The Nature of Inclinations

Thank you for your responses. At this juncture I am going to allow others that might be reading judge both your remarks and my own.

 

HP: The silence on this thread is deafening. Here we have a literal revealing bombshell of a point being made by Biblicist as to the 'cause of sin', placing the very cause of sin on a God-implanted ability, and there to my knowledge has not been a single eye brow raised or one comment other than by myself. Is the list asleep, have they all gone hunting? Is there not one individual on this list that is going to recognize that if the God implanted notion of free will is the cause of sin, God in fact is indeed the author of sin, and as such sin was necessitated in the life of man from his inception???

What will Biblicist tell us is the cause of sin in Satan and two thirds of the angels that fell? They obviously had a free will to rebel as well, but there is a small problem with attaching the cause of their sin to free will. A MULTITUDE OF ANGELS NEVER FELL THAT HAD THE VERY SAME NATURE INFUSED AND CREATED INTO THEM AS WELL. If the God induced function and ability of having a free will is the cause of sin, it is alone to be blamed and justly so, BUT as we see in a multitude of angels it certainly has NOT caused sin in their lives.

Here again we have the lives of even mere me, which God never once attributed sin to their lives, and at the end of their journeys here on earth they did not see physical death period according to Scripture. One was translated and the other flew away in a heavenly chariot.

Shall we just set aside or simply dismiss these clear problems of placing the blame on free will??? Whatever is to be blamed for sin is the sole cause of sin. To blame and then punish anything else for sin other than the actual 'cause of sin' is absolutely absurd, unjust, and wicked to the core.

This notion of Biblicist should never be allowed to stand as stated. Are we thinking or are we all asleep?:sleeping_2::sleeping_2::sleeping_2:

 

Another bombshell revealed by Biblicist was evident when he stated: Biblicist: The will cannot express anything EXTERNAL to himself.

If his philosophy, a notion straight out of the playbook of Calvinism, is correct as stated. sin would have to have been infused into Adam ANTECEDENT to the fall, which he says was in the form of freewill. A nature with freewill is a nature to sin.....or is it?? AGAIN, THE LIVES OF NO LESS THAT THREE MEN IN SCRIPTURE, PROVE THAT TO BE FALSE. No sin was attached to the lives of Enoch or Elijah or that most important man that ever walked the face of this planet, Jesus Christ Himself. Wonder no more why so many Calvinist writers refuse to accept the fact that Christ was a man infused with every natural ability of man, including but not limited to a free will. If free will is the CAUSE of sin and Christ possessed a free will, .........you surely understand the predicament this would place them in) So, do you see how these most basic errors run throughout a system of theology?

So if the remark of Biblicist is allowed by those reading this list, God alone is the cause of all sin, and all sin was infused into every being that sinned from the beginning by the infusion of free will into them. Not only that but other problems should be raised as well. Everything that exists is nothing more than the necessitated result of God Himself, for all creation was created by God, and God being at the cause of every endowment given to any of His creation He alone is the necessitated cause of every action period, freewill or otherwise, for according to Biblicist, THE WILL CANNOT EXPRESS ANYTHIN ETERNAL TO HIMSELF, and God is the sole Author of that which is within, sinful freewill included.

It does not stop there. God himself can be nothing more than a necessitated being, with absolutely no creative powers, for creativity is an absurd idea apart from a freewill. Everything in the universe becomes the direct results of nothing ather than absolute necessity. In the beginning was not God. In the beginning was necessity. That my friend is the end result of such necessitated notions as Biblicist presents to this list..... and yet all we hear is silence,. thus far. HMMMMMMMMMMM

Awake! thou that sleepest and God shall give thee sight!:thumbsup:

 

HP: No I did not miss your post or your point. IF what you say here is true, i.e. man is accountable, then you are in clear contradiction of the remark that says freewill is the CAUSE of sin. You cannot have it both ways. The will itself, the chooser of man, of necessity must be the cause of sin, NOT freewill. Freewill and the will itself, the chooser are NOT one in the same. Free will is a God given ability of the will to do something other than what it does under the very same set of circumstances. The possession of a free will allows the will to choose between two or more ends or it is not free. If freewill is the CAUSE of sin then freewill is a necessitated evil. Pick one or the other. You cannot place responsibility on man period if freewill is the cause. If man is the cause, ones God given will, endowed with freewill, freewill itself cannot be the seat and cause of sin. Do you understand the clear distinction between direct acts of the will and God given abilities or qualities granted by God infused into our will? Do you understand the clear distinction between matters that have influence upon the abilities of the will and actual products of the will, i.e. the choices the will makes? Do you understand the distinctions that lies between natural proclivities or inclinations upon the will and actual choices the will directly makes?

 

Here is a great point to ponder. How could a God with no free will, forced by necessity alone, (necessity being the only real god of the universe to some) create an ability (or should I say cause of sin) in His creation foreign to His own nature? How could have Jesus been tempted in all points as we are yet without sin?......

Oh NOW I know where the Calvinists get their theology of the nature of God and Christ, and it is NOT from Scripture. They conclude that neither had the possibility of sinning. It stems in part if not in whole, from none other than their false philosophy that freewill is the cause of sin. Then to make God free from sin and Christ free from sin, they have to conclude philosophically, NOT FROM ACTUAL SCRIPTURE, that neither God nor Christ possessed a free will. Biblicist has revealed far more than his personal ideas to the list.

If their philosophical notions are correct, in that Jesus had no ability to do anything other than what He did, He well may have been like untio His God Father, but He certainly did not take upon Himself the "nature of Abraham" as Scripture tells us He did. He certainly could not have been tempted as we are, neither would have the words needed to be penned, 'yet without sin,' for if sin was an impossibility, and neither He nor His Father God had a freewill, it does not take a rocket scientist to tell us why. Necessity would not have allowed either to have that possibility. Oh great god of necessity!

Somehow I do not see it a test of ones real character if no possibility exists to do anything other than what one does. That might well be the nature of a rock, but that is not the nature and character of a loving and Just God in the form of man. That might well be the nature of a fixed unanimated object, but certainly no love could emanate out of such a fixed object.

There is not one solitary moral notion that can be produced from a framework of necessity. When necessity rules, morality becomes completely and absolutely a chimera, in the life of God or sentient beings. any notion of something being blameworthy or praiseworthy takes flight, and punishments for doing that which necessity demands becomes a wicked absurdity.

 

HP: If you cannot see the complete contradiction that exists between your points above, I can only trust that the reader can begin to. I have very carefully addressed the clear contradictions, and if you cannot see them I will pray that God might reveal them to you.

It is for the very things that Biblicist has show to us here that Calvinism is indeed a maelstrom of confusion. Calvinism often says something good, like man is responsible for his intents, but then it absolutely denies that good remark when other theological and philosophically stated notions present all is necessitated by God. Biblicist says man is responsible, but then tells us freewill, not man, is the cause... then he says it is man. He consistently confuses the sensibilities of the will, the things that ply upon the will in the form of influences or inclinations, with the will itself. He tells us that God places the very cause of sin, i.e., freewill in us, and then tries to make man responsible.

Of a truth, the system of thought know the world over for hundreds of years as Calvinism, is fraught with confusion and flat out contradictions. It has clearly developed notions of philosophy just as Biblicist has shown set forth, and in error aligns their interpretation of Scripture to them.


Once again, it is NOT they do not say some things right at times. It is because they consistently say things in stark contradiction to the other things they have said. At its core lies a system of confusion and contradiction.

 

This discussion would naturally lead us to yet another false philosophically based notion, i.e., the federal headship of Adam notion. It becomes necessitated by the avoidance of the logical notion, that if Adam alone is responsible for sin, and that God holds man accountable for his sin, and that no one subsequent to Adam has even possessed a free will, some philosophical/theological explanation has to be concocted to somehow show God as Just for punishing all men subsequent to Adam.

The truth is that no such notion such as the false federal headship dogma, that all are necessitated sinners and that on the account of Adam's sin, will free them from the absurdity of holding men eternally accountable, and punished eternally, through no fault of their own.

But that is a discussion for another day on a different thread.

 

HP: BUT you refuse to support the notion that men today possess the same free will that Adam possessed, yet they ARE held accountable to God for their intents and subsequent actions without a free will according to you. Sorry but your explanation above falls to the ground DOA.

I have explained the other contradictions to this post elsewhere, so I will not repeat them here.

 

I have an idea for a new game. I would call it, "Where in the World is Bill Wald?"

If Bill would enter into these discussions more, maybe we would not have to write so many posts and be accused of attempting to write books!:smilewinkgrin:

Just kidding Bill, but feel free to comment. :thumbsup:

 

I have an apology to make. Somehow in this thread I failed to answer Gup's post. I am indeed sorry. It was nothing more than an oversight.

HP: Certainly it involves saving our own souls, but it is NOT limited to that as you well know. Spreading the good news of the gospel, charity giving, etc, are most important tasks of the Christian life.

HP: First, benevolence (good) and selfishness (Evil) are indeed competing influences upon the will, even upon the will of the heathen. I would agree that our desire for eternal life is indeed a very strong motivation for being believers. Shunning eternal torment and seeking eternal bliss is of no small influence. Living for Christ does in fact benefit us in everyway and is again, solid motivation for living for the Lord. Persecution, on the flip side, may well be indeed hard, but by faith we look even there for the rewards promised to those that overcome!

Once again, PLEASE forgive me for accidently ignoring your post.

 

Biblicist, Our agreements need to be stressed. I agree that Adam was born 'upright' and that such a state was not immutable. I agree that once Adam sinned it was, apart from the grace and mercy of God, in an immutable state of sin. The penalty of sin is eternal separation from God in a place the Scriptures call hell. Nothing Adam could have done by himself could have atoned for the least sin. I believe I can rightfully assume we are in agreement with these points. If not just say so.

Where are main differences start is the effects of sin upon Adam after the fall. You would claim that due to Adams sinful heart, all his posterity was necessitated to a state of sin and immutably so. (again apart from the mercy and grace of God)

If your theory is correct, Adam alone could be blamed for sin, which is not the case according to Scripture. Man is never represented as a mere product of his connection to Adam, but is everywhere in Scripture viewed as a rightful rebel against God. As Romans clearly states, "for all have sinned." It does not say because all were descendants of Adam.

If man was a sinner from birth, his will (his chooser) so corrupted by the fall that no other choice could be made but that to sin, justice would demand that they be pitied, but not punished for merely being born human. Even you at times recognized that to be held accountable man must have had a free will. Why does not the same logic apply for you or I if it applies to Adam?? Don't tell me Scriptures say so, for they do not. Because all in this dispensation have sinned, and Scripture states that clearly, is no sign that they are from birth born that way. We should be satisfied to accept the truth that all are sinners because "all have sinned" and never accept or develop theories that are at antipodes with reason and Scripture.

Now I would agree with you that once men enter the state of moral accountability and sin, just as was Adam's heart, it enters a state of immutable consequences, again apart from the grace and mercy of God. Without that 'new heart' created anew in us by the saving power of the Holy Spirit, no man shall see God.

The long and the short of it is this: If it took a free will in Adam to justify God in condemning him in his disobedience, the same applies to all men. As corrupted as our natural sensibilities are due to the fall via physical degeneration, the will, the chooser, has to remain free and be able to do something other than it does under the very same set of circumstances for blame to be justly predicated of its choices. If the will, i.e., the chooser itself, is corrupted to a point that no other choice can be made under the very same set of circumstances, it cannot be held morally accountable for its choices, due to the fact such an individual would not even be classified as a moral agent, therefore not subject to moral law.

Do you understand, or can your mind even comprehend at this time, the distinct difference that exists between the will itself and the sensibilities? Possibly we need to spend more time together on that point, without which we are just speaking past one another.

 

Here is a question for the list. How just would it be for a Judge to condemn you to prison for a crime committed by your great great grandfather that had died years before you were ever born? Could you consider such a judge as a ' just' Judge? Why??

PS: I want you to back up your answers with Scripural truth. None of them philosophical answers, you hear.:smilewinkgrin:

 

HP: First we have to decide what we mean by sin nature. I see the 'sin nature' as a proclivity to sin but NOT sin, neither does God judge us on account of it. Sin, according to James, does not take place until the will acts upon the sinful desire. Desire in and of itself, even if strong, is not necessarily sin. Sin always takes an act of the wuill, willfully in disobedience to a known commandment of God, known either intuitively or by instruction from Scripture etc.

Certainly lusts played into the sin of Adam, but again served as occasions to sin, as temptations to sin, not sin itself. Sin can only be conceived as the chooser, i.e., the will itself as clearly distinguished from the sensibilities, yields it decision in favor of violating a known commandment of God.

HP: Only if it stems from a purely selfish motivation. Love towards God always places animosity between the will and personal selfishness. Wanting our own benefit in some case is necessary to show love towards God and our fellow man. so I would say no, and it well can be built into us by God for self-preservation for instance, without which we are not able to help others.

HP: Loving God produces a self satisfaction, knowing that we are indeed doing the right thing for ourselves and all others around us. Certainly we should feel good about ourselves as we serve the needs of others. That is not purely selfish by any means.

 

HP: I know you are asking Biblicist, but here would be my take. I would agree.

HP: If we are born guilty (loss of original innocence) I personally would see no real difference between your statement and the ends of the comments of Biblicist.

Babies are born completely innocent. "Sin is the transgression of the law." Babies have not nor could they be guilty in the least of transgressing any law of God period. " For such is the kingdom of heaven."