WHOSOEVER believes

Where in the Bible does it say that he does not have sinful inclinations simply because he was created upright and innocent ?</font>[/QUOTE]OK, if he had sinful inclinations, where did he get them? When did he first get such inclinations and how? Did God make him that way?

Where did I say that God didn't know? It's not a question whether God knew Adam inside out or not. Of course, He did. But again, where did the inclinations come from and at what point? Did God knowingly create Adam with sinful inclinations from the beginning, or did God know that Adam though created upright would make a free choice to sin?

You first.

Such as choosing when a baby is born out of wedlock whether to abort it or keep it? As if all unregenerate choose the former, right? Wrong. One option is right and the other is wrong and many, many times even the ungenerate make the right decision.

Or choosing whether to abuse one's children or show them love? I suppose the unregenerate will always choose to the former rather than the latter, right? Wrong again. Even Christ acknowledged that unregenerate people could do good at times: "If you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children...".(Luke 11:13)

Or consider this from Paul:"For when Gentiles who do not have the law, by nature (gasp!) do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them." (Romans 2:13-14)

So we see that the law has been graciously written in the hearts of even the unregenerate, and that they actually do what is right at times--ie, obey the "law". This being the case, why is it too hard to grasp that the same ungenerate can humbly respond to the Gospel when the Holy Spirit convicts them of the Truth and draws them to Christ?

 

Well, let's examine this, shall we?

If the "child of God" (the one who is "truly born again") has the true options because he has two natures within him, why does one choose to yield to his new nature over the old nature? What "inclines" him to choose to follow his spiritual inclinations over his fleshly inclinations? What do we call this third "inclination" that decides between the inclinations of the competing natures?

Why, if "children of God" share the same in-born sinful nature and are yet equally regenerated, do we see one further along in his Christian maturity than another? What is it about the more godly Christian that's different than the less godly one if they both have the same sinful and regenerate natures?

For that matter, if the regenerated one has the true options, why can't he opt not to have faith at all (since regeneration is supposed to precede faith)?

One wonders...

 

DT, I take it that from this point on, you are aware that we are discussing children of God against children of disobedience ? And that the topic has shifted from eternal salvation to blessings on this earth ?

Otherwise, we may just be barking at each other for the wrong reasons.

 

Brother Doubting Thomas:


YOU: Or consider this from Paul:"For when Gentiles who do not have the law, by nature (gasp!) do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them." (Romans 2:13-14)

So we see that the law has been graciously written in the hearts of even the unregenerate, and that they actually do what is right at times--ie, obey the "law". This being the case, why is it too hard to grasp that the same ungenerate can humbly respond to the Gospel when the Holy Spirit convicts them of the Truth and draws them to Christ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME (BROTHER JOE): Your misinterpreting Romans 2 by claiming those gentiles are unregenerated. The gentiles spoken of their have already been regenerated. This is from a post of mine regarding Romans 2 and proving my assertion...please read it:


Firstly, we must conclude that Romans 2 has to be talking about gentiles that already HAVE been regenerated. Why? Because Paul concludes the chapter by stating of the gentiles that he was talking about earlier in that chapter,
"26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
*************29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."*********(Romans 2:26-29)

Further, not only have these gentiles been regenerated, but I will go further and assert that this chapter teaches that these regenerated gentiles have never yet heard the written word of the gospel! Why do I say this shocking statement?Simple, let us again look at the chapter:

"11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (FOR NOT THE HEARERS OF THE LAW are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
***************14 For when the Gentiles, WHICH HAVE NOT THE LAW, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, HAVING NOT THE LAW, are a law unto themselves:*************
15 Which shew the work of the LAW WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" (Romans 2:11-15)

These gentiles while not possessing the written word or law of God, HAVE the law of God written in their heart as a result of having been regenerated by the sovereign grace work of the Holy Spirit. They not only have it, they keep it that passage states! This chapter may go along with another passage in my opinion,

"10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; *********I WILL PUT MY LAW INTO THEIR MINDS, AND WRITE THEM IN THEIR HEARTS: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
******11 AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERY MAN HIS NEIGHBOR, and every man his brother, SAYING,KNOW THE LORD: FOR ALL SHALL KNOW ME, from the least to the greatest." (Hebrews 8:10-11)

NOTHING in the Romans 2 warrants one to conclude that these gentiles have not been regenerated children of God. If im wrong, I ask someone to show me the verse in the chapter.


Brother Joe

 

Brother Doubting Thomas,

This is what causes us to obey God's command and this alone- it is a result of the Holy Spirit regenerating us:

"26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 AND I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU, and CAUSE YOU TO walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. (Ezek 36:26-27)

Saved by grace,

Brother Joe

 

Brother Thomas:

BROTHER THOMAS SAID: Wrong again. Even Christ acknowledged that unregenerate people could do good at times: "If you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children...".(Luke 11:13)


ME BROTHER JOE:


Could it be that perhaps here the word "good" has nothing to do with the moral definition and usage of the word ? For example, I could state, " I gave a really "good" guitar as a gift to my sister for Christmas." Of course in this context I am not stating the guitar is morally good, but I am using a different meaning of good that simply is describing the QUALITY of the gift, not its moral standing! I think this interpretation makes more sense because good here is an adjective simply describing the noun "the gift." Our Lord ISNT stating the giving of the gift is "morally" good, he is simply describing the quality of the gift itself.

Im sure we could even conclude that Adolf Hitler gave "good" gifts to his wife, does this mean he had moral goodness in him?

Even if one rejects this interpretation of this verse, the problem is still posed of what is the MOTIVE of giving the "good" gift? Certainly evil people can give "good" gifts, but have EVIL motives for giving the gift. Take for example the holier than thou religious person who gives money to his church or a charity consistently NOT because he cares for the poor, but simply to be seen by man and get glory. Afterall, can an evil heart give with a good motive?


By grace,

Brother Joe

 

Brother Thomas:

The problem is that we choose (make decisions) according to our stongest inclination at the moment. (If you contest this I challenge you to give me any example in which you made a choice was made that wasnt according to your strongest inclination at the moment.)

Scripture teaches us in Romans that our carnal minds inclinations " is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, NEITHER INDEED CAN BE" (Romans 8:7), thus by our internal nature we would NEVER choose God's righteousness. We need a new heart and nature to do so and that is what occurs in regeneration.

Brother Joe

 

Jesus prayd "Father if it is possible let this cup pass from Me - nevertheless NOT My will but THINE be done".

Paul describes himself as "most miserable" in his afflictions for the cause of Christ.

Parents hearing an infant cry for the 5th time at night - are not "inclined" to get up "again" - so they lay there until finally their WILL rises to the level that it overcomes the strong inclination to just roll over and go back to sleep.

It happens all the time.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Joe,

Your thinking reflects a monergistic view of God's grace/salvation which is not biblical. Sure God said he would give us a new heart and new spirit, but he also commands the sinner to get a "new heart and spirit":

"Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and new spirit. For why should you dies, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies," says the Lord GOD, "Therefore turn and live!" (Ezekiel 18:30-32)

Notice God commands the sinner to turn/repent and get the new heart/spirit. The receiving of the new heart/spirit is contingent on turning/repenting and not the other way around. Yes, God gives the new heart/spirit, but we by grace must choose to receive it.

 

Looking at the context of the verse in Luke, it's dubious one can restrict "good" to refer to quality only. In the preceding verses Christ implies that the people he's addressing are more likely to give their children eggs rather than scorpions, and fish rather than serpents. It's not a question of giving a good quality item over something of lesser quality, but giving something that is beneficial rather than harmful. Now you can sit in judgement on their motives, but Christ says that these folks despite being "evil" are inclined to give something good rather than evil to their children. Contrast this with folks who are negligent or abusive to their children. Are you saying there is no moral difference between these contrasting behaviours of equally "unsaved" people? Or are you going to acknowledge a difference, yet suggest the motives of these parents who give good motives are completely evil and devoid of God's grace?

Also, if you wish to restrict the "good" described as refering to quality only, then contextually shouldn't we so restrict Jesus' usage of the word "evil" as being a qualitative statement and not a moral one? Afterall, in the same verse Jesus juxtaposes "good" and "evil".

 

Brother Bob,

YOU: Parents hearing an infant cry for the 5th time at night - are not "inclined" to get up "again" - so they lay there until finally their WILL rises to the level that it overcomes the strong inclination to just roll over and go back to sleep

ME: In this case their strongest inclination is to care for the kid, not to go to sleep.

Nice try.

Brother Joe

 

Brother Thomas,

I will be out of town on business for the next week. Lord willing when I return I would like to continue this discussion. I have enjoyed it thus far. God bless and thanks for your perspective.

Brother Joe

 

ROFLOL!!

And you went through that scenario with a sleepless infant "how many times" before coming up with that answer???

In Christ,

Bob

 

So the inclination the person acted on is the strongest inclination? How do you know it's the strongest--because the person acted on it? If so, doesn't that make it a tautology and thus a "non-answer"?

Let's look at Bob's illustration...

Suppose for the sake of argument that the sleeping parent in question is a non-believer (unless you maintain that non-believers never get up in the middle of the night to take care of their kids). Wouldn't you consider taking care of one's child as opposed to rolling back to sleep an act of love? If so, from where comes the inclination to love? Doesn't love come from God? Yet aren't unbelievers supposedly incapable of doing anything of God (at least according to Luther and Calvin)? Is it truly sinful selfishness that motivates all unbelieving parents all the time, or do they sometimes genuinely express selfless love for their children? If so why--why in these instances do these fallen creatures choose the selfless over the selfish if they are totally depraved and incapable of any good whatsoever? Why do many unsaved, unwed mothers choose to keep their babies rather than to abort them, when it would be a lot more convenient to terminate the pregnancy? Are they all just acting selfishly in either case? (One in a "selfish" desire to be a mother, the other out of selfish convenience. Is the desire to mother/nuture really on the same moral level as act of abortion? If so, why do we blame the latter and praise the former?) Or is there something else at play here? Is it guilt? If so, where does the guilt come from if the totally-depraved unsaved have no inkling whatsoever of the truth of God? Or could it be that God in His infinite grace and mercy is prompting even the unsaved to do what's right, however rudimentary (and falling short of salvation) those acts may be?

BTW--Joe, I know you wrote that you're going to be out for the week, but I just thought I'd pose some questions for everyone else...

 

Total depravity doesn't mean that sinners are incapable of doing anything good by fleshly standards. Remember the parable about the unjust judge who didn't care about God or man? He gave in to the woman's pleadings for justice just because she wore him out with her pleas. Does that mean he did something "good"? He did give her justice, after all.

Total depravity means that we are incapable of doing anything spiritually good. Our spirits are dead, and in our condition it is impossible to do anything that pleases God. That's what matters.