Problems for Baseless Theories

HP: I am not picking on BR here, but rather am using his comments because he is such a prolific writer his comments are easy to find.

BR claims that sinful man has a fallen nature that is "clammering to do evil” and that this fallen nature, i.e., original sin, eliminates free will, and implies that man in his sinful state is only able to sin and that continually. Sinful man has no choice in the sin, (for sinful man lacks the ability of choice) for again it is necessitated by his sinful nature. He sees only pure angels, Satan before the fall, and Adam in his created state as having a free will and actually being able to make a choice. BR suggests that choice (free will) is granted by Christ to man as part and parcel to hearing the gospel message.

To start off this thread, I will ask but one simple question to establish a point. Am I right in assuming that no one with a sinful nature i.e., original sin, has a free will as BR suggests?

 

HP: I would encourage others such as TrustitL has, to share with the list their differences from those set forth in the OP. Fire away. You say that you do not believe we are born with a sinful nature. Could you explain your views to us? Are we as men and women honestly created with a free will or is our will in bondage as many claim it is from birth?

 

HP: Sorry Ed. First, I was referring to Bob Ryan and the ideas he has set forth or at least they are my understanding of what he has said. I tried to quote him carefully so as to establish his views fairly.


Secondly, space will not permit in the title of a thread to always give the best idea as to what the object is of the thread. Glad to see you came to check it out and look forward to any input on the OP you might have. :thumbs:

 

HP: Where were you when I needed you most?

HP: I believe that is well stated. I might simply add that those dying bodies were filled to overflowing with temptations or influences to sin via the depraved sensibilities associated with that dying body.

Here is a question for you. In #2 you mention ‘wants.’ Being a bit more specific, are those wants in and of themselves sin? Where did Adam get his wants that obviously played a part in influencing his will to sin? How about Satan? Where did the temptation of pride come from?

HP: Is he acting against the will of God or simply according to his wants? Can one act against the will of God if in fact they have no knowledge whatsoever of God’s will? (I am thinking of infants or small children.) Can one transgress a commandment that they have absolutely no knowledge of it? Apart from salvation, can one transgress against God without incurring the penalty for sin? Can one said to under the law yet be entirely devoid of its demands?

HP: The issue of God not imputing sin to one is interesting. Sin is a judgment of God upon certain actions that incur a penalty, God’s law is a rule of action with sanctions. The passage you refer to states that where no law is sin is not imputed. If sin is not imputed, no law has been broken. If God’s law had been broken sin would have been imputed. To impute is simply to charge one with the penalty. It would seem to me that if sin is NOT imputed, no actual sin has taken place although the action might be, in light of God’s law, selfish and heinous.

God is no respecter of persons. Every act of sin will receive a just recompense of reward unless one has repented and it is under the blood, will it not?

HP: The question is, if Adam had not been told about the tree, would it have been sin for him to eat of it?

 

HP: Are there any that might take a shot at this question? I would say that if no free will exists, neither can sin.

I believe it can be shown that if one takes the position that sin cost man his free will and that free will is only possible in the lives of the sinless, and that God grants to all free will when all are given the gospel message and granted the abilities to respond one is setting up a false notion that is chocked full of problematic questions and notions.

How about it Bob Ryan and any or all others that care to respond? BR, do you care to defend your remarks? Are there any others that would desire to weigh in and give us your opinions?

 

HP: I see no meaningful difference in what you are saying and original sin. Both arrive at the very same conclusion, i.e., that man is a sinner by necessity, am I not correct?
I do have a correction. I do NOT believe that man is born with a sinful nature nor could he be. He is born physically depraved with the results being naturally depraved sensibilities. That is in no wise properly denoted as sin or sinful nature.

HP: I agree with the exception of the ‘sinful nature’ wording.

HP: You do make the case that all have no choice or free will to do anything other than sin antecedent to this drawing, do you not?

HP: Now you are trying to have it both ways. You hint at some free will but deny it until subsequent to the drawing by God. Which is it? Either a man has a free will or he does not. Because one does not choose to do something that he knows nothing about does not have an effect upon his will being free or not. So I ask you again. Is the will free or is it not antecedent to any drawing or subsequent to being drawn but having rejected the offer?

HP: Scripture states that “If I be lifted up I will draw all men to myself.” If they hear, God has promised to draw, and one cannot be drawn without hearing. There is no separation between hearing the gospel and being drawn to it that can see.

HP: I asked the question in a precise manner. You suggest another question. Address the question I asked and ask me your question if you so desire.

 

HP: I believe that is a great response. I am in complete agreement with this as I understand you. :thumbs:

HP: Again, a great response that I am in agreement with. :thumbs:

HP: You are batting 1000! :thumbs: Exactly. Children at a young age are responding to punishments or rewards, not the intrinsic value of the commands. Only when they are able, APART from punishments or rewards, to understand the intrinsic nature of what they have done right or wrong are they morally accountable. We often term this age as the age of accountability.

HP: We have much to discuss on this point. I as well am going to be pressed for time this week. If we both have patience we will get around to points that are interesting to both of us. I am looking forward to discussing many more issues with you. We have a good platform of agreement to build upon. I hope you see it the same.

HP: For now I will just say that is far from ignorance in my opinion. The same could be said for Adam and Eve's sin in a sense.

Have a great date!

 

HP: If you desire to convince me that I am mischaracterizing or misunderstanding your position, you are going to have to try harder not to add fodder to my case. Here you are exhibiting a lack of understanding as to what constitutes moral characteristics as opposed to physical characteristics that serve as mere ‘influences’ upon the will. You term that depraved nature or that proclivity to sin a “depraved moral” sensitivity. If it is ‘moral’ it has blame or praise rightfully attached to it. You fail to distinguish between that which is a tendency or proclivity to sin which part the sensibilities play in inducing temptation, with the will or the chooser itself. Morality is NOT predicated of the influences of the sensibility. Morality can only be predicated of the intents formed by the will itself. The sensibilites produce influences to sin upon the will but it is the will itself that forms intents that are properly denoted as being moral in nature. One is an influence to sin and the other is a choice to sin. You consistently confuse the sensibilities with the will itself.

If one is depraved ‘morally’ that is indeed sin. If one is born morally depraved he is indeed born in sin, born with original sin, and as such is under nothing other than necessity. You cannot have a will that is free that is born in a state that it cannot do anything other than it does or you eliminate choice and in doing so you make morality a matter of necessity which destroys the whole meaning of morals. You are spelling out to a tee the position of the doctrine of original sin, yet you desire evidently to distance yourself from it. If you do not desire to be told you believe in original sin, and that man is created under a compulsion to sin and thereby eliminating choice and free will altogether, you are going to have to reword your definition of what you call a sinful nature with words other than to denote it as a depraved ‘moral’ sensitivity. You can have all sorts of selfish influences upon the will that serve as influences upon the will to make moral decisions, but the influences themselves are simply influences, and are not properly denaoted as being 'moral.'

Morality is predicated only of the formed intents of the will NOT the influences upon it. Influences from the sensibilities do not make moral decisions, they serve as influences upon the will to make moral decisions. The will itself, not the influences upon it, is seat of all morality. It is where all moral decisions take place.

It is clear from your stated position that indeed you eliminate all power of contrary choice and free will when you make the will serving sin and as such sinful, as denoted by your denoting of being morally depraved from birth before the will ever makes its first choice. That is why I asked you a simple straight forward question that you have still failed to respond to. Let me ask it once more in some slightly different ways. Am I right in assuming that no one with a sinful nature i.e., original sin, has a free will as BR clearly implies by denoting the state we are born in as being “morally depraved?” Do you deny that man has a free will to choose something other than it does under the very same set of circumstances? Is it born in such a condition that the intents formed by the will are determined by the necessitating influence of its morally depraved nature you say it is born with?

 

HP: What you are doing is reading into the text the notion of a sinful nature from birth as a presupposition you approach the text by. Certainly as one comes to the age of accountability one starts formulating habits of sin which indeed do form what can be denoted as a sinful nature. There is not the least shred of evidence that anything prior to the age of accountability is denoted as sin or a sinful nature.

The word ‘nature’ does not necessarily denote something from birth. One may be said to have a nature to do many things that cannot be directly attached to an inherited state. That especially goes for a state of sin that implies guilt which cannot be predicated without a choice on the part of the individual themselves, and that subsequent to the age of accountability.

 

HP: Neither does it say anything about a ‘sinful nature’ and associated guilt inherited from Adam, or anything about God creating the souls of man sinful and then holding them accountable for failing to overcome necessity.

It may be time to look carefully at other revelations from God to man, starting with God granted intuitive wisdom and knowledge concerning matters concerning justice, guilt and accountability.

Why are you having such a hard time answering my direct questions to you? This is a debate list. How is your position seen as viable when you refuse as you have to answer simple straight forward questions?