The Nature of the Will

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.

 

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

 

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.)

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.

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.

 

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:

 

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:

 

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:

 

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???

 

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

Try again 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?

 

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

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.

 

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:

 

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.