The Nature of Inclinations

[The Biblicist]

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.

Are you saying that you honestly beleive the will acts independent of human nature? Does God's will act independant of His nature? Are you seriously saying that the will is not an expression of what you either think or feel? Come on!! Are you seriously saying the will abritrarily acts as an independent agent by itself?????

Well, have you asked your will this morning what it is going to decide so you can think and feel the same way?????? Come on, your brighter than that!?!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Are you saying that you honestly beleive the will acts independent of human nature? Does God's will act independant of His nature? Are you seriously saying that the will is not an expression of what you either think or feel? Come on!! Are you seriously saying the will abritrarily acts as an independent agent by itself?????

HP: You falsely confuse moral choices with all other choices. The will is the chooser. It simply makes choices between alternative. It can choose arbitrarily at times but no moral choice is arbitrary. When I walk up to an ice cream counter I can arbitrarily choose what to get or I can choose to let someone else choose for me as well. Moral choices of the will are differently for they are judged by moral law and have sanctions. For the sake of this discussion I shall address moral choices alone.

If man is a moral agent, he must be the first cause of the intents of the will. He cannot in any way be forced or coerced, by influences within or without and remain a moral agent and as such responsible for his choices. Certainly God could force his will, but if God does God cannot and will not hold man accountable for the ends of such force or coercion.

Certain the will can or cannot choose in accordance to ones nature. The story is told of the woman who told her pastor that she could not hold her temper. One day in the midst of a temper tantrum, a knock came to the door. it was her pastor standing there. Immediately she gained her composure.

Anyone has but to look at there own actions to see that the same temptation one claims they cannot resist can indeed be resisted under certain conditions. Yes the will is able to act independently of ones nature and in reality does so under many circumstances. My nature might be to never desire to go shopping being a man, but I choose to go shopping with wife because she asks me to. Legion are the illustrations one could give. You say that something else then is my stronger motivation? I can resist that to and refuse to go shopping period.

The will is simply the chooser. What I think or how I have chosen in the past indeed can effect the wills choices but never determines them, UNLESS the will is under force or coercion and in such a case is not moral in nature and as such not a proper subject of moral sanctions.

If freedom to choose cannot be predicated, praise and blame cannot be justly levied, especially when eternal sanctions are levied against the will. God blames and praises man for the intents formed by the will showing clearly that the will . The will of man must be of necessity free to be the first cause of its intents and subsequent actions.

Biblicist: Well, have you asked your will this morning what it is going to decide so you can think and feel the same way?????? Come on, your brighter than that!?!

HP: Your question is convoluted. We can clearly see a distinction between the intellect and the will, but they go to makeup the one inner man. Just the same, I talk to myself often, if that is what you are indicating........ And, I must be bright for my mother always called me Sonny!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist, define if you will, what you mean by 'nature.'

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: You falsely confuse moral choices with all other choices. The will is the chooser. It simply makes choices between alternative. It can choose arbitrarily at times but no moral choice is arbitrary.

Moral versus other choices????? There are only two terms translated "will" in the New Testament and they do not support your philosophical theory.

The will is nothing but the expression of thinking or emotions regardless if they are moral or a-moral thoughts and emotions. You NEVER choose anything that does not originate with THOUGHT or FEELING - period!

If you don't believe me then find a person who cannot think or feel and yet make choices!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Moral versus other choices????? There are only two terms translated "will" in the New Testament and they do not support your philosophical theory.

HP: Your remark has nothing to do with anything I presented that I can tell. Oh well, stranger things have happened.

The will makes both moral choices, i.e., choices that morality can be predicated of with corresponding eternal sanctions attached by God. The will also make many other choices that are not moral in nature of God places no eternal sanctions on. For instance, breaking one of the ten commandments is a moral issues with corresponding sanctions, while choosing tea in the place of water to drink for dinner is not a moral choice and has no corresponding eternal penalty placed on it. Are we together on this point?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: The will is nothing but the expression of thinking or emotions regardless if they are moral or a-moral thoughts and emotions. You NEVER choose anything that does not originate with THOUGHT or FEELING - period!

HP: I certainly do not disagree that thoughts and feeling are presenters to the will of motivation or influence. The point I have tried to make that is thoughts and feelings do not coerce the will or force the will to choose and end that is moral in nature. The will has to be free for contrary action if it is to be blamed or praised. God blames and praises men for their intents, and as such is proof that men are the first cause of their intents and subsequent actions.
If you would like some illustration of this point I can offer some.

Unless the possibility exists to do something other than what it does under the very same set of circumstance, the will is not free. If the will is not free to choose, no morality can be predicated of the end. Freedom to choose consists not in simply "doing as it wills" as the old Calvinist theologians often stated, for in reality one can ONLY do what the will chooses. If one does something other than what it first chose, it is evident that the will made a different choice in the end. When the Calvinist speaks of freedom of the will to choose, in reality there is no genuine freedom at all expressed. The relationship that exists between the doing and the wills choice is one of absolute necessity. There is no freedom to 'do as one wills.' Again the relationship that exists between the will and the doing is that of necessity not freedom. Freedom, if it exists at all, lies in the will itself, choosing between two or more alternatives including the choice of what means by which to carry out its choice.

Freedom lies in the will, the chooser itself, being the first cause of ones moral intents free from force or coercion of nature within or without, outside stimuli, or Satan himself. If man is not free, to blame or praise men for their formed intents and subsequent mean to achieve their choice of intent is absurd.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

It would appear that there is a vast difference of opinion as to the makeup of the human heart. I would see the inner man, or the heart of man, comprised of three basic elements, the intellect, the sensibilities, and the will or the chooser. I see no basic difference between the soul of man and the spirit of man as these two terms are used interchangeably in Scripture.

The following is an point that needs to be made. No doubt Scripture is the best place for much truth, and the only place for some truths. Still, Scripture is not the best source for some truths. God has given us abilities to understand the makeup of the mind, and is best seen by self inner reflection using God given intuitive wisdom. We are cognizant of the inner workings of the mind via our intellect and examination of how we think, how we physically respond to stimuli via our senses or the sensibilities, and how we make choices via the will. There is a distinct difference between these aspects of the human heart and mind and to be understood clearly one only has to carefully examine our thinking, feeling, and willing processes.

If one was going to study astronomy, Scripture indeed has somewhat to say, but in reality, much must be learned outside of Scripture by examination of the physical universe. If one honestly was to claim Sola Biblica in the study of astronomy, and refuse to examine the heavens by the many other means that God has placed at our disposal, how much knowledge do you believe would be in reality gained? Could you find a proof text for the existence of the rings on Saturn or the moons of Jupiter? How much knowledge would one in reality gain?

The study we are engaged upon in this thread concerns natural propensities and the inner workings of the mind. As hard as this might be for some to swallow, desiring or thinking that slogans like 'Sola Biblica' (or others as well) somehow places their approach and their own interpretations on a higher plane on the merits of their chosen approach alone, is simply not in reality the case. One of the best sources for knowledge concerning how we think, feel, and choose intents and ends is not found within the pages of Holy Writ, as important as they are in some cases, but rather such truth is best found in self reflection and careful study by inner reflection and examination. These studies are called by many names, but most commonly in theological circles are denoted as mental and intellectual philosophy, and ethics. Certain God has given to man many tools intuitively to study our basic mental framework and the inner workings of the intellect in making decisions and choices of both moral issues as well as those not moral in nature.

I hope I have not caused some to blow any gaskets by this frank discussion of the best source of truth on different subjects. If we are to end up with a well balanced approach to God's truth, we are going to have to examine truth from the best sources on the many differing aspects of the human makeup including how the mind operates. We need to seek God to reveal truth to us from every available means. One refusing to do so could be likened to a man trying to discover the laws of optics by blindly starring into the sky through the lenses of two coke bottles strapped together. Not hardly the right approach I would surmise.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

So, now, how about some honest discussion on the topic of this thread for a change?:thumbs:

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? If, or if not, why?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Adam would be a great place to start, being a pure man created by God that God looked upon and said, "IT is very good!."

Can we assume that Adam was born with perfect and good propensities without the slightest evil or sin in his nature? I would certainly think so. I would believe his natural propensities on a spiritual level were perfect, giving Adam the necessary abilities to love and to serve God. I would believe his physical propensities were perfect in that no given propensity was so strong or inclined to ruin the temple of God by force or coercion of his will. There was not even a hint of sin within him, being made so pure God called His creation "very good."

What do you think? Have any other ideas to his natural propensities or inclinations he was created with?

 

[The Biblicist]

Adam would be a great place to start, being a pure man created by God that God looked upon and said, "IT is very good!."

Can we assume that Adam was born with perfect and good propensities without the slightest evil or sin in his nature? I would certainly think so. I would believe his natural propensities on a spiritual level were perfect, giving Adam the necessary abilities to love and to serve God. I would believe his physical propensities were perfect in that no given propensity was so strong or inclined to ruin the temple of God by force or coercion of his will. There was not even a hint of sin within him, being made so pure God called His creation "very good."

What do you think? Have any other ideas to his natural propensities or inclinations he was created with?

The term "lust" does not convey good or bad as the good or bad application is determined by the context in which the word "lust" is found. The same term describes objects of lust that are good and holy.

The term "lust" simply means "desire" and all rational creatures have ability to "desire" because "desire" is merely the driving motive behind all acts of choice. If a creature is capable of choice it is because they are capable of desire as desire is foundational for choice to exist. Your choice is determined by the precedent of desire and desire is produced in the heart (mind/feelings) in response to something that provides appeal to your mind and heart (temptations). Hence, the interaction of temptation with your heart produces desires which in turn motivate a choice. Choice is merely the manifest expression of desires originating in your heart (mind/intellect) in response to a given temptation.

In regard to pre-fallen Adam or any other pre-fallen created being that is capable of choice, in particular moral choices, sin is conceived in the heart when the heart (mind/intellect) not merely entertains/considers an external temptation that is by definition wrong, but consideration yeilds to desire that is in turn is manifested by choice to obtain what has been embraced in the heart (mind/feelings).


How is sin conceived in a pre-fallen Adam versus a post-fallen Adam? In the pre-fallen Adam sin has no existence in the heart from the origin of Adam as Adam was created "upright" and therefore without an internal existence of sin. Therefore, for sin to be conceived in the heart of a pre-fallen Adam it requires an EXTERNAL temptation to be brought into the heart for consideration. After that point there is no difference.

However, the post-fallen Adam needs no external temptation to bring sin into the heart for consideration but sin already exists in the heart of the Post-fallen Adam and his posterity from birth. The Post-fallen Adam is separated from God and his heart is dominated by sin that Pre-fallen Adam gave permission to enter and indwell him. This is clearly spelled out by Paul in Romans 7:14-20 in regard to the "flesh." Hence, he is in double jepordy from within and without. This same description in Romans 7:14-20 is not merely true of the Post-fallen Adam but is true of all his posertity from birth. No rational decision is necessary for post-fallen posterity of Adam to allow sin into their hearts because it was by the representative OFFENCE by ONE MAN that all were made sinners by nature from birth with sin already indwelling their heart.

Babies do not have an innocent heart. They manifest the influence of indwelling sin even before they can reason or talk.

The prefallen Adam possessed a heart free from sin but not so with the Post-fallen Adam and his posterity. The will is not capable of expressing any choice that is not produced as a desire by the heart (mind/feelings) because the will gives only expression of what is INSIDE man. The heart INSIDE man is dominated by sin and therefore so are all his motives/desires and the will does not operate distinct and indepdent from what HE IS according to His heart.

Every deed is judged by its motive! The only right biblical motive is to do all things for the glory of God - the fallen man has a heart incapable of doing anything for the glory of God and therefore everything he does is sin - not good in God's sight.

Free will is the author of sin in Adam bringing sin INTO man's heart to dwell, whereas, in the fallen Adam and his poserterity indwelling sin in the heart is the author of sin and the will is merely the servant of an evil heart that expresses the desires of the heart.

The will of man in Adam was FREE from indwelling sin but it was that very FREEDOM by brought sin into the heart and robbed that freedom from the will.

Before the fall the heart of Adam was "upright" and therefore FREE from indwelling sin and the will FREE from any internal influence by sin.

After the fall the heart of Adam was NOT "upright" and therefore NOT FREE from indwelling sin and therefore the will is NOT FREE from any internal influence of sin.

The will cannot express anything EXTERNAL to himself. The will simply expresses INTERNAL desires and the fallen man's heart is under the influence of sin and is wicked and has NO DESIRES that by motive glorify God and so ALL HIS DESIRES are sinful and the WILL is only FREE to express such desires as there are no other desires resident in fallen man.

Hence, Before the Fall there was FREE will but after the fall the only freedom the will possesses is the freedom to express the sinful desires of the human heart. This is the BONDAGE OF SIN.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: The will cannot express anything EXTERNAL to himself.

HP: Ok. A great idea to start with. :thumbsup:

So the conclusion by Biblicist must be that Adam, being perfect in every natural propensity, and that from his creation, could do nothing but that which originates from a pure heart.

My question to the list is, is the notion that Biblicist presents here a valid one in light of Scripture, reason and experience? Can a pure man like Adam, express anything eternal to himself ....like say sin? As I recall he sinned. Would that not be his will expressing something external to himself????

I think there is a slight problem with the statement made by Biblicist.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Ok. A great idea to start with. :thumbsup:

So the conclusion by Biblicist must be that Adam, being perfect in every natural propensity, and that from his creation, could do nothing but that which originates from a pure heart.

My question to the list is, is the notion that Biblicist presents here a valid one in light of Scripture, reason and experience? Can a pure man like Adam, express anything eternal to himself ....like say sin? As I recall he sinned. Would that not be his will expressing something external to himself????

I think there is a slight problem with the statement made by Biblicist.

The fallacy of your question is that you are attempting to make the prefallen Adam the standard to define the will in the post-fallen Adam.

The pre-fallen Adam was FREE from an impure heart and possessed FREE will which is responsible for defiling that pure heart and inviting indwelling sin into that heart. Hence, FREE WILL is the author of sin.

However, that means that Post-fallen Adam no longer has a heart FREE from sin or indwelling sin but has an IMPURE heart.


So, since the will cannot express anything EXTERNAL to man but is only FREE to express what is INTERNAL to man and the INTERNAL is no longer FREE from sin but is in the BONDAGE OF SIN. The heart and its motives, desires are all in the BONDAGE OF SIN as sin now INDWELLS man.

Now return to my original statement which you approved which is:

Biblicist: The will cannot express anything EXTERNAL to himself.

Hence, the will can only express what is INTERNAL and what is INTERNAL is in the BONDAGE OF SIN because FREE WILL in pre-fallen Adam brought sin into the heart and now the heart is decietfully wicked above all things. Thus, the heart motives are sin because the fallen heart NEVER does anything from the right motive (right motive = whatsoever ye do, do all for the glory of God" and all have sinned and "come short of the glory of God."

Hence, there is no such thing in fallen man as FREE WILL as in the pre-fallen Adam. The will in fallen Adam is IN BONDAGE TO SIN because the will is only capable of expressing what is INTERNAL in fallen man and that is a heart, with all its motives and desires IN BONDAGE TO SIN and therefore is an expression of that inward bondage to sin and nothing more or less.
, therefore the human will is only free to express this INTERNAL SIN condition. merely expresses this INTERNAL and so the will is the FREE AGENT to express this BONDAGE OF SIN.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here is most interesting point. With absolutely no sin prior in the lives of Adam and Eve, having been created with perfect natural propensities, they sinned. They did something external to everything within them with absolutely no force or coercion upon their wills they chose to sin.

Note carefully why, the reasons why, the motivation that plied upon their intellects mentioned here in this verse. They saw the fruit was good, and indeed it was in some sense for everything God created was "very good." They desired to be wise, nothing sinful about that desire, in and of itself. Wisdom is a good thing. It was pleasant to the eyes. Here again, nothing intrinsically evil in seeing a 'very good' fruit as good in ones eyes either. YET, they sinned. One thing I glean from this is that it takes no sinful nature, nor something intrinsically evil for sin to be predicated of an action. It only takes disobedience to a known commandment of God. The same can be said for two thirds of the angels that fell with Satan and Satan himself. There was no sinful nature, nothing that could cause them or force them to sin. They simply disobeyed God out of their freedom to will God had granted them. One thing that was used in the sin of Adam, was that Satan himself used his deceitful character, something outside of themselves.

Do not jump to conclude falsely, as some have done already, that I believe man today is born in the state of Adam. I do not. There are some things alike and some things far different but that is a discussion for much latter. We are just trying to establish the nature of Adam at this juncture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: The fallacy of your question is that you are attempting to make the prefallen Adam the standard to define the will in the post-fallen Adam.

HP: The fallacy of your statement is that it is only correct in a sense. Will you simply walk with me for a moment on topic, and limit your comments to the nature of Adam before you start drawing unwarranted conclusions? When we can reach an agreement concerning the inclinations of Adam, we will move on. Tell the list what you agree with what has been stated concerning Adam or where I am wrong.
Thanks!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist, was sin something external to the nature of Adam? If so was your statement correct or should you qualify it?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: The will cannot express anything EXTERNAL to himself.

Question to the list. Is this a correct or is this comment in error in relationship to Adam?

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, was sin something external to the nature of Adam? If so was your statement correct or should you qualify it?

I made myself as clear as I could possibly be in my last post. Here it is again, tweaked a little to more specific to your question:

The pre-fallen Adam was FREE from an impure heart and possessed FREE will which is responsible for defiling that pure heart and inviting indwelling sin into that heart. Hence, FREE WILL is the author of sin.

However, that means that Post-fallen Adam no longer has a heart FREE from sin or indwelling sin but has an IMPURE heart.


.....the will cannot express anything EXTERNAL to man but is only FREE to express what is INTERNAL to man and the INTERNAL state of post-fallen Adam is no longer FREE from sin but is in the BONDAGE OF SIN. The heart and its motives, desires are all in the BONDAGE OF SIN as sin now INDWELLS man.

Now return to my original statement which you approved which is:

Biblicist: The will cannot express anything EXTERNAL to himself.

Hence, the will can only express what is INTERNAL and what is INTERNAL is now in the BONDAGE OF SIN because FREE WILL in pre-fallen Adam brought sin into the heart and now the heart is decietfully wicked above all things. Thus, the heart motives are sin because the fallen heart NEVER does anything from the right motive (right motive = whatsoever ye do, do all for the glory of God" and all have sinned and "come short of the glory of God."

Hence, there is no such thing in fallen man as FREE WILL as it was in the pre-fallen Adam. The will in fallen Adam is IN BONDAGE TO SIN because the will is only capable of expressing what is INTERNAL in fallen man and that is a heart, with all its motives and desires IN BONDAGE TO SIN and therefore will gives expression only to what is inside and what is inside is in BONDAGE TO SIN.

Therefore the human will is only free to express this INTERNAL SIN condition.

Sin was exterior to the heart of pre-fallen Adam and therefore the INTERTIOR of pre-fallen Adam (including his will) was FREE from the presence and power of indwellling sin. So yes, sin originated by a process that began outside of pre-fallen man. However, because FREE WILL gave access to sin in the fall, sin now works from within AND from without post-fallen man.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: The will cannot express anything EXTERNAL to himself.

HP: Here are some comments I would have on it. If this statement is correct in the life of Adam, sin would have to be infused into his being ANTECEDENT to him willing to sin against God. If this was true, and that his nature had been infused with sin antecedent to his sin, it could rightfully be said that Adam had a nature to sin. If you disagree, help me out. How have I misrepresented the natural consequences of the statement of Biblicist?

Biblicist explains his comment in the following fashion, still not changing his original comment. he said "

The pre-fallen Adam was FREE from an impure heart and possessed FREE will which is responsible for defiling that pure heart and inviting indwelling sin into that heart. Hence, FREE WILL is the author of sin.

HP: To which I respond, the hole Biblicist is digging gets deeper. If in fact free will is the author of sin and God is the Author of free will, God alone can be blamed for sin, placing the very CAUSE, with Biblicist states is free will, within the breast of Adam.

Sorry Biblicist, you could not be further from the truth. God is not, nor is anything God infused into man, that God himself called VERY GOOD, the cause of sin. Try again.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Note: If freewill is the cause of sin and God the cause of freewill, God alone is the cause of sin. That ends in a most wicked perception of the nature and acts of God. God the author of sin and then punishes man for eternity in a living hell for nothing more than being a passive recipient of an unavoidable consequence God infused into his own nature???

Here is the heart and soul of a deterministic and fatalistic doctrine, a notion fraught with error that paints a horrible blight on the Character of a Holy and Just Loving God.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have somewhat to yet learn from the nature and inclinations of Adam.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Here are some comments I would have on it. If this statement is correct in the life of Adam, sin would have to be infused into his being ANTECEDENT to him willing to sin against God.

Sin was "conceived" in Adam before it was birthed in his actions. The FREE WILL was the modus operandi that gave connection between desire and action comprehending sin in regard to both attitude and action. Hence, as the modus operandi Free will is the author of sin. So sin in its fullness is both attitude and actions combined by Free will.

HP: To which I respond, the hole Biblicist is digging gets deeper. If in fact free will is the author of sin and God is the Author of free will, God alone can be blamed for sin, placing the very CAUSE, with Biblicist states is free will, within the breast of Adam.

That would be true, UNLESS with Free will God gave responsiblity and consequences on how it was used. I hope I don't have to prove that both accompanied free will and Genesis 2 makes both abundantly clear???