Acting according to one's strongest desires?

cih1355 · #1 (**permalink**) 07-01-2008, 08:57 PM

Jonathan Edwards taught that people act according to one's strongest desires. However, Romans 7:19-20 seems to teach that we can act contrary to what we want to do. Is this correct?

BobVigneault · #2 (**permalink**) 07-01-2008, 09:12 PM

The struggle written about in Romans 7 is the distinction between desires and intentions. The believers intentions are always to live in a manner pleasing to God and worthy of the Gospel, BUT our sin nature (though no longer having the power or penalty to condemn) causes us to desire to rebel in the moment. Sin still looks desirable to our nature. The difference of course is that we are now free not to sin.

etexas · #3 (**permalink**) 07-01-2008, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

The struggle written about in Romans 7 is the distinction between desires and intentions. The believers intentions are always to live in a manner pleasing to God and worthy of the Gospel, BUT our sin nature (though no longer having the power or penalty to condemn) causes us to desire to rebel in the moment. Sin still looks desirable to our nature. The difference of course is that we are now free not to sin.

Well put Bob. Sproul talks a lot about this in his excellent book "Chosen By God." I highly recommend it (it is not the main "thrust" of the book, but he gets into that and brings Edwards into play.

BobVigneault · #4 (**permalink**) 07-01-2008, 09:47 PM

I agree Max. I just read Sproul's book last month and so it was still fresh in my noggin. I second the recommendation if you haven't read 'Chosen By God'.

toddpedlar · #5 (**permalink**) 07-01-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cih1355

Jonathan Edwards taught that people act according to one's strongest desires. However, Romans 7:19-20 seems to teach that we can act contrary to what we want to do. Is this correct?

Edwards is spot on. His point in saying this is, I believe, to illustrate that we are never coerced into doing ANYTHING by God who ordains everything that comes to pass. While God ordains it, we make every single choice because at the time it is what we most want to do. There is NEVER an exception to this.

When Paul is lamenting his own inability to do what he knows is right, he is confessing his choices don't line up with his spiritual understanding of his responsibilities before God. He does what he does not want to do (this doesn't mean he fails to exercise choice, but it means that the priorities which he should have as a believer aren't compelling enough to his flesh - and therefore he sins)

Each is very much consistent with the other. We simply make our choices among the options we have at hand, and though the preference may be small, or at moments almost arbitrary, we choose according to our desires, whatever they may be.

KMK · #6 (**permalink**) 07-01-2008, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

The struggle written about in Romans 7 is the distinction between desires and intentions. The believers intentions are always to live in a manner pleasing to God and worthy of the Gospel, BUT our sin nature (though no longer having the power or penalty to condemn) causes us to desire to rebel in the moment. Sin still looks desirable to our nature. The difference of course is that we are now free not to sin.

A very wise man once said in this thread: Bob On Free Will

Quote:

I usually relate the story of my dogs. I may throw a steak out the back door to the right. My dogs will always go to the right as well. They will never go to the left. Are they free? Yes. Am I forcing them to the right? No. They may go anywhere, but their nature will always compel them to follow the steak. Our depraved nature sees sin as a steak. We are free to choose sin. When we are converted, then we are free not to choose sin.

People like to believe that they are so sovereign over their lives but in reality we are like a pack of hungry dogs. Following our impulses to complete predictability.

------

BTW, some on PB have pointed out that there are heavy theologians who believe Rom 7 is about the pre-regenerational experience. I just don't see it.

armourbearer · #7 (**permalink**) 07-01-2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

I just read Sproul's book last month

Bob, If you had have read it this month you could have read Satan Cast out of the Democratisation of American Christianity Chosen by God. Actually that sounds like a good post-election headline.

DMcFadden · #8 (**permalink**) 07-01-2008, 11:45 PM

Very funny Matthew. Go eat some Vegemite!

Pergamum · #9 (**permalink**) 07-02-2008, 07:54 AM

All people have competing desires. I think it is possible to have 2 strong drives, desires or emotions at work within one person even at the very same time within 1 will.

Just go to a family reunion. One has a general affection and a simultanous revulsion for some in your own family. At least I do....

toddpedlar · #10 (**permalink**) 07-02-2008, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

All people have competing desires. I think it is possible to have 2 strong drives, desires or emotions at work within one person even at the very same time within 1 will.

Just go to a family reunion. One has a general affection and a simultanous revulsion for some in your own family. At least I do....

Very easy to be conflicted. But again Edwards's point was that ultimately any choice you make is based on the desire that won out in that instance - hence nobody ever does something that was not the "winner" in the competition of desires. Nobody is ever able to say "I really didn't want to do that", except in the sense that "I knew better, but did it anyway", a la Romans 7.

moral necessity · #11 (**permalink**) 07-02-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cih1355

Jonathan Edwards taught that people act according to one's strongest desires. However, Romans 7:19-20 seems to teach that we can act contrary to what we want to do. Is this correct?

I agree with the concept Perg was getting at, as well as Todd. As to the OP, I would say that when we act contrary to what we want to do, it reveales that the strongest desire at that moment in time was that of our sin nature. In fact, our sin nature is acting parallel and always in accord with the new nature all of the time, so that we never do what we want to do good to the appropriate degree or with the correct motives and inclinations behind our actions. This is what Paul laments. We're like a faucet with both hot and cold water running at the same time. Unregenerate people only run cold water. But we have both operating simultaneously until we part from this body. And the degree of operation of both varies up and down, and is dependent upon the Spirit's work in us in regard to sanctification, for he often works for a season and yet sometimes withdraws (yet not entirely) for a season as part of his work.

Blessings!

BobVigneault · #12 (**permalink**) 07-02-2008, 09:23 AM

LOL, I love the family reunion model. How true! Still, the STRONGEST desire will always win out and no one can go against their strongest desire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

All people have competing desires. I think it is possible to have 2 strong drives, desires or emotions at work within one person even at the very same time within 1 will.

Just go to a family reunion. One has a general affection and a simultanous revulsion for some in your own family. At least I do....

BobVigneault · #13 (**permalink**) 07-02-2008, 09:25 AM

I've been trying to think of some combinations of titles that when combined create a funny title. We may have to try that in another thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

I just read Sproul's book last month

Bob, If you had have read it this month you could have read Satan Cast out of the Democratisation of American Christianity Chosen by God. Actually that sounds like a good post-election headline.

Don Kistler · #14 (**permalink**) 07-02-2008, 09:41 PM

Edwards was responding to those who denied that people have a free will. He says that people freely exercise their will, and always act according to their strongest inclinations.

While a person may have conflicting inclinations, at the point of decision making the strongest one will always win out. At that moment, we are doing exactly what we want to do.

If we choose to do something, it is because at that moment it is what we want to do most, and what seems good to us at that time, however we may feel about it afterwards.

armourbearer · #15 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 12:12 AM

The term "inclinations" is probably preferable to "desires." Some desires are stronger simply by means of sensory awareness, whereas other desires might be moved more by rational considerations. An inclination, however, takes in both the sensory and rational processes.

Gomarus · #16 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 08:14 AM

And this is where Arminan Free Will goes astray. It assumes our "sovereign" free will determines our choices, but according to Scripture and Edward's logic, it is our heart that determines our will -- and thus our choice.

moral necessity · #17 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gomarus

And this is where Arminan Free Will goes astray. It assumes our "sovereign" free will determines our choices, but according to Scripture and Edward's logic, it is our heart that determines our will -- and thus our choice.

I agree so much! Our will is a faculty that is subservient to the faculty of our heart, not vice-versa. Which is why David asks for God to "create in me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me," not just "give me a free will so that I can choose otherwise."

Blessings!

christianyouth · #18 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 01:10 AM

Hey Brothers,

I wonder how the idea of always choosing according to ones desire reconciles with the idea of accountability for our sin? If my choices stem from my desires, and my desires stem from my nature, then couldn't I point back to my nature and away from myself when being judged for my sin?

Also, should questions that are philosophical in nature, like this one, in any way shape our theology? Are there any verses that teach we always choose according to our nature?

In Christ,
Andrew

toddpedlar · #19 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by christianyouth

Hey Brothers,

I wonder how the idea of always choosing according to ones desire reconciles with the idea of accountability for our sin? If my choices stem from my desires, and my desires stem from my nature, then couldn't I point back to my nature and away from myself when being judged for my sin?

You can always do this, regardless of what you think motivates your desires, and people do. Any time there is someone to "put on the hook" in order to get you off it, you'll be tempted to go there. So "Adam made me do it" is the cry of some whenever original sin is brought up. This cavil raises its head all the time and it isn't worth expending much energy to try to explain why it's false.

Quote:

Also, should questions that are philosophical in nature, like this one, in any way shape our theology? Are there any verses that teach we always choose according to our nature?

I can't rattle off a list of Scripture quotations at the moment, but consider this: It is said clearly, first of all, in Romans 3 and Psalm 14 that no one (implication being man in his nature) does Good, none is righteous. It is secondly said that in Christ we have put on a new nature - we are a new creation - and together with that statement it is argued that we then are able to do good in God's eyes; that new nature, that regeneration, has made us new - enabled us to make God-honoring choices. Apart from that regeneration the general tenor of the Scriptures is that we cannot.