WILLINGNESS is present but HOW to PERFORM is not. Hence, the volition has been changed by the new birth from "will not" to "willing." The "new" heart has changed the disposition from "love darkness" to "hate darkness" an "hate the light" to "love light" and thus changes the "will not" to "willing" because the conscious self "I" delight in the Law of God after the inward man.
The "heart" of a lost man is intrinsically evil or to say the same thing negatively "there is none good but one and that is God" - The term translated "good" is "agathos" and means INTRINSICALLY good or good by nature - only God is intrinsically good by nature. Moreover, the heart of man emphasizses the DESIRES of the lost man which are his evil "LUSTS" or his LOVE and HATE. He LOVES darkness and HATES light. That is the intrinsic nature of the lost man's heart. Because he loves darkness and hates light he "will not come" (volution) to the light. The function of his will is expressing the heart's desires.
However, as we previously stated, the term "heart" simply makes prominent the emotional aspect of man without excluding the intelletual/mental aspect of man. It is his LOVE and HATE status that produces "enmity" or a state of war against God (Rom. 8:7) which results in willful or determinate sin ("mind" phroema - mind set - Rom. 8:7).
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Are you certain you have the described the state of the believers heart from a Biblical position? If our heart is before the new birth is evil and still evil after we have been regenerated and cleansed from all sin, that sounds like more of being whitewashed than cleansed and 'free from sin" to me.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Pardon me, but that is far from the truth. Our will, or volition coerced to act at any given moment by the mental lusts or emotions at the moment? You have to be kidding. That might be the case if you are a robot or in an insane asylum, but not in the life of a moral being responsible for their intents and subsequent actions. It is a false philosophical notion to assume that the will always acts according to the strongest influence. If that was the case all praise or blame would in reality be leveled justly at the influence upon the will and not the will, a preposterous thought in the realm of morality. Your philosophy may well clearly depict the inner workings of a insane person or a robot, but not a moral being responsible for their intents and subsequent actions.
Biblicist, you either need to quit reading philosophical books of men and expounding on their false philosophy, or change your name. :wavey:
I may not have written this post in the best manner, but I could not help myself as my emotions forced me to write this post as I did.:smilewinkgrin:
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
The will of man is a first cause of his intentions and as such is directly responsible for them. Man is not some puppet that simply responds to stimuli from the sensibilities or anything else. God created man to be able to have the ability to withstand or resist the strongest of stimuli, even God Himself at times.
The proclivities we are born with and some we develop ply on the will but if at anytime they become so overpowering that the will is forced to act in accordance to them, the individual ceases to be a moral agent and as such cannot reasonably be held accountable for subsequent actions. We again may protect them from themselves and others but they are no longer responsible for their actions. Mental institutions house many such individuals.
If it was true that man has no real power to resist temptation, of if in fact the will is so weakened by sin that the possibility does not exit to formulate any other response than to do that which under normal circumstances is denoted as sin, or the will can obnly act in agreement withthe strongest influence upon it, the individual is no longer a moral agent and cannot be justly punished by the sanctions of moral law. The same applies for infants before the age of accountability. No reasonable individual could even consider punishing an infant by the standards of moral law, simply because moral law does not speak to such that are not moral agents.
A moral agent is none other than one that knows and understands the intrinsic value of a command apart from rewards or punishments. For a moral agent to be justly judged by moral law, he must have the ability to do something other than what he does under the exact same conditions. If the possibility does not exist that such an individual could have honestly chosen to do something different than what he did, such a one is not under moral obligation of any kind because morality can only be predicated when freedom to form an intention by the will without force or coercion. Any talk of morality or compliance to moral law when freedom to be the first cause of ones formed intents is not possible is sheer folly.
We need to start thinking right about religion and morality.
The proclivities we are born with and some we develop ply on the will but if at anytime they become so overpowering that the will is forced to act in accordance to them, the individual ceases to be a moral agent and as such cannot reasonably be held accountable for subsequent actions. We again may protect them from themselves and others but they are no longer responsible for their actions. Mental institutions house many such individuals.
If it was true that man has no real power to resist temptation, of if in fact the will is so weakened by sin that the possibility does not exit to formulate any other response than to do that which under normal circumstances is denoted as sin, or the will can obnly act in agreement withthe strongest influence upon it, the individual is no longer a moral agent and cannot be justly punished by the sanctions of moral law. The same applies for infants before the age of accountability. No reasonable individual could even consider punishing an infant by the standards of moral law, simply because moral law does not speak to such that are not moral agents.
A moral agent is none other than one that knows and understands the intrinsic value of a command apart from rewards or punishments. For a moral agent to be justly judged by moral law, he must have the ability to do something other than what he does under the exact same conditions. If the possibility does not exist that such an individual could have honestly chosen to do something different than what he did, such a one is not under moral obligation of any kind because morality can only be predicated when freedom to form an intention by the will without force or coercion. Any talk of morality or compliance to moral law when freedom to be the first cause of ones formed intents is not possible is sheer folly.
We need to start thinking right about religion and morality.
I said the volition is simply the faculty of expression of the thinking and feeling aspect of human nature. At all times the volition gives expression to either what you are thinking and/or feeling. It is quite simple and obvious if you will think about it. The very terms translated "will" prove this. The will is not coerced as it is merely and only the vehicle of expression of the heart.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I hear what you are saying but the above is what you wrote.
(using the terms volition and the will as synonymous)The volition serves the function of making a choice between two or more alternatives. It is NOT limited to, nor is its primary function to give expression between emotional or mental lusts. It chooses, or certainly should be constantly used in the suppression of emotion or mental lusts, and by no means subservient to them or to express them. Volition is nothing other than a word to describe freedom of the will to choose. Again, if the wills volitional choice is merely to express emotions or mental lusts, it is driven by force and coercion, not freedom. A will that is not free to formulate contrary choices in spite of the strength of any influence is not free in the least.
The will is the chooser period.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Adam will not go away. Adam had the ability to choose, and he at some point choose sin. If in fact the will always chooses according to the strongest influence, he had to have a very strong proclivity to sin, otherwise he would not have sinned, correct? If it takes a sinful nature, or if a sinful nature is why we sin, something had to make Adam sin as well. That begs the question if God put it into Adam's heart to sin by building into his nature the proclivity to sin, as some holding to Calvinism claim.
If in fact Adam sinned apart from any proclivity to sin, why would not have his proclivity to righteousness overpowered his temptation to sin? Those that claim man is born with a sinful nature claim man can only sin due to it. If Adam was born with a righteous nature how could he have done anything other than righteousness? But you say Adam had a choice? Then man does to if he is morally responsible for his intents and subsequent actions just as Adam was for his choice. It takes no sinful nature from birth for man to sin. Sin is caused by nothing more or less than a will that chooses to act selfishly instead of benevolently. There is a mystery to iniquity and why man sins. Being the first cause of his moral intents makes sin possible and responsible for when he does. Jesus, speaking to this dispensation says, all have sinned and that is all that is important to know. All are in need of His salvation.
Why do men try to make the temptation to sin greater than the influences form God is beyond me. Satan is not more powerful than God nor has Satan any power to force man to sin. James said, man sins because he is born a sinner?? Man sins because he has a sinful nature? Man sins because Satan and evil are the strongest motivations in the universe? Man sins because he is drawn away of his own lusts and enticed? NONE of the above. Man is TEMPTED (not sins) when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lusts, but he SINS when his will yields to those influences voluntarily.
Jas 1:15 Then WHEN lust hath conceived, it BRINGETH FORTH sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
If in fact Adam sinned apart from any proclivity to sin, why would not have his proclivity to righteousness overpowered his temptation to sin? Those that claim man is born with a sinful nature claim man can only sin due to it. If Adam was born with a righteous nature how could he have done anything other than righteousness? But you say Adam had a choice? Then man does to if he is morally responsible for his intents and subsequent actions just as Adam was for his choice. It takes no sinful nature from birth for man to sin. Sin is caused by nothing more or less than a will that chooses to act selfishly instead of benevolently. There is a mystery to iniquity and why man sins. Being the first cause of his moral intents makes sin possible and responsible for when he does. Jesus, speaking to this dispensation says, all have sinned and that is all that is important to know. All are in need of His salvation.
Why do men try to make the temptation to sin greater than the influences form God is beyond me. Satan is not more powerful than God nor has Satan any power to force man to sin. James said, man sins because he is born a sinner?? Man sins because he has a sinful nature? Man sins because Satan and evil are the strongest motivations in the universe? Man sins because he is drawn away of his own lusts and enticed? NONE of the above. Man is TEMPTED (not sins) when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lusts, but he SINS when his will yields to those influences voluntarily.
Jas 1:15 Then WHEN lust hath conceived, it BRINGETH FORTH sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.