What Makes a Will Free?

HP: Why would this be so strange, to make mention of how the sin of his mother had an effect on his life? Is it so strange that the sins of the parents, even in conceiving a child, might in fact have a direct impact on their children? I have raised several children, and come from a very large family. I have witnessed first hand the sins of parents repeated in their children. I have seen children unwisely use the sins of others to somehow justify in their own minds their own choices for their actions. Have you ever had a child throw up in your face a foolish mistake you made as a young parent or a teen, and utilize tha mistake a justification for an action of their own? Can one think of any direct Biblical evidence of how half brothers or sisters being thrown into the same home has lead to all sorts of conflict and sin in the lives of the children? Think real hard. If you have never have seen the effects of your past sins in the lives of your family or children, or never had them throw your pasts sins up in your face, count your blessings.

Of a truth, the sins of ones parents can and often do influence and have an effect on their children and the lives and decisions they make. If nothing else, think of the physical effects past sexual encounters have on the lives of offspring. David was clearly expressing some form of evil influence his mothers actions and past sins had on his life and his own willingnesss to sin in his prayer.

What is absolutely amazing to me is how some are so eager to use a prayer like this one of David’s to support an absolutely unscriptural Augustinian notion such as original sin. It is also amazing to me that one would take a verse like this, with David speaking in the first person, and extrapolate that into doctrine and say that it applies to the whole human race. Shall we take the words of David and his righteousness and the cleanliness of his hands and conclude that such is the case of the entire human race, and that from birth? I cannot imagine the error that one could find themselves in if we took every verse in Scripture such as the one in question and formulated dogma from them.

 

HP: How in the world does the idea that God is Eternal justify the conclusion that everything else is caused, contingent and finite? Why do you place limits on an Infinite God that Scripture or reason does not? Why cannot God, as He has done, create man to live eternally and allow man to be the cause of his own intents and subsequent actions? Why is it that those who tend to cry “God’s ways are higher than our ways” are sometime, the first to place limits on God and His creation? Why do you limit God's foreknowledge to that of finite man if in fact you believe in an Infinite God?

HP: For whatever is behind Psalm 51:5, one thing is for certain. Original sin is no where to be found lurking behind, under or in between the lines of this verse or any other. Where you will find the dogma of original sin is oozing out of the heathen philosophy of Augustine, who believed that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will, and out of the pens of those misguided by that philosophy as we see clear evidence of in the NIV.

 

HP: Augustine was a heathen philosopher before converting to Christianity. It was part and parcel to his heathen philosophical approach to sin, that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh. This teaching gave rise to putting the flesh through all sorts of contortions and abuses in order to somehow limit the effects and or occasion to sin. They did not understand that sin lies in the will itself, not in the flesh. Due to this misunderstanding of where sin lies, Augustine established the dogma we now see evident in the church of original sin.

Before Augustine there was no written dogma that in any way stated that sin lied in the constitution of man and is passed from generation to generation by natural generation as origianl sin implies. Augustine not only established the dogma of original sin, but mandated that all within the church accept his heathenistic ideas concerning sin and how it is passed on from generation to generation.

HP: Read the KJ and then read the NIV in the passage of Psalms 51:5. The KJ rightfully has David speaking of the sin of his mother, and the NIV contradicts Jewish thought completely when it changes the object from David’s mother to David himself saying ‘he,’ David, was a sinner from birth. The NIV completely contorts and misconstrues the language of the text to support the false Augustinian notion.

The truth of the matter is that the dogma of original sin is the cornerstone crucial to the whole Calvinistic system. Without this false cornerstone, the whole system of Augustinian/Calvinism falls flat to the ground. Knowing this full well, it is obvious that the translators of the NIV tried to help out their cornerstone dogma with the changing of the object of this verse so as to be seen in a far better light in support of their prized and necessary false dogma.

 

HP I am against what Scripture is against and that is placing the blame for sin on anything other than the sinners own formed intents. Every man is a sinner because “All have sinned.” It is that simple. Augustinian original sin, which indeed Calvin followed, makes sin out to be an inescapable contagion or disease. Sin, according to Scripture, is a willful act of disobedience to a known commandment of God.

I gave you the explanation already why all men sin according to Scripture, and there is no need to manufacture some false dogma such as original sin. Original sin is not even a Scriptural term period. All men sin because they chose selfishness as opposed to benevolence. They are first causes of their own intents. You would have to poll every man women and child to see why. Why is not important. Even Jesus did not know ‘why’ Jerusalem had rejected the truth, but they did. Being a first cause of our intents shrouds the motives with a sense of secrecy that mandates only God will be able to sort out all the whys. In the meantime, I will stick with Scripture and the words used by scripture, and reject the Augustinian notion of original sin which is not a Scriptural term or notion.

Can we agree with Scripture on the one thing that is important? All have sinned and come short of the glory of God and as such are in need of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

Quote:
HP: Can we agree with Scripture on the one thing that is important? All have sinned and come short of the glory of God and as such are in need of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

Amy: Yes, we agree on that. I was not arguing with you, just wanting to get your opinion.

HP: That’s precisely what is wrong. If you desire my opinion, you have to argue. This is a debate list.:laugh:

HP: Very good. That is precisely what I believe Scripture and reason inform us as the truth of the matter.

HP: I do not know what you mean by being alive spiritually. We are not born righteous or sinful. Those words speak of states that without a formed intent do not apply. We are certainly born with the capacity of sin or righteousness, but until the individual has reached the age of accountability, neither state is predicated of their intents. As physical descendants of Adams, we indeed inherit depraved physical propensities, and the timing of our physical death is much advanced over what it could have been if sin had not entered the picture. We spiritually die, as did Adam, fro the reason Scripture states that we do “For all have sinned.”

HP: Amy, no pickin allowed. Either argue or get off the sidewalk. :wavey: :laugh:

 

Rippon: I haven't read that much of this thread , but I was wondering how much of Romans 5:12-19 in particular has been consulted . Also , 1 Corinthians 15:21,22 has something to say on the matter .

HP: Give us your take

 

HP: When you are dealing with man as a first cause of his intents, there is no definitive answer, at least to be given as to ‘why’ a choice is made. Scripture clearly indicates that God alone can and will judge in finality the intents of the heart and all the ‘whys.’ Mystery enshrouds the whys. Why did Adam sin? Why did some of the angels sin? Drive yourself crazy with your answers, but in the end they will not satisfy an honest mind. Certainly you can blame it all on God as the Cause of everything subsequent to Himself, but that is a lame and wicked notion when it comes to sin.

It is enough to know that whatever is the ‘why,’ God blames and punishes man for his intents and therefore man is indeed a first cause of his moral intents and as such rightfully responsible for them.

This is not reasoning in a circle. It is allowing wisdom to guide us in our pursuit of answers, and knowing where our abilities to discern the ‘whys’ is beyond our finite abilities. All we need to understand is that we are indeed the cause of our intents and God will justly hold us responsible for them. Whatever the why’s may be, wisdom tells us that in the case of moral intents, they are not the mere product of force or coercion, but are the results of our freely made decisions. Punishment and rewards from a Just God should enlighten the intellect to that reality.

You may beat yourself with questions over why you did something till your blue in the face, but one thing stand firm. In the case of moral intents, remorse clearly indicates that no one or no force coerced you to choose what you did, but rather the mind clearly testifies via conscience that you could have done something other than what you did under the very same set of circumstances.

Moral maturity does not waste time over the whys, it simply accepts personal responsibility for ones moral intents. It understands that blame and praise is justly attached to our own selves for those intents and as such willingly accepts personal responsibility for them. Moral immaturity seeks to point their finger at someone or something else to pin the blame upon, but God says in the end that is a lesson in futility. Man himself, and no other or any other force, is to blame and as such will bear responsibility for them whatever the ‘why’ might be established as being in the end by God at the judgment.

 

Thanks Amy. We have a solid basis for a yet a greater understanding of truth to be established between us. Let me take the ideas we are discussing to another level.

Does one always act in the direction of the strongest desire? If this is true, the seat of morality lies in the desire, and desires are to be blamed or praised. Such thought suggests that the will sustains to the desire the relationship of a cause, for it said to be that in every case whatever one does it is done as a result of the impulses of the strongest desire.

Has anyone ever heard of ‘willpower?’ Does the word mean anything at all? Not according to the theory in question, for all the will can do is act in accordance to the strongest desire. It has no power to do anything a desire has not mandated and forced it to do. Under the system of thought in question, the will is under complete bondage to desire and can do nothing without a desire providing the impetus for the strength needs to move the will in one direction or another.

What is amazing to me is the questions some have asked concerning how one feels that believes that the will of man is free. The question is raised 'why' do you do what you do, as if though if one does not have a pat answer, their whole sytem of thought falls to the ground. What I would like to know is how does this theory, the theory that suggests that the will always acts according to the strongest desire, answer the question as to ‘why’ one does what he does? Cannot the same question be raised to the proponents of this theory? Tell me DanV or others that hold to such a theory, from whence cometh that desire and 'why does it come from there? Why does the will have to act in accordance to the strongest desire?

Regardless of how they would answer these questions, if the will can do nothing other than what the strongest desire necessitates, the will is under bondage and is not free. If the will is under bondage, it is under the law of necessity and as such it is absurd to blame or praise the will for intents which are the product of shear coercion or force. Again, the mere fact that God praises or blames man for his intents is sufficient proof to establish that the will is free and can do something other than what it does under the very same set of circumstance. Any notion of morality, with its corresponding punishments and rewards, under any system where coercion rules, is utter absurdity in light of any semblance of justice. Morality, with praise or blame predicated of ones intents, can only be established in a system that allows for honest freedom of the will in the formation of its formed intents.