What Makes a Will Free?

HP: Possibly this might aide in the shedding of light on the subject of bondage to sin.

Bondage to sin primarily speaks to relationship one sustains to the law and its corresponding penalties one establishes when one sins. It holds us bound fast to the penalty of the law. We cannot remove ourselves from that relationship to the penalty. We are glued to it, held fast, under bondage to sin again in relationship to its necessitated corresponding penalty.

That is why Galatians 5 speaks of us not being under the bondage of sin IF we walk in the Spirit doing the things we are commanded to do. If we fail to walk in the Spirit, and do the things God spells out in that chapter that are sinful and wrong, we once again fall into sins bondage, or bondage to sin and its penalty.

Salvation and bondage to sin is on somewhat the same order as receiving a pardon from a crime. The pardon frees one from the bondage to the law that holds us fast to the laws penalty, in relationship to specific crimes of the past. A pardon in no way speaks to future acts of disobedience nor does it give one a blanket pass for any future acts of disobedience. If one falls into the condemnation of the law through repeated disobedience, once again we will find ourselves under the bondage of the penalty of the law.

Salvation works much on the same order. When we are saved, we are forgiven of sins that are past and are freed from the bondage (the penalty that controls our destiny) of the law. When we sin as believers, we once again incur the penalty of the law as our hope and as such are under the bondage of sin and its penalty. As we seek renewed forgiveness, we once again are freed from the bondage we were in. That is why Galatians states that IF we walk in the Spirit, we are freed from its bondage. When we are obedient, the law has nothing to say to us and does not control our destiny. Obedience, through repentance and faith, leads to freedom and the end of bondage. Sin always lead to bondage, and always incurs the penalty of the law as ones hope apart from repentance, faith and continued obedience. There is no need as a believer to ever occur the relationship to sin that genders bondage to it an its penalty, IF we again, walk in the Spirit and do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

When one is driving down the highway going 65 in a 45 passing a policeman checking speeds, we come under bondage to the laws of the land. That does not mean that one can do nothing other than to hold the pedal to the metal, far from it. I bet instinctively one lets up off of the gas as soon as it is evident their speed is being checked. Still the same, they are under bondage to the law.

To be under bondage is not to be unable to do anything other than what one does under the same circumstances, but rather to be under bondage is to sustain to the law a relationship that forces upon us the necessitated consequences of the law.

In the case of sin, once we sin we sustain to the law a relationship that necessitates the certain hope of consequences upon us that remain in force until the conditions are met for forgiveness, i.e., repentance and faith.

 

HP: Now where did I say that? I indeed do believe that we inherit a tendency to sin, a proclivity to sin, that in some sense can be seen as a ‘nature to sin.’ That is a far cry from saying we are born with original sin, or that we are born sinners. Sin occurs when we, subsequent to the age of accountability, voluntarily will an intent that is in accordance to that tendency or proclivity to sin. Sin is not in the influence upon the will. It is not the proclivity or tendency that is sin. Sin is the product of the wills choice to form an intent in agreement with a selfish influence or proclivity.

HP: We are NOT born like Adam before the fall. We are born with depraved physical propensities that indeed serve as a great occasion or influence to sin. Sin has indeed had physical consequences that are passed on by physical means, and do serve as a mighty force influencing the will to selfish intents. Adam was born with perfect natural propensities. We clearly are not.

Now what about this choice issue? Can one be said to have a choice if in fact there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent?

 

HP: Could you define ‘objective good’ for the list?

HP: Who knows what you mean by ‘sinful state,’ seeing that many on this list do not believe that even we as believers leave such a state in this world. If you think that God sees all our righteousness as filthy rags in every sense you need to do a word study on the words righteousness. Possibly you need to set David straight about what he wrote. He said, “The Lord hath rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanliness of my hands he hath recompensed me.” Jesus said, “Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, ye shall in no wise inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

HP: I still am not clear as to what you are calling ‘objective good.’ Would repentance be an objective good? Jesus commands us to repent and reward us when we do. Repentance is clearly something we are called upon to do and God sees it as good, although it is clearly not the grounds of our salvation. Obedience God sees as good as well, but again is not the grounds of our salvation. We are not saved for the sake of the ‘good’ acts God calls upon us to do, but neither will we be saved apart from them. “Unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”

HP: ‘Wicked’ is a denotation of a man with a choice who voluntarily disobeys known commandments of God. If man cannot do anything other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances, he cannot be wicked, for born under such necessity morality cannot be predicated of his actions or intents whatsoever, He would simply be the victim of his circumstances, unable to do anything other than that which he was programmed or ordained to do by his Creator.

Have you ever tried to ‘draw’ a corpse? ( Get a mental image of one in a funeral parlor trying to ‘draw’ a corpse into a relationship. Not an easy task for certain.)

Did you at one time say that you do not represent a dead man as a corpse? How dead is one that is dead? What kind of a mental image does one that is ‘dead’ bring to your mind? Possibly a puppet? Dead, ie, unable to do anything other than coercion facilitates it to do, yet visibly antimated?

 

HP: I would admit clearly that in order to sin one has to make a choice of selfishness as opposed to benevolence. The part of ‘the things around him” I have no earthly idea what you are speaking of. Do you have a quote of mine in mind?

HP: Forgive me, but I have migrated nowhere on the issues we are discussing. You have not conversed with me sufficient to be a fair judge as to what I believe have you? That would be like me listening to a preacher preach one short sermon and then tell him that I know how he feels.

My positions on the state of man’s birth have not changed for years that I know of. Can you point to quotes from me that would show this “migration” you speak of?

HP: If you will notice carefully what I said, I said that “IN A SENSE” it could be equated to a sinful nature. When we look at the physical depravity we are born with, and understand clearly how it is an occasion or influence to selfishness, this physical depravity is indeed a corrupt nature, that again, in a sense could be said to be a sinful 'nature' in that it influences one greatly to sin. When I hear the word 'nature' it automatically directs my attention to the physical which is indeed born depraved with 'sinful tendencies' thus he term 'sinful nature' applies IN A SENSE.
Sin and sinful tendencies are not one I the same. One is a transgression of a known commandment of God, and the other an influence or proclivity to sin.

HP: Go doesn’t make any junk. God creates man in His image. Man possesses God-like abilities, in that man is created as a moral agent and a first cause of his intents. Everyman is born with a capacity to know God, and abilities (although yet to be developed into moral abilities) and intuitive knowledge that would safely guide his intents if one would but yield to them exclusively. God indeed has granted to man a conscience to guide him. The Holy Spirit utilizes this conscience to speak to man and to influence him to proper formation of intents and subsequent actions. What God creates is indeed good. Where sin comes into play and corruption, is when we choose to disobey conscience and God, and do despite His influences.
Scripture is clear, All men have gone astray and turned everyone to his own way. We have sinned as Scripture informs us “from our youth up.” Whether or not you believe that an influence from God within our conscience is ‘good’ or not is up to how you see good. I would see God’s intuitive influences within everyman as good, but not meritoriously good.

 

HP: And to think, some actually call that version a translation of Scripture.

 

HP: I do not believe it is. According to Alfred Edersheim, in “The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah” he clearly states that there was no place in Jewish theology connecting any notion believed by the Jews with the Augustinian developed dogma of original sin. Other well known writers have also said basically the same thing, noting that it is Augustine who is noted as the 'father of the doctrine of original sin.' The Jews simply did not believe in it. David being a Jew was no exception. The NIV is clearly tainted with bias unfounded by the Hebrew text. Should that surprise anyone?

The text speaks directly of David being ‘conceived in sin,’ obviously due to his mothers transgression. “In sin did my mother conceive me.” David was simply stating that even in the act of conception, due to his mothers sinful actions, sin was involved.

 

HP: Why would one expect anything other than that coming from that neck of the theological woods?