SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The Relation of the Nature & Will

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
While an unbeliever is an unbeliever, they are sin in. An unbeliever cannot please God, while they are an unbeliever.



This is a huge step! You are saying that an unbeliever--who is an enemy of God, who can do nothing to please God, who are dead in their sins (Eph 2:1) are going to OF THEIR OWN WILL just decide that they are going to change?

Regeneration must occur before Faith! God's grace that enables us to believe. It is this understanding that makes Ephesians 2 come ALIVE:

[color=990000]1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.[/color]

 2007/1/2 21:08Profile









 Re:

Titus 2 says the grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness. And we must therefore recieve and obey what it teaches. But the grace of God does not recieve and obey it's own teaching for us. Or else it's not our own recieving and not our own obeying. As John Fletcher said, "forced obedience is a contradiction in terms". If a sinner doesn't repent of his own will, then a sinner doesn't repent at all. God grants the possibility of repentance, but does not force anyone to repent, but rather calls all men to repent, but men must recieve and obey the call.

 2007/1/2 21:39
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3707
Ca.

 Re:

John 8:38-45 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Is not what Jesus is saying, a position of who we are and who we are, of that, gives us the truth of who we are in doing the deeds of our positional state of either our father since Adam by choice, our father the devil? Or, This being who we are, making us do the deed of our Father God, by believing in Jesus Christ, then in a new position of being and nature, make us do the things this new nature and position by the rebirthing. We are either of our father the devil or our Father God by Jesus Christ's birthing in us bring forth the fruit of the vine in who we are the nature of Our New Father God.

Holiness is not what we do but who we are, then we do the things of what we hear. John 8:38-45 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. Now that God is our Father we will do the things of Him. God depends on His Seed that He has birthed in us, that is Jesus Christ to do the changing of the believer, He dose not depend on the believer, if He could depend on the believer, we would not need Jesus Christ born again in us so we can see the things of the Kingdom of God. Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Depending on the Incorruptable Seed birthed in us, God Who is now our Birthing Father, not of the corruptible seed of the devil, we become son's of God.

Position = Deeds of that position. Position in Satan = works of the devil, our old father's sons. Position in Christ with God our Father = works of Christ in us by the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Are we not just containers to hold the spirit of Satan or God. Clay pots for the Potters Glory and pleasure. Who are we?

In Christ, son's of God to His glory and for His pleasure.

In Christ: Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2007/1/3 4:59Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Sin and holiness cannot co-exist within the same heart, within the same will. A person can be holy one moment and sinful the next moment, but cannot be both holy and sinful at the same moment.


what a roller-coaster this would be! What would happen to the man if he died during the 'moment' that he was sinful?


Quote:
1. The relation of the nature and the will is that of influence and not causation


You have still not demonstrated that this phantom you call 'the will' actually exists.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/1/3 6:16Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
As John Fletcher said, "forced obedience is a contradiction in terms".


If we are talking about John Fletcher of Madeley, Wesley's contemporary and friend you ought to acknowledge that both Wesley and Fletcher were strong believers in the 'traditional theology' of original sin.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/1/3 6:19Profile









 Re:

philologos, Fletcher both agrees with original sin and also original ability in his "Checks to Antinomianism" just as Wesley believed in both.

[b]Another very common view is: Doesn’t the bible teach that Paul was an unwilling servant of sin in Romans 7? [/b]

There are so many interpretations of the battle Paul is describing in Romans 7. Some say it’s the battle between the will and the flesh, others between the will and the mind, others between the mind and the flesh. But we should let Paul interpret what he is saying.

The passage which helps to properly interpret what Paul is talking about is:

Ro 7:23 - But I see another law in my members, warring against the [b]law of my mind[/b], and bringing me into captivity to the [b]law of sin [/b]which is in my members.

Here, we see Paul speaking about the law of his mind, the law of his intelligence, which is in collision with the law of sin, the physical desires of sin, which he finds within his own members.

This helps us to understand Romans 9:19 - "For the good that I would [mind] I do not [flesh]: but the evil which I would not [mind], that I do [flesh]."

This is describing the battle between Paul’s mind and Paul’s flesh. Remember, Paul here is in a state of conviction for his sin because of the commandments (vs 13). This conviction is not a mere phenomenon of the sensibilities, not a mere feeling or emotion, but is a convincing of the mind, when the intellect becomes totally convinced of guilt. Paul’s mind has been utterly convinced, or utterly convicted by the law of God that he is guilty of sin, and that sin must not be chosen. He undeniably knows that the commandment is good and holy (vs 12). But Paul’s flesh has been corrupted by his habit of sin, so that his flesh is almost crying out for sin because of the gratification that it brings.

A great illustration of this battle Paul is having can be seen in the struggle of a cigarette smoker. Suppose a smoker is utterly convinced in their mind that smoking is not good for them whatsoever. They do not want to smoke, that is, in their mind they do not want to smoke. But their flesh now has a law for smoking, a demand for smoking. There is now a conflict between the law of their mind and the law of their flesh.

Motivation has not yet been introduced into this senerio. When a smokers heart motivation, or their ultimate will, is that of self-gratification, they will smoke. They do not smoke because they love the cigarette. For in fact, they hate cigarettes. But they love self-gratification. And so they do what they don't want to do, what they infact hate to do, because they love what it brings. They go contrary to the "want" of their mind to fullfill the "want" of their flesh. The wills "want" submitted to the fleshes "want" rather then the minds "want".

This is where Paul is in his story of his conversion in Romans 7. His mind has been utterly convinced of the rightness of God's requirements. He delights, with his mind, in the law of God (vs 7). He consents, with his mind, that the law is good (vs 16). Therefore he hates, with his mind, the sin (15). He does not want, with his mind, the sin (vs 15). But with his flesh, he wants the sin, not for the sake of the sin, but for the sake of what it brings (vs 18). His mind wants to do good, but his flesh wants to do evil (vs 23). His mind serves the law of God, his flesh serves the law of sin (vs 25).

But this has not yet mentioned the "want" of his will, but only the "want" of his mind and the "want" of his flesh. These "wants" mentioned by Paul are not of the heart or the intention, but of the mind and of the flesh. His motivation or his intention determines which direction he will walk in. If his motivation is self-gratification, he will obey the flesh. If his motivation is the glory of God and the well-being of all, he walk walk according to the Spirit. And he goes on to Romans 8 about walking after the Spirit instead of the flesh.

The struggle Paul is describing in Romans 7 is not the struggle between his own will and his own flesh. Nor the struggle between his own will and his own mind. Paul is not saying that he is an unwillful servant of sin. For that would contradict what Jesus said about servanthood (John 8:34), and what Paul elsewhere said about servant hood (Romans 6:16) that what you willfully obey is what you are serving. That servanthood is always preceeded by willfull obedience. But the specific "warring" which Paul is describing in detail is the battle between his minds demands and the demands of his flesh. (vs 23). But it cannot be properly interpreted to say that Paul was sinning against his will, or a servant of sin against his will, but rather that the "want" described was not regarding the will at all, but was regarding the "want" of his mind and the "want" of his flesh.

 2007/1/3 8:25
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
A great illustration of this battle Paul is having can be seen in the struggle of a cigarette smoker. Suppose a smoker is utterly convinced in their mind that smoking is not good for them whatsoever. They do not want to smoke, that is, in their mind they do not want to smoke. But their flesh now has a law for smoking, a demand for smoking. There is now a conflict between the law of their mind and the law of their flesh.



But this places the blame on the body itself which is essentially dualism. It also lends to the idea that folk need some physical remedy and not 'deliverance' from the particular sin. The nicotine 'patch' in this illustration would likely resolve the persons problem. But the law of Sin is much deeper than this and Finney rejected the notion.

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (Romans 7)

Here the law is the catalyst for concupiscence. Sin was relatively dormant until the law came. When the law came 'sin revived' and I died. Without the law sin was dead. This is how the law exposed man's need to be born again of the Spirit. It does not justify man's sin in any way. Man can still do as God has commanded or he/she is not culpable for their crimes. But there was a simultaneous effect happening here to God's will being given. The law was 'exciting' a desire to rebel against God's law. There is nothing to rebel against where there is no law- even though the sin nature was present. This is why the law that was intended to bring life actually brought death. Until the sin nature could be dealt with by regeneration a person would both desire the will of God and to rebel against it at the same time.

I do not believe Finney appreciated this because he was trying to understand these things post-regeneration and not simply relying on the revelation of the scriptures. Being born again he was in a much different place than the unrepentant and unregenerate sinner. His theology was almost certainly influenced by his experience. This is why we have to trust the word of God and take it as it is written. The life giving law brought death to Paul because it stirred up all manor of concupisense. This was caused by the law of Sin that was in his members. He had to die to that law of Sin as well as The Law. This is not antinomianism it is a new creature. Christ took Sin down into death so that we being in Him are free from the law of Sin by which Sin operates. We are now espoused to Christ and operate according to the laws of God through the Spirit. The Spirit and the Word (laws of God) agree.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2007/1/3 8:59Profile









 Re:

Robert,

The physical flesh does influence man to sin, but the mind of man undeniably knows sin is wrong.

The physical flesh is not sin, as some claim. But the physical flesh can influence us to sin. It doesn't cause us to sin. But who can deny that the flesh at least influences us to sin, while our conscience does not! There is a collision between the conscience (mind) and the flesh (body).

Quote:
This is why we have to trust the word of God and take it as it is written.



Paul specificly said that the mind and the body were in collision regarding their demands. Ro 7:23 - "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."

Shouldn't we take the scripture for what it clearly says?

But the blame is not on the body. The blame is not on a sin nature. But the blame for sin is upon the will, seeing that the will does not have to submit to the dictations of the flesh.

But to view the relation of the nature and the will as that of causation, THAT is putting the blame on the flesh rather then the will.

But regeneration in conversion is not physical, though God may or may not take away physical cravings for certain things. But regeneration is spiritual, it's a changing of the heart, a completely radical transformation of the will, so that a man's conduct is entirely different because his will is entirely different.

PS. Did Finney hold to this interpretation? Is it found in the systematic theology? If so, I haven't read it yet. This is simply what I saw clearly shown in Romans 7.

 2007/1/3 9:10
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
philologos, Fletcher both agrees with original sin and also original ability in his "Checks to Antinomianism" just as Wesley believed in both.



I know it. In fact, as you will know, Wesley believed in 'original sin' so strongly that he judged those who did not as 'heathen still'.

Quote:
But this has not yet mentioned the "want" of his will, but only the "want" of his mind and the "want" of his flesh.


But what is this thing you call 'the will' and are you saying it is simply another word for 'the heart'? Your argument just goes around in circles and each time I ask you to justify the existence of something called 'the will' it just disappears into the sand.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/1/3 10:34Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
The physical flesh is not sin, as some claim. But the physical flesh can influence us to sin. It doesn't cause us to sin. But who can deny that the flesh at least influences us to sin, while our conscience does not! There is a collision between the conscience (mind) and the flesh (body).



It is helpful to trace Eve's reactions prior to sin. God had said the fruit of the tree of knowledge was not to be eaten. God had not forbidden aesthetic appreciation or even desire.

[color=0000ff]“So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” (Gen 3:6 NKJV)[/color]...hence
she looked: no sin
she appreciated its food value: no sin
she appreciated its aesthetics: no sin
she desired it: no sin

she took of its fruit and ate: this was transgression. 1Tim 2:14

Quote:
There is a collision between the conscience (mind) and the flesh (body).


Are you equating 'the flesh' with 'the body'?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/1/3 10:41Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy