The Nature of the Will

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

QF: I am on the same page as to the "reductio ad infinitum" with regard to "cause" of evil. There are however, some reformers on this board (and elsewhere) who will go the extra step and with honestly claim God is the cause. (proximate cause I think is the description).

What say you as to the "intent"?

HP: Moral agents are the creator of their moral intents. They are the first cause of their moral intents and sin. No cause lies beyond ones own will.

If there was a first cause outside of ones own will, whatever it would be would be the cause of sin and therefore the only just object of condemnation. God is Just. God condemns man for his sin and places just blame squarely on our shoulders. That is the only proof we should ever need to seek, i.e., we are indeed the creators and first cause of our moral intents and subsequent action. The buck starts and ends within the will of man and within the will of all other sentient moral beings.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: I made a distinct difference between God and unfallen Adam and God and fallen Adam. Only God and fallen Adam had immutable natures. So the principle of only can act according to immutable nature only applies to God and fallen man or fallen angels.

HP: And what philosophy book did you glean those notions from? It certainly was not something found in Scripture. I have pointed out the clear error in such philosophical notions already so there is no need for me to spell it out again at this time anyway. Post#52 explained the clear error in your position

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: And what philosophy book did you glean those notions from? It certainly was not something found in Scripture. I have pointed out the clear error in such philosophical notions already so there is no need for me to spell it out again at this time anyway. Post#52 explained the clear error in your position

First, you present my position wrongly in Post #52, thus build a straw man and then burn it.

Second, when I correct your faulty presentation of my position in Post #52, you simple change the subject to the issue of where I got it from INSTEAD of dealing with it! Why? Because it messes up your straw man arguments.

Post#52 is the very post that built a straw man argument based upon absolute perversion of my position which I am correcting again in this post. Hence, you have now resorted to circular reasoning. You are now arguing your misrepresentation of my position in post #52 is the proper representation of my position!!! Pleeeeeeese, be honest. Post#52 perverted my position and if you want to deal with my position than correct your argument and fairly present what I really do believe.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
Let me remind the listener why I ask about the angels. It has been the philosophically held notion by Biblicist that God can only act according to his Self. He then postulates that because God can only act according to the dictates of self, fallen man can only act according to the dictates of his self as well, necessitating every intent or act of man as sinful. He ties Adams sin to his posterity, claiming that due to Adams' fallen nature, we inherit that nature and are sinners from birth. He also believes that the reason all sin is directly due to their nature, and necessitated so. (shown in the resent posts above.)

Biblicist: Wrong again! I made a distinct difference between God and unfallen Adam and God and fallen Adam. Only God and fallen Adam had immutable natures.

HP: I know full well you did differentiated between God and unfallen Adam. My post took that into clear account. In doing so you had to deny Adam had a self, a nature of some kind to dictate his intents and actions. You neither made him sinful or holy, but rather spoke of him prior to the fall in some form of limbo, as if though he never made one moral choice prior to the fall and did not possess a holy 'self' that should have dictated his intents and subsequent actions even as you say God's self dictates his. That position is sheer convenient philosophic gerrymandering. There is every indication Adam indeed was holy before the fall, pure as the driven snow. He walked with God.

My point is that every indication is that Adam was pure and holy, with a 'self' pure and holy up until the fall. The same applies to the angels that you still either cannot see directly contradicts your theory on how and why God acts as He does, or you willingly are ignorant of the ramifications and logical ends of your stated positions.

Biblicist: So the principle of only can act according to immutable nature only applies to God and fallen man or fallen angels.

HP: There is not a shred of evidence to back this philosophical notion up other than it is so because Biblicist says it is so. He cannot set forth one solitary Scripture, produce one principle guided by first truths of reason, immutable truths of justice, or logical evidence. Nothing other than his word that says it is so. Well, I for one believe your theory is completely false and without merit. I have used clear logical reasoning to show why. Don't tell me I am not being honest or suggest that I am not being honest for I have been. If you feel I am incorrect, try some clear logic, something other than 'Biblicist says it is so,' to refute the points I am making.

1. Prove the angels did not have a completely holy 'self' prior to their fall.
2. Prove Adam did not have a pure and holy 'self', NOT just some neutral selfless inner being prior to the fall.
3. Prove that because your theorize concerning Gods Nature or Self, that somehow your theory is the end to all questions on God's self and how it may or may not affect the 'self' of others.
4. If you desire to say that God has no free will, tell us in whose image Adam was created? How does a God, that you say has no free will, create one for Adam?

Of a truth, If God is a Moral Being, He indeed has a free will, for without the possibility of contrary choice existing, morality is a chimera and God is not Sovereign. The next thing you will tell us most likely is that Christ did not have a free will either. So much for being a man or being tempted in all points as we are.

 

[The Biblicist]

It has been the philosophically held notion by Biblicist that God can only act according to his Self.

This is not a true representation of my position either. God is IMMUTABLE and that is why He cannot act contrary to Himself. Can this be proven by scriptures! Yes it can (Mal. 3:6). In regard to the Divine Will it is his IMMUTABLE RIGHTEOUS HEART that makes it impossible for him to be tempted to sin or to CHOOSE SIN.

The fall of man produced an IMMUTABLE state of his heart confirmed in sin. Can this be proven by scriptures? Yes it can:

"There is NONE GOOD but one and that is God" - Mt 19:17

"There is NONE RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE....There is NONE THAT DOETH GOOD, NO, NOT ONE....." - Rom. 3:10-11

"The carnal mind is at ENMITY WITH GOD and NOT SUBJECT to the law of God and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE.8 So then they that are in the flesh CANNOT please God.
" - Rom. 8:7-8

Jer 13:23 CAN the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Mt 12:34 O generation of vipers, HOW CAN ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

1Co 2:14 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.

Mt 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, NEITHER CAN a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

I simply provided ONE scripture to demonstrate the IMMUTABLE HEART of God and no one will probably challenge that one scripture, but in regard to the IMMUTABLE EVIL HEART of man I have provided SEVEN clear and explicit scriptures that directly speak to his moral ability and could have provided a dozen more and yet you will attempt to deny all of them.

HP: I know full well you did differentiated between God and unfallen Adam. My post took that into clear account.

No it did not! You totally misrepresented my position.

In doing so you had to deny Adam had a self, a nature of some kind to dictate his intents and actions. You neither made him sinful or holy, but rather spoke of him prior to the fall in some form of limbo, as if though he never made one moral choice prior to the fall and did not possess a holy 'self' that should have dictated his intents and subsequent actions even as you say God's self dictates his. That position is sheer convenient philosophic gerrymandering. There is every indication Adam indeed was holy before the fall, pure as the driven snow. He walked with God.

What you fail to recognize is that it is obvious that the heart of Adam was not immutably righteous like God or else he could not be tempted to sin like God or incapable of choosing evil like God.

What you fail to recognize is that it is obvious that the heart of Adam was not immutably evil like post-fallen man described in the seven verses above or else there would have been no need to test his moral ability to choose right from wrong in the first place.

Finally, Adam in his prefallen state KNEW NO SIN experientially. That is precisely why one tree is called the tree of "the knowledge of good and evil." There was no evil existent in Adam's experience because the only possible way evil could enter into his experience would be by temptation to partake of that tree as it was the only possible avenue for sin to enter into the experience of Adam. Hence, EVERYTHING else he could possibly do provided NO POSSIBLE ENTRANCE or EXPERIENCE for evil.

Therefore no matter how long he lived or what he did in the Garden BESIDES THAT ONE THING was not evil and could not possibly provide any avenue for the entrance of evil.

So Adam and Eve's will could not possibly be tempted to sin by ANYTHING other than this one single solitary avenue for the entrance of sin and thus the experience of sin. So EVERYTHING else provided no possibility for them to sin.

Hence, they were in a state INCAPABLE of knowing sin by ANYTHING other than that one single solitary avenue.

This particular STATE of existence many call INNOCENSE because there was no possibility for Adam or Eve to EXPERIENTIALLY KNOW sin by any other decision of the will other than temptation to eat of that one single solitary tree.

Therefore, their hearts were not IMMUTABLY righteous or unrighteous and there were no other opportunity to choose good or evil apart from this single solitary avenue. Thus SIN was EXTERNAL to their heart and the only possible way it could gain entrance into the heart was by EXTERNAL temptation.

This EXTERNAL approach to their heart must provide some intellectual/emotional stimuli/appeal to choose evil instead of resisting it. John describes the form of intellectual/emotional stimula/appeal in these words:

1 Jn. 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

In regard to Eve we saw exactly how "lust" was brought about in her heart through what she "saw" (lust of the eyes) and what she desired "the pride of life" to make herself wise. However, the scriptures says she was DECEIVED and therefore made her appeal to Adam who was not DECEIVED but sinned willfully.

Hence, if Adam was not DECEIVED, then he did not fall for Satan's line of approach and realized exactly this would be open rebellion against God but some other form of temptation prompted him to "lust" after the fruit to sin intentionally and willfully. Of course I believe that temptation had nothing to do with what Satan said or offered but was the choice between loosing Eve versus God.

Nevertheless, this moral choice made only possible by this one single solitary avenue provided by the tree of knowledge of good and evil gave permission for indwelling sin in the heart of man or the fall from his state of innocense to experiental knowledge of sin by choice.

Hence by ONE MAN's OFFENCE all were condemned unto death and made sinners by nature - immutable unrighteousness in heart.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: The fall of man produced an IMMUTABLE state of his heart confirmed in sin. Can this be proven by scriptures? Yes it can:

"There is NONE GOOD but one and that is God" - Mt 19:17

HP: Demonstrating that a text in Scripture proves the point you are making takes something more than Biblicist stating it makes his point. You throw out texts like candy to children, and when I carefully and thoughtfully respond to them, showing that in no way they prove your point, you just respond in silence. So much for meaningful debate.

Responding to texts that Biblicist points out is somewhat meaningless, for when one is bent on approaching Scripture as he is from a presupposition of original sin, logic and reason fail to even begin to cause him to consider his conclusions. Oh well. This is not just about Biblicist but rather the truth. For the sake of truth alone and for those willing to reason I will respond.

I certainly do not deny, nor do I know any serious student of Scripture that would deny, that once one sins that such a heart is in an immutable state of sin. We all agree with that. But, that is NOT what Biblicist is claiming the above text proves. He tries to tell us that this Scripture makes his point that all are in an immutable state of sin because 'the fall of man' made all men thus.

Let me ask every reader on this list. Be perfectly honest in your response. Does this verse state, imply, or provide evidence for the point that Biblicist makes, i.e., that this verse supports the notion that because of the sin of Adam, that the hearts of all men from birth are in a state of immutable sin???

Do not fear Biblicist, my remarks will not be limited, nor have they been limited, to just this one passage. In time we can look at every single one you set forth, one at a time for clarity. :thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Demonstrating that a text in Scripture proves the point you are making takes something more than Biblicist stating it makes his point. You throw out texts like candy to children, and when I carefully and thoughtfully respond to them, showing that in no way they prove your point, you just respond in silence. So much for meaningful debate.

Oh! For example?

Responding to texts that Biblicist points out is somewhat meaningless, for when one is bent on approaching Scripture as he is from a presupposition of original sin, logic and reason fail to even begin to cause him to consider his conclusions. Oh well. This is not just about Biblicist but rather the truth. For the sake of truth alone and for those willing to reason I will respond.

Circular reasoning! You make the presumptive assumption no such doctrine exists and then conclude no such texts demonstrate it exists and thus dismiss all the scriptural evidence as "somewhat meaningless."

I certainly do not deny, nor do I know any serious student of Scripture that would deny, that once one sins that such a heart is in an immutable state of sin. We all agree with that.

Here is plain admission that my comparison between God and fallen Adam is correct. Once Adam sinned such a immutable state was entered into. So don't bloviate over this comparison any more.

So, the only other problem to address is the unfallen state and transmission of the sin nature to his posterity.

Let me ask every reader on this list. Be perfectly honest in your response. Does this verse state, imply, or provide evidence for the point that Biblicist makes, i.e., that this verse supports the notion that because of the sin of Adam, that the hearts of all men from birth are in a state of immutable sin???

Paul uses the terms "IS" and "DOETH" in regard to righteousness. The first is descriptive what man IS by nature whereas the second is descriptive of what that sinful nature produces "doeth."

Jesus teaches the same truth by the evil versus good tree analogy. Jesus says that good trees cannot bring forth evil fruit but this is exactly what HP demands of all humans born into this world. He believes they come into the world "good" and then bring forth evil fruit. The tree must first be made good [regeneration -"created in true holiness and righteousness" "created unto good works"] before it can bring forth good fruit.

Psalms 51 and 58 declare that all humans are born with sinful natures as they come into this world already disposed to do evil. NNE MUST TRAIN CHILDREN TO DO EVIL - they must be trained to do good.

HP cannot be corrected because he has no inward ability to receive the truth and that should be self-evident (Mt. 13:10-11). Hence, he will continue to bloviate hot air, misrepresent what I say and what the scriptures most clearly teach.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Biblicist: The fall of man produced an IMMUTABLE state of his heart confirmed in sin. Can this be proven by scriptures? Yes it can:

"There is NONE GOOD but one and that is God" - Mt 19:17

HP: I did not believe Biblicist had it in him to simply look and examine the proof text itself that he set forth. His last post proves my intuition was indeed just. He simply resorts to throwing more dust in the air to hide the truth that he is assuming from the text, by way of the presupposition of original sin, that which is not in the text itself.

Let me ask every other reader on this list one more time. Be perfectly honest in your response. Does this verse above posted by Biblicist, state, imply, or provide evidence for the point that Biblicist makes, i.e., that this verse supports the notion that because of the sin of Adam, that the hearts of all men from birth are in a state of immutable sin???

We will move to his next 'proof text' when we examine the first one carefully.:thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Psalms 51 and 58 declare that all humans are born with sinful natures as they come into this world already disposed to do evil. NNE MUST TRAIN CHILDREN TO DO EVIL - they must be trained to do good.

HP: Neither of these passages do any such thing. I will get to them as well if we can FIRST focus on the first one you posted. FOCUS Biblicist!:thumbsup: Focus! :thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: I did not believe Biblicist had it in him to simply look and examine the proof text itself that he set forth. His last post proves my intuition was indeed just. He simply resorts to throwing more dust in the air to hide the truth that he is assuming from the text, by way of the presupposition of original sin, that which is not in the text itself.

Let me ask every other reader on this list one more time. Be perfectly honest in your response. Does this verse above posted by Biblicist, state, imply, or provide evidence for the point that Biblicist makes, i.e., that this verse supports the notion that because of the sin of Adam, that the hearts of all men from birth are in a state of immutable sin???

We will move to his next 'proof text' when we examine the first one carefully.:thumbsup:

The issue here is ability to do good (agathos). The young man came on the premise that he IS equally good as Christ by declaring he can DO something intrinsically "good" to obtain eternal life. This is precisely why Jesus addressed his concept of "good." When Jesus said there "IS" none good but God He is addressing what man "is" versus what God "is" instrinscally by nature. The term "good" or the Greek "agathos" refers to what is good INTRINSICALLY.

Again, the same truth is conveyed by Christ in the analogy of the tree. Only a tree that is by NATURE good can produced a "good" product. Likewise, a tree that is instrinscially evil by nature cannot produce a "good" product.

Here again, is HP's problem. He has human beings being born into the world capable of producing "good" when in fact, babies need no training to naturally do evil. Instead they need to be trained to do good.

Why? Because they are not "good" by nature when born or else their natural products would be "good." However, Jesus said a "bad" tree cannot bring forth "good" fruit and that is extremely apparent to anyone who has had children.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Neither of these passages do any such thing. I will get to them as well if we can FIRST focus on the first one you posted. FOCUS Biblicist!:thumbsup: Focus! :thumbsup:

They most certainly do. David teaches the inborn depravity of humans from birth both LITERALLY and SYMOBLICALLY in these passages.

Again, the general concept is taught by Christ concerning two types of trees. A Tree cannot produce what is contrary to its nature. If infants came into this world "good" they would not be producing evil but that is what they do WITHOUT TRAINING all by NATURE!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist, for Petes sake, quit jumping all over the Scriptures and start examining the truth of the first one you mentioned above. Why is that, seemingly to you, so much to ask???

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, for Petes sake, quit jumping all over the Scriptures and start examining the truth of the first one you mentioned above. Why is that, seemingly to you, so much to ask???

Don't you read any more? I posted two posts not one and in the first post I dealt with the first text - Matthew 19????? Just take a look.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Some posts are like excuses, they only satify the ones that make them. :thumbsup:

Try again Biblicist.

 

[The Biblicist]

Some posts are like excuses, they only satify the ones that make them. :thumbsup:

Try again Biblicist.

Post#70 is my response to the first text you introduced - Mt. 19:17 - read it! No response by you as yet!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: The issue here is ability to do good (agathos). The young man came on the premise that he IS equally good as Christ by declaring he can DO something intrinsically "good" to obtain eternal life.

HP: That is a novel notion indeed, one that is not born out by the text itself or any authority that I have read. Help us out. Where is your proof of that assertion?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Let the reader be reminded of Biblicist's assertion concerning this text.

Biblicist: The fall of man produced an IMMUTABLE state of his heart confirmed in sin. Can this be proven by scriptures? Yes it can:

"There is NONE GOOD but one and that is God" - Mt 19:17

HP: What we are looking for is how this verse states or implies a fallen nature from birth, confirmed in sin as dictated by ones evil self. We want clear evidence that Adam's sin produced this "immutable" sinful state of the heart universally in all men, from this text no less.

This execise in futility should turn out to be as fun as trying to ride a dead horse.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Would you like to just strike this verse as a proof text for your theory, so we can move on to one that might be better suit your philosophy? :thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: There is NONE RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE....There is NONE THAT DOETH GOOD, NO, NOT ONE....." - Rom. 3:10-11

Here was the second Scripture on Biblicist's list of 'proof texts' that he claims supports the notion that all humans subsequent to Adam are born into this world with an immutable sin nature, or that all are born sinners. Does this verse in reality do any such thing? I say it does not and for good reasons.

Because the Scriptures state that none are righteous, can we justly affirm that all, and that from birth, are unrighteous? That is a completely erroneous conclusion, based on nothing other than the unproven presupposition of original sin that he applies to every verse he lists.

First, infants are not even moral agents, and are neither righteous nor unrighteous. They are incapable of moral choice or intention and as such are neither judged sinners or righteous. Jesus said, "For such is the kingdom of heaven"

So, to declare that there is none righteous does NOT necessitate, as Biblicist falsely assumes, that all are indeed unrighteous from birth, nor do the Scriptures ever present infants as sinners period.

I could boldly assert that there is not one infant born righteous. Would that be proof I believe that one is unrighteous or that I believe that all are born sinners? Hardly. Again, the only way you can arrive at Augustinian original sin from reading this passage is to insert it via an inserted presupposition unsupported by the text itself.

Clearly all that can be safely and reasonably assumed by the text itself minus all presuppositions, is that all that have came to the age of accountability in the time period this was written in, have sinned and came short of the glory of God. It speaks nothing concerning any sinful nature from birth nor does it state, imply, or allude to an inherited sin nature from Adam that births all into this world as sinners.

Sorry Biblicist, this text strikes out for you as well.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: That is a novel notion indeed, one that is not born out by the text itself or any authority that I have read. Help us out. Where is your proof of that assertion?

The young man was asking what he could do to obtain eternal life was he not???

Why then did Jesus immediately take up the issue of "why callest thou me good"???

Give me a contextual based reason for that question! I won't depart from this context to answer that question completely. However, let's see how good of an exegete you really are.