|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 9, 2007 15:52:11 GMT -5
Thank you for your answers Brother Josh.
Just to re-cap these were the questions with the sum of your answer:
Question: What is your heart?
Answer: Quote: "It is your desires"
Question: What is your will?
Answer: Quote: "From what I see in the Bible your will is plainly your desires"
Now I'm a little bit more confused brother Josh about your view. Are you saying that the heart and the will are the same? If your heart is "your desires" and your will is "plainly your desires" what is the difference between the heart and the will? Did you mean to say that the heart and the will was the same or is there a difference I failed to see?
Could the bible mean, when it says God changes our hearts, that through influence God changes our will and the result is that everything we do and everything we want is entirely different?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 10, 2007 13:37:38 GMT -5
Thank you for your answers Brother Josh. Just to re-cap these were the questions with the sum of your answer: Question: What is your heart? Answer: Quote: "It is your desires" Question: What is your will? Answer: Quote: "From what I see in the Bible your will is plainly your desires" Now I'm a little bit more confused brother Josh about your view. Are you saying that the heart and the will are the same? If your heart is "your desires" and your will is "plainly your desires" what is the difference between the heart and the will? Did you mean to say that the heart and the will was the same or is there a difference I failed to see? Could the bible mean, when it says God changes our hearts, that through influence God changes our will and the result is that everything we do and everything we want is entirely different? I do believe your will and your heart are very similar if not the same. That is why I agreed with you the first time we had the discussion. What I disagree with you on is that you change them yourself. I believe God gives you a new heart- not yourself. I don't think you can change your own desires. When you say the phrase "the will" are you talking about a decision making faculty? I may be reading you wrong, but that is what I have interpreted. If that is what you mean, then I disagree with calling the heart that. EDIT: I will try to read your articles again. I guess my biggest problem is since you deny original sin you believe you define your own nature, right? And since you define it, then you change it. Is man completely autonomous from God, other than God saying "do it?" Am I understanding you wrong? I'm not Calvinist, but I don't believe you can get the root of sin out of yourself. I believe only God alone can do that. You can believe, but you can't birth yourself. Am I completely misinterpreting you? I really don't want to if I am. Maybe we aren't that far apart, but for some reason it seems there are some fundamental differences in our view of the new birth.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 10, 2007 13:44:29 GMT -5
This depends on how your define "our will." I do believe that God changes our desires and then everything is different.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 12, 2007 16:11:30 GMT -5
Brother Josh,
I am sorry that I haven't clarified my position better. I hope the following helps.
METAPHYSICAL verses ETHICAL
Some theologians believe that sin is some sort of metaphysical thing that we are born with. That sin itself is more then a personal choice to transgress God's law, that it is some thing, namely your physical nature, flesh, body, which itself is either sin or full of stuff called sin.
But I believe that sin is entirely ethical. We cannot be born with sin, because sin is a choice to transgress God's law. Sin is not some "thing" to be transferred from one person to another, because sin is not a "thing" at all that can be transferred, but is a choice. It is not physical, but soley moral, and therefore our physical nature, our physical flesh, our physical constitution, cannot of itself be sinful. But can only be a source of temptation to make an immoral choice, which choice would be sinful.
PHYSICAL DEPRAVITY verses ORIGINAL SIN
I believe in both physical depravity and moral depravity, but not what Augustine or Calvin taught as "original sin".
Physical depravity means that your body is depraved, crooked, or off course. Death, disease, and un-natural passions or desires is proof of this. Our body is not subjected to death and disease when it never was created to be, and our body or flesh can be a source of strong temptation to sin. But the body itself is not sin. The flesh itself is not sin. And these temptations to sin is not sin.
And we inherit a physically depraved body from our natural father - Adam. And one characteristic of this physical body is "aggrevated temptation" or "excited passions". These "excited passions" are not sin in themselves, but are a source of temptation to sin.
Moral Depravity consists soley of the will, not of the physical nature or physical body. Moral depravity occurs when a person wilfully chooses to transgress God's law. This choice is sin. And nothing but this choice is sin. Sin is the choice to transgress God's law. Nobody can make this choice for you, but it must your own your choice.
Original Sin Original sin is a sqeezing together of metaphysics and ethics, of physical depravity and moral depravity. Augustine and Calvin taught that your physical nature, body, flesh, itself was morally sinful and inherited at birth. That your nature itself was something sin in itself, that caused you to sin. This greatly differs from physical depravity that says your body tempts you to sin. This doctrine says your body or flesh is sin itslef, that there is some stuff inside of you that is sin, that not merely influences you to sin, but causes you to sin, and is sin itself. And this "stuff" called sin is transmited through birth.
Your nature is your physical constitution. To say that your nature is inherently sinful, is to say something physical can be and is sinful. I believe that your physical constitution tempts us to sin, but does not cause us to sin, and is not sin itself.
A "sinful nature", is not a physical thing or your physical constitution, but truly consists in a series of wilfull habits. In the bible, "nature" can be referring to your physical constitution, or your wilfull habit. Hense, "by nature children of wrath" does not mean we are children of wrath because of our physical constitution, but because of our wilfull habit of life. If I said, "hey don't get that guy angry, he'll punch you in the face. That's just his nature." I do not mean that there is any physical cause that forces him to punch people when he's angry, as though it were his physical constitution, but rather that it's his normal or "natural" habit of life.
Some fail to make any distinction at all in their theology regarding ethics and metaphysics, moral depravity and physical depravity. Thus there are doctrines which teach that our physical body is sinful in itself, that our physical nature or physical constitution is sinful in itself, that causes us to sin, rather then being a source of temptation for sin.
Because I strongly belief in a distinction between metaphysics and ethics, that sin is not physical but is a moral choice, I cannot believe in any sort of physical or forced regeneration, that man's actually constitution changes at conversion. But rather that conversion/regeneration comes about by the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the will of man, that completely changes the heart and conduct of the man, but certainly does not change any of his physical faculties or physical constitution by cause or force.
Because there is no physical sin, there is no need of physical regeneration, but because the problem is with the will, regeneration consists in the submission of the heart (will) to the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Man has every natural ability needed to obey all of God's direct commands to Him. Thus man can "naturally" obey God, because there is no natural or physical cause stopping him, but man "will" not obey God, without the influence of the Holy Spirit to enlighten Him. The Holy Spirit enlightens the mind to influence the will, but does not enable the physical faculties to make obedience naturally possible.
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Jan 12, 2007 16:37:59 GMT -5
Jesse you said: Man has every natural ability needed to obey all of God's direct commands to Him. Thus man can "naturally" obey God, because there is no natural or physical cause stopping him, but man "will" not obey God, without the influence of the Holy Spirit to enlighten Him. The Holy Spirit enlightens the mind to influence the will, but does not enable the physical faculties to make obedience naturally possible.
Is a man enabled by the Holy Spirit prior to repentance?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 12, 2007 16:47:28 GMT -5
Because sin is not physical, and the will is free, there is no need for a physical regeneration before repentance. But regeneration, conversion, repentance, are all the turning of the will to God, the submission of the heart to the ways of the Lord. And this turning and submission is brought about by the enlightening of the Holy Spirit, which influences the will.
The "power that worketh in us" is the power of the influence of the Holy Spirit. The grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness the epistle says. And the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come the Master said. So by the grace of God the Holy Spirit enlightens our minds.
But there is no scriptural grounds to believe that there is a physical regeneration which requires any physical force or physical enabling on the part of the Holy Spirit.
So regeneration includes the influencing of the Holy Spirit through enlightening or instructing, but does not include any physical causing of the Holy Spirit as in physical enabling or physical ability being granted to any of our faculties.
Our physical constitutions stays the same when regeneration occurs. But the end in which our will aims is entirely different.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 12, 2007 16:54:55 GMT -5
Brother, can you show this is a Biblical deffinition? If you can show that the will is a place of deicision making, then it will be easier to accept.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 12, 2007 17:02:36 GMT -5
Other then "free will offerings" and "if we sin willfully" there is not much use of the word "will" in the bible.
But the bible shows that the heart is the decision making faculty of the soul. Specificly, that the heart of man is the true intention or actual purpose of man. And that it's with the heart one obeys or disobeys, wills or nills.
Ro 6:17 - But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Mt 12:35 - A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Mt 15:8 - This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mt 15:19 - Show Context For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies
Hense, why the Holy Spirit changes our heart and when the heart is changed, the whole life is changed. Because the heart is the intention of man, the decision making faculty of man.
Scripturally, the heart is the decision making faculty. But most people do not think of the decision making faculty when you say "heart". Which is why it's good to use the English word "will" because then people will know you are referencing the decision making faculty.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 12, 2007 19:28:49 GMT -5
The phrase "the will" is used in the KJV 39 times. Many of them refer to God's will, but not all of them.
The word "will" is in the KJV 2856. Of course, many of them are not referring to a part of man but just as a verb like "Yes, I will do that."
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 7, 2007 16:25:40 GMT -5
Brother Josh, you were asking about this passage before. My understanding has become clearer about it.
All moral agents have a conscience. This is the idea of right and wrong upon the mind. The conscience is not an emotion or a feeling, but those may result from violating the conscience. But the conscience is the minds perception of what is morally right and morally wrong. And God has given this knowledge to all men, so that they are without excuse.
But the law written upon the heart is only for Christians. That is when the will (heart) submits to the mind (conscience), when the Spirit of God reveals truth to the mind of man, and the will of man submits to this truth. Then, and only then, can it be properly said that the law of God is written on your heart, when the law of God is your own actual will.
The problem with sinners, is that they are submitting their will to their sensibilities (emotions, feelings, desires), rather then their conscience (truth revealed to the mind by the Spirit).
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Mar 7, 2007 16:47:20 GMT -5
Brother Josh, you were asking about this passage before. My understanding has become clearer about it. All moral agents have a conscience. This is the idea of right and wrong upon the mind. The conscience is not an emotion or a feeling, but those may result from violating the conscience. But the conscience is the minds perception of what is morally right and morally wrong. And God has given this knowledge to all men, so that they are without excuse. But the law written upon the heart is only for Christians. Amen. I agree. I disagree with some of the terms you use in the rest of it, but that is because our understanding of "the fall" differ so we are always going to disagree on the technical parts of "converstion." I do rejoice in that we both see a similar outcome: a new creature that lives above sin!
|
|