[Laura]

I woke up at twelve today, and debated whether to eat lunch or breakfast. The latter desire won out because there was a big box of Krispy Kreme doughnuts sitting on the counter.

Very insightful analogy, by the way.

[Colleen]

But then wouldn't you say that our greatest desire, stronger than our temptation to sin and be temporarily gratified, is to follow Christ and his teachings and to live a sinless life?

[smitty2622]

This is an argument that cant be won I’ve been in it several times. All I really know is to this day there are times I desire the substances of my past yet I don’t go back to them. I don’t credit myself for winning this battle but Christ, has won this one. I’ll leave with this scripture, if you really want to convince me you’ll have to do it with scripture. Otherwise I’ve got to go with God’s word and to me it seems very different than what a lot of people put forward in these arguments.


Romans 7
19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.





Peace

[Danny]

Smitty:

Romans 8:5
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.

I think this scripture you quoted makes it quite clear that we have two desires constantly fighting each other. The desire of the flesh (sin), and the desire of the Spirit (holiness). The choices we make will be made due to which desire outweighs the other.

Romans 7
19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.

The Spirit will always desire to do what's right, and the flesh will always desire to do the opposite. We must be constantly feeding the Spirit, and dying daily to the flesh, so that the Spirit's desire will outweigh the flesh's desire. Otherwise, we will continually fall into sin.

I don't really see how what Matt is saying is contrary to scripture. In fact, it seems to line up quite nicely with the Bible.

[smitty2622]

I don’t necessarily disagree. Except that we can change our desires and choose things contrary to our desire. And scripture even tells us to do so. My main problem with this argument is where it leads too, we are not mindless puppets in the game of life. We do make choices for all kinds of reasons and not all of them are for our desire.. :kwink:





Peace

[benj]

I disagree with the assertion that we can choose contrary to our desire. I think that is part of Matthew's argument. We do that which we have the strongest desire to do.
Can you give an example of choosing against our desire?

[Bryan]

Originally posted by smitty2622
Throughout scripture we are called to control our desires. One cannot do this without some amount of free choice, other wise none of us would resist the draw of our sinful nature.

And that is where the Holy Spirit comes in.

Many Christians fight with this problem, I have the desire to do what is right but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.

often times we talk about doing things we do not want to do. Like doing the paperwork at the office when you'd rather be doing the graphic design you are supposed to be doing. But you do the paperwork anyway. Why? You don't want to do the paperwork. But what you do want more is the steady income your job provides. Because you know that if you don't do your paperwork you could be fired. And you don't want to take that chance. You have a greater desire for a steady income than you have a desire for skipping the paperwork. While you do indeed do what you don't want to do, you do it because the result we be something you want more. Jonathan Edwards would say that keeping your job was most agreeable.

Ask some ex drug addicts or alcoholics if their desire was out weighed by their will.

your will and your desire are the same thing.

[exo]

I just wanted to say that I had Cheerios with honey placed on top. I'm telling you, if you haven't tried it yet, it's really good. Don't put too much honey, though.

I really enjoyed reading 'the point' of the post, too. Good stuff.

[benj]

Originally posted by exo
I just wanted to say that I had Cheerios with honey placed on top. I'm telling you, if you haven't tried it yet, it's really good. Don't put too much honey, though.

I really enjoyed reading 'the point' of the post, too. Good stuff.

I know this is off topic, but was it plain or honey-nut Cheerios? That sounds really good.

[Bryan]

Originally posted by smitty2622
I don’t necessarily disagree. Except that we can change our desires and choose things contrary to our desire.

can we? You yourself said that it was not you who changed your desire for Alchohol or drugs but God himself. Can you really change your desires? Or is it God changing them for you. That is what sanctification is, a changing of our desires so that they become more and more a desire to please God. Sanctification is not something we do but something that God does. He is continually perfecting us (Phil 1:6), He is continually changing our desires to holy ones.

Paul tells us to put to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit (Romans 8:13). It is not something we can do ourselves. It is something that must be done by the Holy Spirit.

[Mr. Squeeky]

But then there arises the logical problem of morality.

All societies were founded on certain principles, such as don't kill your neighbor, don't take his stuff, don't kill him to take his stuff, etc. These however seem to have been waived in regards to behavior between societies (as entities).

Now if we are truly just the product of our desires, why did we create this mutual suppression of desires and why has this mutual suppression of desires not stopped existing?

[t.j]

Originally posted by smitty2622
We have been taught to put off our desires yet sometimes we fall pray to those desires, even if it’s not always, as some would have us believe. We do not always follow our desire. Our natural desire or the desire of nature is always contrary to the desire of the spirit it’s a content battle. With Christ help we can overcome these desires and become children of the sprit and not nature. If we have no control over our desire we would be like animals.

But how would we put off our desires? Wouldn't it be by filling ourselves with Christ? By desiring Him more? We do always follow our desires. Scripture calls us to desire Christ more than sin. If we don't truly desire Christ more than sin, then our following Him is simply obedience out of fear or heartlessness. What you are proposing is far more robotic than anything a Calvinist would suggest. You suggest that we are following Christ, not because we truly want to, but merely because we are commanded to. We really desire sin but follow Him anyway.

I don't think this is what you believe though. In fact, you contradicted yourself. You said, "Our natural desire or the desire of nature is always contrary to the desire of the spirit it’s a content battle." You've mentioned two different desires. Our sinful nature has a desire and our spirit controlled nature has a desire (that's probably bad wording). Think about it this way, there are numerous things that I want to do, but don't. Why? Because my desire for something else is greater. In some cases my desire to please God outweighs my desire for sinful pleasure. But, as you suggest, sometimes (although, not all the time) my desire for the sinful pleasure outweighs my desire to please God. At the moment, my choice is made according to my greatest desire. Unless our choices are controlled by our desires, then the freedom to choose that you talk about is gone. If we do not choose according to our desires at the moment, then are choices are simply made willy nilly with no reason at all. Our choices are simply random acts driven by chance or nothing at all. What, in your scenario, determines the choices we make?

[Colleen]

Originally posted by Mr. Squeeky
But then there arises the logical problem of morality.

All societies were founded on certain principles, such as don't kill your neighbor, don't take his stuff, don't kill him to take his stuff, etc. These however seem to have been waived in regards to behavior between societies (as entities).

Now if we are truly just the product of our desires, why did we create this mutual suppression of desires and why has this mutual suppression of desires not stopped existing?

Who said that these general societal guidelines are everyone's desire? What if the rules were made and accepted in a feeble attempt to counteract desire? Or maybe our desires to win a war or prove ourselves superior to a nation outweigh our desire to preserve human life...

[Chrysostom]

This presents a false dilemma. Calvinists affirm a philosophical position on freewill called compatibilism. Arminians, Wesleyans, Molinists, Socianians, etc. affirm a position called libertarian freewill.

Compatibilism: You can do whatever you want to do, whatever you choose to do. However, it is not necessarily true that you will ever want or choose to do those things that you ought to do.

Libertarian freewill: Given any choice c with options a and b, person p is fully capable of choosing option a or option b.

Thus, an example in salvation.

Compatibilism: the unregenerate chooses to reject God, and so rejects God. If the unregenerate were ever to choose to accept God, he would be saved. However, due to the stain of original sin, the sinner will never choose salvation.

Libertarian freewill: The unregenerate is capable of affirming or denying God. It is his choice.

An example in breakfast cereals.

Compatibilism: Matt chooses to eat Cocoa Pebbles (even though they are disgusting), so he eats Cocoa Pebbles. If he had wanted to, he could have chosen to eat Grape Nuts or even dirty underwear, but he didn't, so he eats Cocoa Pebbles.

Libertarian Freewill: Matt chooses to eat Cocoa Pebbles (even though they are disgusting), so he eats Cocoa Pebbles. If he had wanted to, he could have chosen to eat Grape Nuts or even dirty underwear, but he didn't, so he eats Cocoa Pebbles.