|
john_mark -> RE: Salvation Has To Be A Choice (2/29/2008 3:48:50 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: everstudy quote:
ORIGINAL: john_mark i hope i understand you correctly to say that man's ability to make choices are limited by his nature, if not i apologize. Yes, that is how I understand scripture (especially Romans 8). Romans 8:6-8 says, "For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able {to do so,} and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." quote:
[I] was just curious if you thought that [A]dam had a nature inclined toward God and you seem to be taking the [A]dam had a nuetral nature position. if are choices are driven or limited by our nature, and [A]dam had a nuetral nature, what drove or limited his choices? because a neutral nature would seem to not choose anything. I think Adam was created with a nature that allowed him to make a choice for God or against God. We don't have that luxury. We can't/won't choose God without God doing a work in us first. Adam didn't need that work done as he hadn't sinned yet. I don't think his nature was neutral, where he wouldn't choose anything, because it's obvious that he did make a choice. Was his nature completely inclined toward God? I don't know. But what I do know, though, is that given the option to sin, he did. i guess where i am going with this is this: if man's choices are limited by his nature do you understand that to mean that man cannot act against his nature? with adam you seem to be ruling out the idea of a nuetral nature, so that seems to leave either a nature inclined toward God, or a nature hostile to God. If adam had a nature inclined toward God and man cannot act against his nature adam could not have sinned could he? and if adam had a nature hostile to God then what is the effect of the fall of man? i dont think we as humans fully understand the relationship our nature plays in our decisions. we can make infernces and apply human logic, but still we are left less than satisfied. paul wrote in romans 7 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. whether you understand paul to be speaking as a saved man or a lost man in this passage, paul's basic argument is that he acts against his will or desire. he does the very thing he does not want to do. this passage for me muddies the idea that our choices are limited by our nature.
|
|
|
|