So you believe that God is the Author of Sin? You must believe that as your assertion that laws do not just pop into existence and then your questions that follow leaves you no other option.
Why do you try to distract and misrepresent me, I do not believe death causes inability, I have already said that. Skan does not believe death causes inability either, we believe death is separation.
It is you that believes death causes inability. Skan and I do not believe this. Therefore we cannot possibly be blaming God for it.
As a matter of fact the Bible says of the origin of sin that it was "FOUND" in Lucifer.
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Here is the origin of sin in the universe. NOt created but "found in thee."
For once you have said something correct, sin originated from within Satan.
Second, the term "law" does not mean what you think it means in regard to sin. It does not refer to a "statute" as in a legal or moral sense. Neither does it mean a "law" in a creational sense as issuing from God as iniquity was "found" in Lucifer rather than created by God.
It means a "law' in the operational sense or the way something always responds in a given way. Sin always operates in a given manner - It always SEPARATES. Physically it always SEPARATES the material man from the immaterial man. Spiritually it always SEPARATES the imaterial Man from the immaterial God. Eternally it always SEPARATES the fallen man from God and a sinless creation.
Isa. 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
I understood exactly what you meant, you meant a law like Ohm's law where V=IR
Eph. 5:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
Therefore the "law" of sin is that it always separates and that is DEATH.
Now you are agreeing with Skan and I that death is separation.
Third, "inability" is inherent in this "law" of separation as it "always" operates in that manner, thus a "law" of separation.
You do not understand that it is this "law" of sin that demands total inability because the nature of sin is the INABILITY to UNITE because it by nature ALWAYS separates without any exception to that rule of operation. The Law of sin operating in the immateral part of man always SEPARATES the mind, heart and will from God. The "carnal" mindset is always at "ENMITY" or a STATE OF WAR with God - that is ANTAGONISTIC DIVISION rather than "peace" (unity). The carnal mind always "IS" (STATE OF BEING VERB) not subject to the revealed will of God - that is a state of ANTAGONISTIC RESISTANCE rather than submission (unity) and "neither indeed can be" because that is the way it ALWAYS operates as "law." Sin operates ALWAYS to separate man (irreversable inability to be brought into union) from God. The the total inability is how this law ALWAYS functions - it ALWAYS separates, divides and NEVER operates to UNITE. That is why it is called the "law" of sin as it never operates in any other manner and by nature demands total inability to operate in any other manner.
So your position must accuse God of sin because that is how you define "law" and your definition of "law" demands what God creates as a "law" does not just pop into existence by your definition. Your position must deny the very nature of sin which is INABILITY TO UNITE or IRREVESABLE SEPARATION. Man by nature is totally without the ability to unite with God due to the law of sin (separation).
The very words of Christ "no man CAN" demand universal inaiblity whether you like it or not.
The reason no man can come to Jesus unless he is drawn is because man is not born with the knowledge of Jesus. Paul shows this in Romans 10:14;
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Does Paul ask here how any man can believe in Jesus unless he is supernaturally regenerated? NO, and Paul never says that anywhere in all of scripture, you cannot possibly show it. You simply ASSUME that. No, Paul implies that man only needs to HEAR of Jesus to believe. That this is true is supported by his next question, "and how shall they HEAR without a preacher?"
Does Paul ask "and how shall they hear unless they be regenerated?" NO! Paul does not say, hint, or even imply that a man must be supernaturally regenerated in order to have this ability to hear the gospel and believe it. And if ever there was a place to state this, this verse and passage would be the perfect place to say so. Paul does not say a man must be regenerated here or anywhere else in the Bible to either hear or believe the gospel.
So, your "inability" is a man-made fiction not supported by scripture whatsoever.
Yes, Romans 8 says the carnal mind is enmity with God and not subject to the law of God, but it does not say this is the only state of mind that an unregenerate man is capable of. I showed you this from Barnes notes;
Barnes Notes said:
The carnal mind - This is the same expression as occurs in Rom 8:6 τὸ φρόνημα τὴς σαρκός to phronēma tēs sarkos. It does not mean the mind itself, the intellect, or the will; it does not suppose that the mind or soul is physically depraved, or opposed to God; but it means that the minding of the things of the flesh, giving to them supreme attention, is hostility against God; and involves the sinner in a controversy with him, and hence, leads to death and woe. This passage should not be alleged in proof that the soul is physically depraved, but merely that where there is a supreme regard to the flesh there is hostility to God. It does not directly prove the doctrine of universal depravity; but it proves only that where such attention exists to the corrupt desires of the soul, there is hostility to God. It is indeed implied that that supreme regard to the flesh exists everywhere by nature, but this is not expressly affirmed. For the object of the apostle here is not to teach the doctrine of depravity, but to show that where such depravity in fact exists, it involves the sinner in a fearful controversy with God.
Barnes was a Calvinist who believed in Total Inability, but he is honest here in saying this verse DOES NOT prove inability.
This is why I gave you the analogy that while you stare at a young girl in a bikini you cannot possibly please your wife, but this does not mean you are unable to look away and please your wife. Romans 8:7 is simply saying that while a man gives regard to a carnal mind, at this time he cannot possibly please God or be subject to his laws. But it is not teaching inability.
In addition, I showed you scripture that shows men are able to be spiritually minded.
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation:
the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
This was spoken of the disciples BEFORE they received the indwelling Holy Spirit. It is speaking of their natural spirit, the spirit of a man, and Jesus says they were willing in their spirit to be obedient, but their flesh was weak and caused them to fall asleep.
But once again, if you believe death causes inability (Skan and I do not believe this), then who or what made this "law of sin"?
Why don't you answer the question, are you afraid?
