Why Our Will Is Not Free to Choose Christ

[JIM]

Well, here's a thought. Try considering it in connection with what @JIM is claiming. That since the cross no one is born with the inherited sin of Adam.

I am not claiming that exists only since the cross. I am claiming that because of the cross, there never was anyone born with the inherited sin of Adam. God does not, did not and will not impute the sin of one to another. You or I might do that if we could, but God would not. He is righteous.

 

[Johan]

Well, here's a thought. Try considering it in connection with what @JIM is claiming. That since the cross no one is born with the inherited sin of Adam. God only judges them regarding sin when they start sinning. IOW put my statement into the context in which it was made. Here and listen and then address the point.

And then answer this question:

If JIM's claim is true, then when and at what age does sin against God become sin against God?

Where did I say/infer JIM's claim is true?
Although the Bible is silent on the age of accountability-Judaism has it right-yes?
An aside-there are various "theories" re Original sin.

Pelagianism
* Man's soul is created individually by God at birth
*Man's soul is created without corruption
* the influence of Adam's sin is that of an example
*man has free volition
*God's grace is universal sine all men have free will; adults may obtain forgiveness through baptism
* Thus, Adam's sin does not directly affect others; there is no such thing as original sin, and man is not
depraved.
*Since man is not born in sin, it is possible for him to be preserved and never need salvation

Arminianism
*Man receives from Adam a corrupted nature, but does not receive his guilt
*The nature is corrupted physically and intellectually, but not volitionally
*Prevenient grace enables man to believe
*Thus, man is not totally depraved, but still retains the volition to seek God.

Calvinism
* Each individual is related to Adam via either:
1) Federal headship- creationist view of the origin of the soul
the individual receives the physical nature from the parents and the soul from God, and us Adam was our ordained representative, as was paralleled by Christ.
2) Neutral headship - traducianist view of origin of soul - Augustine
This individual receives both soul and nature from parents, thus all people were present in Adam in germinal or seminal form, each individual participate in the sin of Adam, and each individual inherits Adam's sins.
Key Passage: Romans 5:12-21
"so death came to all people because....

The Example view
Adam's sin was a minor act of disobedience that affected only himself. Romans 5:12 refers to actual personal sins of individuals who followed Adam's example, committed sins, and are thus guilty before God.

Solidarity view
A solidarity exists between Adam and his race such that Paul can say that one sinned, and at the same time say that all sinned. Both statements referencing the fall.

Seminalism
The union between Adam and his posterity is biological and genetic, such that Adam embodied all human beings in a single, collective entity and thus all people are co-sinners with Adam- which leads to indirect imputation, in which people have a corrupt nature imputed to them--the effect of Adam's sin. Thus, hereditary depravity is imputed. All sinned because all have inherited natural corruption from Adam

Federalism
The union between Adam and his posterity is due to the fact that God appointed him as the representative head of the human race. What Adam did is charged to his posterity. Leading to direct imputation. Adam's first sin was imputed to every person. All people were tried in Adam our representative and declared guilty.

Which view do you hold?
Calvin?

 

[Arial]

Where did I say/infer JIM's claim is true?

I am not saying you did. I was pointing out why I said what I did to @JIM.

Although the Bible is silent on the age of accountability-Judaism has it right-yes?

If the Bible is silent on an issue, everything offered in that silence is speculation.

Where did I say/infer JIM's claim is true?
Although the Bible is silent on the age of accountability-Judaism has it right-yes?
An aside-there are various "theories" re Original sin.

Pelagianism
* Man's soul is created individually by God at birth
*Man's soul is created without corruption
* the influence of Adam's sin is that of an example
*man has free volition
*God's grace is universal sine all men have free will; adults may obtain forgiveness through baptism
* Thus, Adam's sin does not directly affect others; there is no such thing as original sin, and man is not
depraved.
*Since man is not born in sin, it is possible for him to be preserved and never need salvation

Arminianism
*Man receives from Adam a corrupted nature, but does not receive his guilt
*The nature is corrupted physically and intellectually, but not volitionally
*Prevenient grace enables man to believe
*Thus, man is not totally depraved, but still retains the volition to seek God.

Calvinism
* Each individual is related to Adam via either:
1) Federal headship- creationist view of the origin of the soul
the individual receives the physical nature from the parents and the soul from God, and us Adam was our ordained representative, as was paralleled by Christ.
2) Neutral headship - traducianist view of origin of soul - Augustine
This individual receives both soul and nature from parents, thus all people were present in Adam in germinal or seminal form, each individual participate in the sin of Adam, and each individual inherits Adam's sins.
Key Passage: Romans 5:12-21
"so death came to all people because....

The Example view
Adam's sin was a minor act of disobedience that affected only himself. Romans 5:12 refers to actual personal sins of individuals who followed Adam's example, committed sins, and are thus guilty before God.

Solidarity view
A solidarity exists between Adam and his race such that Paul can say that one sinned, and at the same time say that all sinned. Both statements referencing the fall.

Seminalism
The union between Adam and his posterity is biological and genetic, such that Adam embodied all human beings in a single, collective entity and thus all people are co-sinners with Adam- which leads to indirect imputation, in which people have a corrupt nature imputed to them--the effect of Adam's sin. Thus, hereditary depravity is imputed. All sinned because all have inherited natural corruption from Adam

Federalism
The union between Adam and his posterity is due to the fact that God appointed him as the representative head of the human race. What Adam did is charged to his posterity. Leading to direct imputation. Adam's first sin was imputed to every person. All people were tried in Adam our representative and declared guilty.

Which view do you hold?
Calvin?

Federalism though speculating on the soul and what that is, is outside my wheelhouse. It is what it is. I know it is a part of me and equally but distinct with my mind and body.

 

[Arial]

I am not claiming that exists only since the cross. I am claiming that because of the cross, there never was anyone born with the inherited sin of Adam. God does not, did not and will not impute the sin of one to another. You or I might do that if we could, but God would not. He is righteous.

So our sins weren't imputed to Christ on the cross as the Bible tells us? And if you find you must agree with what the Bible says about it, is that unrighteousness in God?

Adam's sin being imputed to us does not mean that we are condemned by that particular sin as though we were the ones who committed it. We commit our own sins. Adam's sin imputed to us means that because of what he did the human became a sinful creature---Adam is the reason all sin. We sin because in Adam we are sinners.

 

[Arial]

When they are old enough to know and understand law of God and the consequences for violating that law. I think Paul defined that in his discussion in chapter 7 about his own experience with law and sin. In verse 9 he said, "I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died".

You are describing accountability. Not what I asked. I am talking about our nature as sinners in light of your assertion that we do not inherit that nature to sin from out parents and ultimately from our first parents. Does sin against God become sin against God only at a certain age? Of is sin against God always sin against God?

 

[Johan]

I am not saying you did. I was pointing out why I said what I did to @JIM.

If the Bible is silent on an issue, everything offered in that silence is speculation.

Federalism though speculating on the soul and what that is, is outside my wheelhouse. It is what it is. I know it is a part of me and equally but distinct with my mind and body.

So what is within the scope of your wheelhouse-that of Calvin-or what stands written?

 

[Arial]

So what is within the scope of your wheelhouse-that of Calvin-or what stands written?

Whatever God tells us clearly in His word, whatever understanding He gives me. What is outside my wheelhouse are things He does not tell us or give details on---such as a description of precisely what the soul is, what the mind is----medical science does not even know those things, they only know what they do, and Christianity often speculates on them and presents their speculations as fact. The age of accountability. The secret things of God He does not reveal to us.

You see, it has nothing at all to do with Calvinism. But why are you getting so hostile?

 

[Johan]

Whatever God tells us clearly in His word, whatever understanding He gives me. What is outside my wheelhouse are things He does not tell us or give details on---such as a description of precisely what the soul is, what the mind is----medical science does not even know those things, they only know what they do, and Christianity often speculates on them and presents their speculations as fact. The age of accountability. The secret things of God He does not reveal to us.

You see, it has nothing at all to do with Calvinism. But why are you getting so hostile?

Why do you see me as hostile by probing you with questions-what is the difference between dokimazo and peiradzo?
Am I peiradzo-ing you?

 

[JIM]

You are describing accountability. Not what I asked. I am talking about our nature as sinners in light of your assertion that we do not inherit that nature to sin from out parents and ultimately from our first parents. Does sin against God become sin against God only at a certain age? Of is sin against God always sin against God?

Arial, I don't intend any offense here, but I consider your thinking on sin and all things related so muddled that I am not able to follow. Therefore I really don't want to continue down this rabbit hole with you.

 

[Arial]

Why do you see me as hostile by probing you with questions-what is the difference between dokimazo and peiradzo?
Am I peiradzo-ing you?

Why do you ask questions using Greek when you're writing to someone who speaks English? You have been hostile over in Definite Atonement, accusing me of being haughty, of being easily offended, of suggesting that if I give my view on something that I am telling someone else they don't have a right to their view, of suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with my Reformed views I would ex-communicate them from the church. That is hostility. When a person is treated like that by another, they begin to take everything done by the one doing it as passive aggressive hostility.

It has nothing to do with you asking me questions. I have been answering them. Now get off the insults, personal remarks, prejudices and what not and stick to the OP. Which btw is Why Our WIll is Not Free to Choose Christ.

 

[Arial]

Arial, I don't intend any offense here, but I consider your thinking on sin and all things related so muddled that I am not able to follow. Therefore I really don't want to continue down this rabbit hole with you.

Well JIM I did not ask you what my views on sin were. I asked what you considered sin. I did not ask you at what age I say sin becomes sin, I asked you what you have to say about at what age sin against God becomes sin against God? Why can't you answer those questions instead of not answering them by telling me that my views of sin are so muddled to can't follow them. And if you can't follow them how would you know they are muddled? Do you mean instead they are different than yours?

Also, if you think they are muddled, does that mean they are wrong? Trigonometry is a complete muddle to me, and yet it follows complete mathematical logic. I am sure I have the intellect to figure it out, but I have no interest in doing so. Is that the type of thing we are dealing with?

 

[makesends]

Reformedguy said:
Amen. We certainly have the natural ability to choose God but not tge moral ability.

Yes it is God who chooses those He saves in Christ. And yes we have the natural ability to choose God but not the moral ability, in that we don't want to. But that is only the human side of what happened. That deals with us. But we are the result of the internal effect on the human race.

I don't know if this will muddle it for the reader, but I mean it to clear up a point: It is not that man cannot choose Christ or choose God, or do good, but that his choice is not real —no matter what it seems to him— because of its corruption. He has only chosen his idea of Christ, and merely complied with a rule or with conscience. He has not submitted, and is unable to, for being at enmity with God.

So I say we do not have the natural ability to ACTUALLY choose God, no matter what choice we make, if we do not have the moral ability.

Monergism is the way of grace, which may be most obvious in regeneration and salvific faith, but also applies to all subsequent virtues of the believer. I just witnessed today, on another site, a rather vicious argument between two people, both of whom argued from the same, almost deistic, point of view that it is the regenerated believer who, now made alive, has been enabled to do what is actually good, quite apart from the motions of the Spirit of God upon him. Not so! "Apart from me you can do nothing!"

And remarkably, even the corrupt choice of the unbeliever for good, such as the supposed altruistic act, for example, or any mercy or love, is still a work of God, to whatever degree the deed is good. Thus, too, for the believers, our momentary repentances, our ineffectual prayers, our abandoned commitments, our heartfelt affections for Christ and his people, are all false as the day is long, except for what God himself is doing within us.

Only God can establish a choice.

 

[Mr GLee]

Reformedguy said:
Amen. We certainly have the natural ability to choose God but not tge moral ability.

I don't know if this will muddle it for the reader, but I mean it to clear up a point: It is not that man cannot choose Christ or choose God, or do good, but that his choice is not real —no matter what it seems to him— because of its corruption. He has only chosen his idea of Christ, and merely complied with a rule or with conscience. He has not submitted, and is unable to, for being at enmity with God.

So I say we do not have the natural ability to ACTUALLY choose God, no matter what choice we make, if we do not have the moral ability.

Monergism is the way of grace, which may be most obvious in regeneration and salvific faith, but also applies to all subsequent virtues of the believer. I just witnessed today, on another site, a rather vicious argument between two people, both of whom argued from the same, almost deistic, point of view that it is the regenerated believer who, now made alive, has been enabled to do what is actually good, quite apart from the motions of the Spirit of God upon him. Not so! "Apart from me you can do nothing!"

And remarkably, even the corrupt choice of the unbeliever for good, such as the supposed altruistic act, for example, or any mercy or love, is still a work of God, to whatever degree the deed is good. Thus, too, for the believers, our momentary repentances, our ineffectual prayers, our abandoned commitments, our heartfelt affections for Christ and his people, are all false as the day is long, except for what God himself is doing within us.

Only God can establish a choice.

"Apart for me you can do nothing, nada, zero " Amen

Better things accompany salvation. Actual salvation and not just a kick start .

God promises he will not forget the good works as our labor of love that we can offer towards his name(power) After all it is God who does work in powerless creatures to both reveal his truth and empower mankind to it to his glory. Some murmur all the way like Jonas who knew God would have mercy on those who did not know that right hand from the left .Jesus did the will of the father with delight ?

Hebrews 6:9-11 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:

The key is both

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

 

[FutureAndAHope]

When God created Adam it could be said that he was created with a free will in the sense that he could make choices without coercion one way or the other when given a choice. At the same time, he was subject to God's will as seen by the warning given and the results of disobedience. He was in no way autonomous. He was duty bound to obey God. God set a choice before him in the Garden of Eden. He commanded him to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and gave him the results of doing so. We can speculate endlessly on why God did that, or whether or not Adam already knew evil in some form (he certainly knew by God's proclamation that he shouldn't eat of that tree) if he knew right and wrong, etc. but what we have is enough. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and there was a catastrophic shift in all of mankind's relationship with God. He put them out of the world He had created for them which is seen as the place where the dwelled with Him.

Why did He do this? We see in Romans 5:12-21 in Adam all became sinners. And this means much more than the individual sins we all commit, it refers to the type of creature we became. Before Adam's transgression mankind under Adam's headship of all mankind to follow, we were created perfect and holy in the image and likeness of God who is holy and perfect and we were created to dwell with Him. After the transgression, and for the same reason of Adam's headship of all mankind to follow, we became a sinful creature not a holy creature.

Adam and Eve were put out of the garden because sin cannot dwell with God. The unholy cannot approach the Holy. We see this in the Mosaic sacrificial system, through the cleansings and the sacrifices of substitution, that were put in place while we awaited the Redeemer, the Holy, to be the final sacrifice for the true cleansing of sin and the sin nature in its power to condemn, by the substitution of one made like us, but without sin.

It is God who says the sinner cannot come to Him. We have it upside down, thinking the way of salvation is for a sinner to choose Christ. It isn't about us. It is about God. He alone is Holy, Holy, Holy. Or even when we posit that utter depravity means that we can't/don't come to Him because we are unwilling, that we are by nature at enmity with God. That we view that passage as meaning we consider God our enemy when in fact, God considers us (mankind) His enemy. It is God who forbids a sinful man to approach Him in any way shape or form. He must be cleansed first. A sinful man cannot approach Christ, who is God, and Holy, Holy, Holy. God must cleanse them first. And this He does in the new birth by the Holy Spirit, applying the work of Christ to him. Then and only then may He come to Christ, and this same grace that He sends to save, opens his ears to hear the voice of the Shepherd, the gospel, and he receives it with joy. God gives him to Jesus.

It is Christ's righteousness counted as our own that gives us access to His throne. Nothing we choose and nothing we do. It is by the grace of God who gives us to Christ our righteousness.

No, God gives knowledge of His will to man, if man follows after the knowledge that God gives the man will be saved.

See the two way path below:

Job 36:9-12 Then He tells them their work and their transgressions—That they have acted defiantly. He also opens their ear to instruction, And commands that they turn from iniquity. If they obey and serve Him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they do not obey, They shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.

See also that God's "love" is only manifest after we respond to His word.

Joh 14:22-24 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

His word is primarily the call of faith:

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

But also the call to daily obedience to the word of God, after faith is established.

1Jn 3:7-10 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

A darkened heart, and God's wrath only comes "after", He has revealed His will, and man rejects it.

Rom 1:18-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Enlightenment and salvation only occur with persistence in following what God has revealed, wrath only comes upon the one who is self-seeking and does not obey the truth. Note here, I am not saying we set aside the grace of God, but there is a general direction towards right living that must be followed to remain in God's hands.

Rom 2:6-8 who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,

Eze 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Note however that the Spirit of God emphasizes daily grace, over perfect law-keeping. There is a balance. But we can not excuse sin.

Ecc 7:16-18 Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself? Do not be overly wicked, Nor be foolish: Why should you die before your time? It is good that you grasp this, And also not remove your hand from the other; For he who fears God will escape them all.

 

[Arial]

No, God gives knowledge of His will to man, if man follows after the knowledge that God gives the man will be saved.

See the two way path below:

Job 36:9-12 Then He tells them their work and their transgressions—That they have acted defiantly. He also opens their ear to instruction, And commands that they turn from iniquity. If they obey and serve Him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they do not obey, They shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.

See also that God's "love" is only manifest after we respond to His word.

Joh 14:22-24 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

His word is primarily the call of faith:

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

But also the call to daily obedience to the word of God, after faith is established.

1Jn 3:7-10 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

A darkened heart, and God's wrath only comes "after", He has revealed His will, and man rejects it.

Rom 1:18-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Enlightenment and salvation only occur with persistence in following what God has revealed, wrath only comes upon the one who is self-seeking and does not obey the truth. Note here, I am not saying we set aside the grace of God, but there is a general direction towards right living that must be followed to remain in God's hands.

Rom 2:6-8 who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,

Eze 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Note however that the Spirit of God emphasizes daily grace, over perfect law-keeping. There is a balance. But we can not excuse sin.

Ecc 7:16-18 Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself? Do not be overly wicked, Nor be foolish: Why should you die before your time? It is good that you grasp this, And also not remove your hand from the other; For he who fears God will escape them all.

The OP is Why Our Will is Not Free to Choose God. I do not see where you addressed that at all. It is more as though you began your own OP on what you felt like presenting. When you present a case that is OP related, we can continue.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

The OP is Why Our Will is Not Free to Choose God. I do not see where you addressed that at all. It is more as though you began your own OP on what you felt like presenting. When you present a case that is OP related, we can continue.

My post starts out by showing, a) Man is given one of two paths ways based upon his "CHOOSING", and b) Our deeds determine if God reveals himself to us. Both of these things are a "choice". The rest of the post just explains, how deeds are related to salvation. I have addressed your post.

 

[Arial]

My post starts out by showing, a) Man is given one of two paths ways based upon his "CHOOSING", and b) Our deeds determine if God reveals himself to us. Both of these things are a "choice". The rest of the post just explains, how deeds are related to salvation. I have addressed your post.

You have not really addressed my post. You said it was wrong and then gave your view of why our will is free in the form of scripture quotes that quite naturally have whatever is your opinion contained in them whether that is correct or not. There is no commentary on them that is then backed up with the whole counsel of God---that is, consistently in other places. And I could and would break them down with the whole counsel of God and presenta whole other and legitimate way to understand them. But then that would become the thread topic instead of what it is.

What if you were to exegete in a way that I did, bringing the doctrines of God which show nothing sinful may even come near God and it is Him who does not allow that? And then show me how the human will is capable of choosing to become holy and becoming holy by that choice so that he may come to God. And show me how the human will ever chooses what it does not want. And show me how a creature, man, whose very nature makes him a sinful being, could ever desire that which is holy, other than for his own sinful purposes, and never 100% submission to God. Which of course would make the apparent desire itself sinful and therefore not a desire for God

 

[FutureAndAHope]

You have not really addressed my post. You said it was wrong and then gave your view of why our will is free in the form of scripture quotes that quite naturally have whatever is your opinion contained in them whether that is correct or not. There is no commentary on them that is then backed up with the whole counsel of God---that is, consistently in other places. And I could and would break them down with the whole counsel of God and presenta whole other and legitimate way to understand them. But then that would become the thread topic instead of what it is.

What if you were to exegete in a way that I did, bringing the doctrines of God which show nothing sinful may even come near God and it is Him who does not allow that? And then show me how the human will is capable of choosing to become holy and becoming holy by that choice so that he may come to God. And show me how the human will ever chooses what it does not want. And show me how a creature, man, whose very nature makes him a sinful being, could ever desire that which is holy, other than for his own sinful purposes, and never 100% submission to God. Which of course would make the apparent desire itself sinful and therefore not a desire for God

Firstly you have a strict view of what Holiness actually is. God is not a cosmic killjoy. The Pharisees held a legalistic view of God, but Jesus said to them:

Mat 12:7 But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE MERCY AND NOT SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the guiltless.

God does not hold his creation guilty of being born evil, guilt of the damnable kind only comes with the rejection of God's evidence. He is not wrathful with His creation by default. Warth comes as man refuses to acknowledge God and turn to go His way.

Rom 1:18-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

You said:

And show me how the human will ever chooses what it does not want. And show me how a creature, man, whose very nature makes him a sinful being, could ever desire that which is holy, other than for his own sinful purposes, and never 100% submission to God.

Paul speaks of the sinful state of man (without Christ)

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Look at how many times he says "he delights in God's law", "wishes to keep it"

Rom 7:15 -23 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 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.

See man can delight in God's law as a sinner. Just the means to carry out that lifestyle is not found in man. But that is found in the redemption that comes through Christ. Who empowers us by His Holy Spirit, so we can live above our sinful nature.

1Jn 3:9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

Salvation is given to those who desire to go God's way, and who delight in His law. God reveals His will but we must walk in it. It is not a strict will, but a call to grace, the one who seeks to follow God's way is deemed righteous.

Job 36:10-12 He also opens their ear to instruction, And commands that they turn from iniquity. If they obey and serve Him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they do not obey, They shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.

John 14:22-23 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Note the order of salvation in John 14:

• God reveals His word
• We either seek to follow it, and in doing so God loves us, and gives us sight
• Or we do not seek to follow Him and are left in blindness

 

[Arial]

Firstly you have a strict view of what Holiness actually is. God is not a cosmic killjoy. The Pharisees held a legalistic view of God, but Jesus said to them:

Since you make this statement about me and label if "firstly", it makes it run through all that you say afterwards. And since you say something about me that you can not possibly know as I have not told you, and you have no access to my mind, it brings all into question.What you have actually done is present your presumptions about me as though those presumptions were true, when the only ever existed in your mind, not mine. It also may or may not, be revealing that bottom line, that even some Christians actually do still view God as a cosmic killjoy, infringing upon their fun. It is pretty natural for a babe in Christ to still hold onto some of that, as we are still in the flesh, and have included in our fun some things that God in His holiness, and for our own good, says are not good. Sanctification does not take place overnight, but lasts the lifetime of our present existence. We are however meant to grow out of that first days view of God as a killjoy. Which btw is the same one we had before He redeemed us.

Let me ask you this regarding your statement, keeping in mind I am not talking about the holiness of humanity, but the holiness of God, how can His holiness be too strict? Who defines too strict in regards to Him? When one says "too strict" is it not merely making room for sin to be and holiness to be defined by man according to his fleshly desires?

The Pharisees held a legalistic view of the Law. That is what is shown in the scriptures. The only thing we know about what was in their mind at any given moment was what Jesus revealed and He, being God, is the only One who would know what was in their mind.

The Holiness of God

It is perfect and perfectly righteous.
All He does is perfect.
All He does is perfectly good.
All He is is perfectly just.
All He is and does is perfectly pure.
There is no sin in Him
He is immutable, there is no shadow of turning with Him. Etc.etc.

Mat 12:7 But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE MERCY AND NOT SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the guiltless.

The Pharisees were adding to the Sabbath law with no understanding of what it's purpose was or what it represented.They showed no mercy for the hungry. It was not any of those that Jesus mentions in verses 3-5 who were committing sin. And it was God who showed the Priests who technically broke the Law by working on the Sabbath in doing the work God had given them to do, and to David when he ate the forbidden bread in his deep hunger. Why? Because He is Lord of the Sabbath. He is the One who says what is sin and He who shows mercy. And it was the Pharisees who were pronouncing the disciples as committing a sin. And it was Jesus who said He was Lord of the Sabbath.

So don't use this verse to justify doing what God in His word has declared as sin, not what men declare as sin that God specifically does not, but what God specifically declares as sin, on the grounds that He is not a "cosmic killjoy", and take His mercy and the cross of Christ for granted.

God does not hold his creation guilty of being born evil, guilt of the damnable kind only comes with the rejection of God's evidence. He is not wrathful with His creation by default. Warth comes as man refuses to acknowledge God and turn to go His way.

He holds them guilty for being evil. Holds them guilty of their sins. All men refuse to acknowledge God by nature. They may acknowledge His existence but it is not an acknowledgment that contains any knowledge of Him. And certainly not in a way in which they have a relationship with Him, or that includes abandoning their sin, or even being able to. The creation shows He exists but it does not preach the gospel. God's wrath is against evil.

Rom 1:18-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Exactly what I said above. It utterly disproves what you intended it to prove. I have accentuated in red those things you denied previously in this post. Who exactly do you think Paul talking about here?

I will get to the rest of your post in a bit.

 

[Arial]

Paul speaks of the sinful state of man (without Christ)

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Look at how many times he says "he delights in God's law", "wishes to keep it"

Rom 7:15 -23 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 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.

See man can delight in God's law as a sinner. Just the means to carry out that lifestyle is not found in man. But that is found in the redemption that comes through Christ. Who empowers us by His Holy Spirit, so we can live above our sinful nature.

Was Paul without Christ when he wrote that? Was he writing about his life before being in Him, when he said "what I am doing" and "what I hate that I do"? etc. Those not in Christ do not hate what they do that is sinful in God's eyes. Their spirit does not desire the things of God. And he makes a distinction between the "I who do it" and it the sin that dwells in him. He makes a distinction between the inward man and the flesh. He is describing the ongoing battle that Christian's, even Paul, still deal with as still living in our fallen flesh, in the fallen world, which is under the influence of the devil.

1Jn 3:9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

Salvation is given to those who desire to go God's way, and who delight in His law. God reveals His will but we must walk in it. It is not a strict will, but a call to grace, the one who seeks to follow God's way is deemed righteous.

Salvation has been given to those who are born of God. That is what that passage says. It says nothing about God saving those who desire to go God's way and who delight in His law.
It is very strict. So strict in fact no one can do it. That is why Jesus had to come as one of us and do it for us, then die our death in our place, paying our sins just penalty for us; defeating the power of sin to condemn us, and the power of death over us, by rising from the dead, and ascending back to the Father. He had no sin of His own, so sin and death could not hold Him. And those the Father gives to the Son, those for whom He died, have His perfect righteousness counted as their own; so it is said that the believer died with Him, was buried with Him, and will be raised to bodily life with Him. We are so now spiritually, quickened to life where before we were dead in our trespasses and sins. A literal resurrection of our bodies in the fullness of time.

Do your think grace is a license to sin?