Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 27, 2006 15:43:45 GMT -5
The Relation of the Nature and the Will
By Jesse Morrell
The Nature: The natural tendency, bias, or influence towards a certain direction or towards a certain end.
The Will: A faculty within man to determine his own choices, to make his own decisions, to choose his own end.
Much confusion arises in the theological realm when a confusion of the relation between the nature and the will exists. Often, there is an assumption made regarding the relation of the nature and the will. But theology is too serious for assumptions. We must not merely ask what man’s nature is and what man’s will is, but what is the relation between the two?
I propose to answer the following questions:
1. What are the existing views of the relation of nature and will?
2. What is inevitably implied in both views?
3. Which relation between these two does the bible support?
4. Objections Answered
1. What are the existing views?
- THE CAUSATION VIEW
One view is that the relation between man's nature and man's will is that of causation or determination. That is, if man's nature is biased towards sin, man's will would be caused or forced to choose sin. Man's will is not merely influenced by his nature, according to this view, but man's will is caused and determined by his nature.
In this view, the will is but the servant or slave of the nature, not being free or independent.
- THE INFLUENCE VIEW
The other view is that the relation between man's nature and man's will is that of influence. That is, if man's nature is biased towards sin, man's will could be influenced to commit sin, but not caused to commit sin. Man's will is not determined or caused by his nature but is influenced by his nature.
In this view, the will is independent and free, not being the servant or slave of the nature.
2. What is inevitably implied in both views?
For the sake of argument, let's assume each position to see it's contrary implication.
- THE CAUSATION VIEW
If this were true:
A. A sinful nature would force a man's will to choose sin, seeing that the will is the slave of the nature, being incapable of willing anything other then the demands of the nature.
B. This would imply that if a being had a good nature, or a nature biased towards the good, he would be incapable of willing or doing that which is sinful. His will would be determined by his nature, thus his good nature would render him impossible of sinning.
Very simply, if a sinful nature means the will is incapable of doing good, a good nature means the will is incapable of doing evil.
- THE INFLUENCE VIEW
If this were true:
A. Man's will would be free to obey even if his nature influenced him to commit sin. Man's will would be capable of willing obedience despite his natures demand for disobedience.
B. This would imply that a man's will would be free to disobey even if his nature influenced him to obey. Man's will would be capable of disobedience despite his natures demand for obedience.
Very simply, whether man had a good nature or a sinful nature, man's will could still either obey or disobey the demands of his nature.
3. Which relation between these two does the bible support?
The proper view of the relation between nature and will is the scriptural view. The scriptures are the only court of competent jurisdiction, being the unquestionable and final authority on all matters theologically.
If it can be shown anywhere within the scriptures, that there has been at least one single case where the will has gone contrary to the influence of the nature, the causation view is seen to be entirely false. Only one single scriptural instance is needed to show that the nature does not force, cause or determine the will. But there is more then one instance of this in scripture, there are multiple instances of this in scripture.
Observe,
A. God created Heaven and earth, angels and man, and declared all of it to be "good". (Genesis 1:31)
B. Mankind especially was good because it was made in the image of God. (Genesis 1:26)
C. Despite their good nature, Adam and Eve sinned against God. (Genesis 3:6)
D. Despite their good nature, Lucifer and many other angels sinned against God. (Isaiah 14:12-16)
All theological camps, those who hold to the causation view and those who hold to the influence view, unite and agree as to the original condition of mankind, namely, that it was completely good. The Augustinians, the Pelagians, the Semi-Pelagians, the Calvinists, the Armenians, the Wesleyans and the Finneyites all concur that man (Adam and Eve) was not created by the hands of God as inherently evil, but that man (Adam and Eve) came from the hands of God originally good.
Cornelius Van Til, a late professor of Calvinism at Westminster Theological Seminar with a Ph.D. from Princeton writes, “If God does exist as man’s Creator, it is as we have seen impossible that evil should be inherent to the temporal universe. If God exists, man himself must have brought in sin by an act of willful transgression.” He goes on to say that “a denial of man’s responsibility for sin” is to make “God responsible for sin.” Even John Calvin wrote that there was no “disturbance” in the nature of man as he came forth from the hands of God, but that sin originated with the will of man.
Very simply put, God did not make man inherently evil in his nature, but evil came into existence because of the will of man, and to deny this is to make God the author of sin. Augustine, Pelagius, Arminius, Finney, and Wesley, would all give a hardy amen to Calvin and Van Til.
Adam was not created with a sinful nature, seeing that he was made in God's image and declared by God to be “good”. Neither did Adam have any physical depravity that influenced him on the inside to be biased towards sin. Adam's nature was good, his flesh was good, his mind was good, and everything about him was good, seeing that God created with His hands nothing that wasn't good.
Yet, even with a good nature, and a good flesh, and a good mind, Adam sinned.
Eve was not created with a sinful nature, seeing that she too was made in the image of God. Eve did not have any physical depravity that influenced her on the inside to be biased towards sin. Eve's nature was good, her flesh was good, her mind was good, and everything about her was good, seeing that God created nothing with His hands that wasn't good.
Yet, even with a good nature, a good flesh, a good mind, Eve sinned.
Lucifer, the arch-angel, was not created with a sinful nature. Lucifer did not have any sort of physical depravity that influenced him or biased him towards sin, seeing that angels are spirits and not made of flesh. Lucifer’s nature was good; in fact, everything about him was good, seeing that God creates nothing with His hands that isn't good.
Yet, even with a good nature, and no flesh to influence him to sin, Lucifer sinned.
Not a single angel ever created by the hands of God was created evil, seeing God only creates that which is good.
Yet, even being made good by the hands of God, many of the angels sinned by following Lucifer.
WHAT THEN IS THE CAUSE OF SIN?
In Genesis we scripturally see that the will has gone contrary to the nature. Adams will, Eves will, Lucifer’s will, and many of the angels, went entirely contrary to their nature in their will. This is not one single instance, but multiple instances where the will has acted contrary and against the nature.
If nature was a sure cause or determiner of the will, the fall of Adam, Eve, Lucifer, and many of the angels would not have occurred at all to begin with, seeing that they had good natures. But their good nature did not force them to do good, nor forced them to sin, rather, it influenced them to do good and not to sin, and yet, despite the demands of their nature, they sinned anyway.
A good nature does not render the will incapable of evil, and a bad nature does not render the will incapable of good. Causation has never been the relation between the will and the nature, causation is not the relation between the will and the nature, and so the nature has never been nor never is responsible for the will of man.
If original sin, or a sinful nature, or total depravity, rendered man's will incapable of rejecting sin and choosing good, then original holiness, a good nature, total perfection (as was the agreed original condition of Adam, Even, Lucifer, and all the angels), then that would have rendered their will incapable of choosing sin and rejecting what was good. If the causation view is correct, then the good are incapable of doing evil, and the evil are incapable of doing good. This is absurd, unscriptural, and soul destroying.
We can clearly see from the testimony of scripture, the story of Adam, Eve, Lucifer, and the angels, that it is not the case that the relation between nature and will is that of causation, but that it is a relation of influence. This is crystal clear. The causation view is entirely and totally incompatible and irreconcilable with the story of the fall of Adam, Eve, Lucifer, and the angels.
Since the nature is an influence, and not a causation, and the will is free to do contrary to the demands of the nature or free to conform to the demands of the nature, we can see why Adam, Eve, Lucifer, and many of the angels sinned - because their will was selfish. But they did not sin because their nature was sinful or even biased towards sin. Sin is always caused by a sinful will, and while it may be influenced by a sinful nature, sin is never caused by a sinful nature.
The sole determiner of any moral agent’s actions and intentions is his own will, though his nature (either good or evil) is only an influence. A moral agent then can and does make decisions completely independent of his nature, but never independently of his will.
The choice to sin is entirely a choice of the will, not a necessity of the nature:
*The fountain of sin has always been the will or heart of man, in which Christ said out of which proceeded all sin. (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21).
* The heart, or will, of man is capable of being desperately wicked. (Jeremiah 17:9)
*The heart, or will, of man is capable of keeping God's commands and being perfect. (1 King 8:61; 1 King 15:14; 2 King 20:3; 1 Chronicles 29:9; 2 Chronicles 19:9; Isaiah 38:3)
*Man must obey the gospel out of the heart, that is, with his will, in order to be saved. (Romans 6:17)
*Christ rebuked unrepentant sinners, not because they were not capable of repenting, but because they did not "want" to repent and come to Him. (Matthew 22:3; John 5:40).
*Man's will is capable of rejecting God's will, even rejecting God's will for their salvation. (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34)
*From the perversion of Sodom and Gomorrah to the modern day Sodomite parades, we clearly see that man's will can, has and sometimes still does go "against nature". (Romans 1:26)
Man's sin and man's damnation, though both entirely avoidable, is entirely his own fault. Man cannot blame nature for what was his own doing. No man is the victim of his own sin, being forced to commit it by necessity, but each man is a criminal for his sin, being the originator of it.
We can see then that mankind needs Jesus Christ, not because we cannot obey God, but because we haven’t obeyed God. If man couldn’t obey God, man wouldn’t need Jesus, because man would have no guilt. But because man can obey, but hasn’t obeyed, man has guilt, and therefore needs Christ.
No moral agent has ever sinned out of the necessity of his nature. For such is impossible. But a moral agent can only disobey out of the heart, that is, out of the will. And no moral agent ever obeyed out of necessity of his nature. For such is impossible. A moral agent can only obey out of the heart, that is, out of the will. There is no virtue in necessity, no personal deserve of personal blame or deserve of personal reward for what was not a willful choice, but for what was done out of necessity. Choices of the will are the only kind of personal choices. Choices out of necessity are not choices at all. It is impossible for virtue to consist in doing what you cannot but do, and it's impossible for guilt to consist in doing what you couldn't help but to do. Virtue must consist of willful obedience to the revealed Law of God. Nothing else can constitute virtue. And disobedience must consist in willful rebellion to the revealed Law of God. Nothing else can constitute as disobedience.
Justin Martyr of the First Century Church said, “Unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, whatever kind they be.” He went on to say, “for not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not himself choose the good but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to do nothing else than what he was made.”
Without the ability to freely choose moral decisions, there can be no personal moral character. Without the ability to decide moral choices, there can be neither a holy nor a sinful character. And without free choice there can be no responsibility and no accountability, no personal deserve of guilt and punishment and no personal deserve of praise and reward. Man could not commit sin if it were not his choice that was responsible. And it could not be a choice at all had it been forced, or had he not been able to choose the contrary. Forced disobedience is not disobedience at all, and forced obedience is not obedience at all. Such are oxy-morons, contradictions in terms.
So men are not dictated by their nature, but rather influenced by their nature. Men sin only when it is in their will to do so. And men obey only when it is in their will to do so. Therefore each man is entirely responsible of all of his moral actions, seeing it was their will that caused their moral actions and not necessity that caused their moral actions, thus leaving all men without any excuse for sin and disobedience.
Failure to recognize that the will can act contrary to the demands and dictates of the nature requires either a lack of understanding of the fall of Adam, Eve, and angels, or is a flat out denial of the fall of Adam, Eve, and angels.
CONSISTENT OR PRE-COMMITTED?
There are some who will still hold to the causation relation view because their pre-committed theological system requires it; however they must be inconsistent if they agree that:
1. In the beginning God created all things good.
2. Therefore Adam, Eve and Lucifer had good natures.
3. But Adam, Eve, and Lucifer sinned anyways
To hold to the causation view, one must deny one of these scriptural points. The influence view alone is consistent with these scriptural points. But there is no scriptural reason to believe that the relation between the will and the nature is that of causation. It simply gives theological convenience to certain theological systems, but is not founded on a single scripture, it is rather simply assumed as a presupposition.
Genesis clearly shows that a good nature does not cause obedience, and likewise, a sinful nature cannot cause disobedience. However, both a good nature and a sinful nature can be an influence, inclining towards the good or inclining towards the evil, but never causing it. The nature is but an influence and the will is the cause. Therefore both sin and obedience are possible to all men, whether their natures are good or evil. And God requires holiness and obedience from all, regardless of their nature, because they are completely capable in their will.
There are other questions I'd like to answer in the future, such as:
What is the condition every man is born with?
What is the practical result of the wrong view regarding the relation between will and nature?
What is the practical result of the right view regarding relation between will and nature?
How does the proper view of relation affect our view of God, His nature, His will, and His holiness?
How does the proper view of relation affect our view of man, his nature, his will, and his sin?
How does the proper view of relation affect our view of eternity in Heaven with a glorified body?
And most importantly, how does the proper view of relation affect the perspective and presentation of the gospel?
But as of know, the foundational argument of the natures influence, but not causation, will suffice. If one can grasp a proper understanding of this relation, it lays a proper foundation for a good understanding of other theological doctrines. But if one does not grasp a proper understanding of this relation, a soul-destroying theology will result.
--------------------------------------------
For further reading of sound theology, I highly recommend the 1851 edition of “Lectures on Systematic Theology” by Professor Charles G. Finney.
-------------------------------------
Quotes:
Cornelius Van Til: The Defense of the Faith, page 74. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. Phillipsburg, New Jersey. 1955
Justin Martyr: The Ante Nicene Fathers Volume One, Chapter XLIII – Responsibility Asserted. Page 347-348
By Jesse Morrell
The Nature: The natural tendency, bias, or influence towards a certain direction or towards a certain end.
The Will: A faculty within man to determine his own choices, to make his own decisions, to choose his own end.
Much confusion arises in the theological realm when a confusion of the relation between the nature and the will exists. Often, there is an assumption made regarding the relation of the nature and the will. But theology is too serious for assumptions. We must not merely ask what man’s nature is and what man’s will is, but what is the relation between the two?
I propose to answer the following questions:
1. What are the existing views of the relation of nature and will?
2. What is inevitably implied in both views?
3. Which relation between these two does the bible support?
4. Objections Answered
1. What are the existing views?
- THE CAUSATION VIEW
One view is that the relation between man's nature and man's will is that of causation or determination. That is, if man's nature is biased towards sin, man's will would be caused or forced to choose sin. Man's will is not merely influenced by his nature, according to this view, but man's will is caused and determined by his nature.
In this view, the will is but the servant or slave of the nature, not being free or independent.
- THE INFLUENCE VIEW
The other view is that the relation between man's nature and man's will is that of influence. That is, if man's nature is biased towards sin, man's will could be influenced to commit sin, but not caused to commit sin. Man's will is not determined or caused by his nature but is influenced by his nature.
In this view, the will is independent and free, not being the servant or slave of the nature.
2. What is inevitably implied in both views?
For the sake of argument, let's assume each position to see it's contrary implication.
- THE CAUSATION VIEW
If this were true:
A. A sinful nature would force a man's will to choose sin, seeing that the will is the slave of the nature, being incapable of willing anything other then the demands of the nature.
B. This would imply that if a being had a good nature, or a nature biased towards the good, he would be incapable of willing or doing that which is sinful. His will would be determined by his nature, thus his good nature would render him impossible of sinning.
Very simply, if a sinful nature means the will is incapable of doing good, a good nature means the will is incapable of doing evil.
- THE INFLUENCE VIEW
If this were true:
A. Man's will would be free to obey even if his nature influenced him to commit sin. Man's will would be capable of willing obedience despite his natures demand for disobedience.
B. This would imply that a man's will would be free to disobey even if his nature influenced him to obey. Man's will would be capable of disobedience despite his natures demand for obedience.
Very simply, whether man had a good nature or a sinful nature, man's will could still either obey or disobey the demands of his nature.
3. Which relation between these two does the bible support?
The proper view of the relation between nature and will is the scriptural view. The scriptures are the only court of competent jurisdiction, being the unquestionable and final authority on all matters theologically.
If it can be shown anywhere within the scriptures, that there has been at least one single case where the will has gone contrary to the influence of the nature, the causation view is seen to be entirely false. Only one single scriptural instance is needed to show that the nature does not force, cause or determine the will. But there is more then one instance of this in scripture, there are multiple instances of this in scripture.
Observe,
A. God created Heaven and earth, angels and man, and declared all of it to be "good". (Genesis 1:31)
B. Mankind especially was good because it was made in the image of God. (Genesis 1:26)
C. Despite their good nature, Adam and Eve sinned against God. (Genesis 3:6)
D. Despite their good nature, Lucifer and many other angels sinned against God. (Isaiah 14:12-16)
All theological camps, those who hold to the causation view and those who hold to the influence view, unite and agree as to the original condition of mankind, namely, that it was completely good. The Augustinians, the Pelagians, the Semi-Pelagians, the Calvinists, the Armenians, the Wesleyans and the Finneyites all concur that man (Adam and Eve) was not created by the hands of God as inherently evil, but that man (Adam and Eve) came from the hands of God originally good.
Cornelius Van Til, a late professor of Calvinism at Westminster Theological Seminar with a Ph.D. from Princeton writes, “If God does exist as man’s Creator, it is as we have seen impossible that evil should be inherent to the temporal universe. If God exists, man himself must have brought in sin by an act of willful transgression.” He goes on to say that “a denial of man’s responsibility for sin” is to make “God responsible for sin.” Even John Calvin wrote that there was no “disturbance” in the nature of man as he came forth from the hands of God, but that sin originated with the will of man.
Very simply put, God did not make man inherently evil in his nature, but evil came into existence because of the will of man, and to deny this is to make God the author of sin. Augustine, Pelagius, Arminius, Finney, and Wesley, would all give a hardy amen to Calvin and Van Til.
Adam was not created with a sinful nature, seeing that he was made in God's image and declared by God to be “good”. Neither did Adam have any physical depravity that influenced him on the inside to be biased towards sin. Adam's nature was good, his flesh was good, his mind was good, and everything about him was good, seeing that God created with His hands nothing that wasn't good.
Yet, even with a good nature, and a good flesh, and a good mind, Adam sinned.
Eve was not created with a sinful nature, seeing that she too was made in the image of God. Eve did not have any physical depravity that influenced her on the inside to be biased towards sin. Eve's nature was good, her flesh was good, her mind was good, and everything about her was good, seeing that God created nothing with His hands that wasn't good.
Yet, even with a good nature, a good flesh, a good mind, Eve sinned.
Lucifer, the arch-angel, was not created with a sinful nature. Lucifer did not have any sort of physical depravity that influenced him or biased him towards sin, seeing that angels are spirits and not made of flesh. Lucifer’s nature was good; in fact, everything about him was good, seeing that God creates nothing with His hands that isn't good.
Yet, even with a good nature, and no flesh to influence him to sin, Lucifer sinned.
Not a single angel ever created by the hands of God was created evil, seeing God only creates that which is good.
Yet, even being made good by the hands of God, many of the angels sinned by following Lucifer.
WHAT THEN IS THE CAUSE OF SIN?
In Genesis we scripturally see that the will has gone contrary to the nature. Adams will, Eves will, Lucifer’s will, and many of the angels, went entirely contrary to their nature in their will. This is not one single instance, but multiple instances where the will has acted contrary and against the nature.
If nature was a sure cause or determiner of the will, the fall of Adam, Eve, Lucifer, and many of the angels would not have occurred at all to begin with, seeing that they had good natures. But their good nature did not force them to do good, nor forced them to sin, rather, it influenced them to do good and not to sin, and yet, despite the demands of their nature, they sinned anyway.
A good nature does not render the will incapable of evil, and a bad nature does not render the will incapable of good. Causation has never been the relation between the will and the nature, causation is not the relation between the will and the nature, and so the nature has never been nor never is responsible for the will of man.
If original sin, or a sinful nature, or total depravity, rendered man's will incapable of rejecting sin and choosing good, then original holiness, a good nature, total perfection (as was the agreed original condition of Adam, Even, Lucifer, and all the angels), then that would have rendered their will incapable of choosing sin and rejecting what was good. If the causation view is correct, then the good are incapable of doing evil, and the evil are incapable of doing good. This is absurd, unscriptural, and soul destroying.
We can clearly see from the testimony of scripture, the story of Adam, Eve, Lucifer, and the angels, that it is not the case that the relation between nature and will is that of causation, but that it is a relation of influence. This is crystal clear. The causation view is entirely and totally incompatible and irreconcilable with the story of the fall of Adam, Eve, Lucifer, and the angels.
Since the nature is an influence, and not a causation, and the will is free to do contrary to the demands of the nature or free to conform to the demands of the nature, we can see why Adam, Eve, Lucifer, and many of the angels sinned - because their will was selfish. But they did not sin because their nature was sinful or even biased towards sin. Sin is always caused by a sinful will, and while it may be influenced by a sinful nature, sin is never caused by a sinful nature.
The sole determiner of any moral agent’s actions and intentions is his own will, though his nature (either good or evil) is only an influence. A moral agent then can and does make decisions completely independent of his nature, but never independently of his will.
The choice to sin is entirely a choice of the will, not a necessity of the nature:
*The fountain of sin has always been the will or heart of man, in which Christ said out of which proceeded all sin. (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21).
* The heart, or will, of man is capable of being desperately wicked. (Jeremiah 17:9)
*The heart, or will, of man is capable of keeping God's commands and being perfect. (1 King 8:61; 1 King 15:14; 2 King 20:3; 1 Chronicles 29:9; 2 Chronicles 19:9; Isaiah 38:3)
*Man must obey the gospel out of the heart, that is, with his will, in order to be saved. (Romans 6:17)
*Christ rebuked unrepentant sinners, not because they were not capable of repenting, but because they did not "want" to repent and come to Him. (Matthew 22:3; John 5:40).
*Man's will is capable of rejecting God's will, even rejecting God's will for their salvation. (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34)
*From the perversion of Sodom and Gomorrah to the modern day Sodomite parades, we clearly see that man's will can, has and sometimes still does go "against nature". (Romans 1:26)
Man's sin and man's damnation, though both entirely avoidable, is entirely his own fault. Man cannot blame nature for what was his own doing. No man is the victim of his own sin, being forced to commit it by necessity, but each man is a criminal for his sin, being the originator of it.
We can see then that mankind needs Jesus Christ, not because we cannot obey God, but because we haven’t obeyed God. If man couldn’t obey God, man wouldn’t need Jesus, because man would have no guilt. But because man can obey, but hasn’t obeyed, man has guilt, and therefore needs Christ.
No moral agent has ever sinned out of the necessity of his nature. For such is impossible. But a moral agent can only disobey out of the heart, that is, out of the will. And no moral agent ever obeyed out of necessity of his nature. For such is impossible. A moral agent can only obey out of the heart, that is, out of the will. There is no virtue in necessity, no personal deserve of personal blame or deserve of personal reward for what was not a willful choice, but for what was done out of necessity. Choices of the will are the only kind of personal choices. Choices out of necessity are not choices at all. It is impossible for virtue to consist in doing what you cannot but do, and it's impossible for guilt to consist in doing what you couldn't help but to do. Virtue must consist of willful obedience to the revealed Law of God. Nothing else can constitute virtue. And disobedience must consist in willful rebellion to the revealed Law of God. Nothing else can constitute as disobedience.
Justin Martyr of the First Century Church said, “Unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, whatever kind they be.” He went on to say, “for not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not himself choose the good but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to do nothing else than what he was made.”
Without the ability to freely choose moral decisions, there can be no personal moral character. Without the ability to decide moral choices, there can be neither a holy nor a sinful character. And without free choice there can be no responsibility and no accountability, no personal deserve of guilt and punishment and no personal deserve of praise and reward. Man could not commit sin if it were not his choice that was responsible. And it could not be a choice at all had it been forced, or had he not been able to choose the contrary. Forced disobedience is not disobedience at all, and forced obedience is not obedience at all. Such are oxy-morons, contradictions in terms.
So men are not dictated by their nature, but rather influenced by their nature. Men sin only when it is in their will to do so. And men obey only when it is in their will to do so. Therefore each man is entirely responsible of all of his moral actions, seeing it was their will that caused their moral actions and not necessity that caused their moral actions, thus leaving all men without any excuse for sin and disobedience.
Failure to recognize that the will can act contrary to the demands and dictates of the nature requires either a lack of understanding of the fall of Adam, Eve, and angels, or is a flat out denial of the fall of Adam, Eve, and angels.
CONSISTENT OR PRE-COMMITTED?
There are some who will still hold to the causation relation view because their pre-committed theological system requires it; however they must be inconsistent if they agree that:
1. In the beginning God created all things good.
2. Therefore Adam, Eve and Lucifer had good natures.
3. But Adam, Eve, and Lucifer sinned anyways
To hold to the causation view, one must deny one of these scriptural points. The influence view alone is consistent with these scriptural points. But there is no scriptural reason to believe that the relation between the will and the nature is that of causation. It simply gives theological convenience to certain theological systems, but is not founded on a single scripture, it is rather simply assumed as a presupposition.
Genesis clearly shows that a good nature does not cause obedience, and likewise, a sinful nature cannot cause disobedience. However, both a good nature and a sinful nature can be an influence, inclining towards the good or inclining towards the evil, but never causing it. The nature is but an influence and the will is the cause. Therefore both sin and obedience are possible to all men, whether their natures are good or evil. And God requires holiness and obedience from all, regardless of their nature, because they are completely capable in their will.
There are other questions I'd like to answer in the future, such as:
What is the condition every man is born with?
What is the practical result of the wrong view regarding the relation between will and nature?
What is the practical result of the right view regarding relation between will and nature?
How does the proper view of relation affect our view of God, His nature, His will, and His holiness?
How does the proper view of relation affect our view of man, his nature, his will, and his sin?
How does the proper view of relation affect our view of eternity in Heaven with a glorified body?
And most importantly, how does the proper view of relation affect the perspective and presentation of the gospel?
But as of know, the foundational argument of the natures influence, but not causation, will suffice. If one can grasp a proper understanding of this relation, it lays a proper foundation for a good understanding of other theological doctrines. But if one does not grasp a proper understanding of this relation, a soul-destroying theology will result.
--------------------------------------------
For further reading of sound theology, I highly recommend the 1851 edition of “Lectures on Systematic Theology” by Professor Charles G. Finney.
-------------------------------------
Quotes:
Cornelius Van Til: The Defense of the Faith, page 74. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. Phillipsburg, New Jersey. 1955
Justin Martyr: The Ante Nicene Fathers Volume One, Chapter XLIII – Responsibility Asserted. Page 347-348