# Acting according to one's strongest desires?



## cih1355 (Jul 1, 2008)

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 (Jul 1, 2008)

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 (Jul 1, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2008)

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 (Jul 1, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> 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: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/bob-free-will-32731/



> 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.


----------



## MW (Jul 1, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2008)

Very funny Matthew. Go eat some Vegemite!


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 2, 2008)

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 (Jul 2, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> 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 (Jul 2, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> 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 (Jul 2, 2008)

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.





Pergamum said:


> 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 (Jul 2, 2008)

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.




armourbearer said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> > I just read Sproul's book last month
> ...


----------



## Don Kistler (Jul 2, 2008)

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.


----------



## MW (Jul 3, 2008)

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.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 3, 2008)

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 (Jul 3, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2008)

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 (Jul 18, 2008)

christianyouth said:


> 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.



> 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.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 18, 2008)

Here is a quote from Calvin that touches on what it takes for a man to be judged justly. It doesn't depend on the responsibility of man but on the fact that God judges justly.



> In the first place they inquire, by what right the Lord is angry with His creatures who had not provoked Him by any previous offence; for that to devote to destruction whom He pleases is more like the caprice of a tyrant than the lawful sentence of a judge; that men have reason, therefore, to expostulate with God, if they are predestinated to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by His sovereign will. If such thoughts ever enter the minds of pious men, they will be sufficiently enabled to break their violence by this one consideration, how exceedingly presumptuous it is only to inquire into the causes of the Divine will; which is in fact, and is justly entitled to be, the cause of every thing that exists. For if it has any cause, then there must be something antecedent, on which it depends; which it is impious to suppose. For the will of God is the highest rule of justice; so that what He wills must be considered just, for this very reason, because He wills it. When it is inquired, therefore, why the Lord did so, the answer must be, because He would. But if you go further, and ask why He so determined, you are in search of something greater and higher than the will of God, which can never be found.



Gordon Clark comments on Calvin's treatment in this way:



> God is Sovereign; whatever He does is just, for this very reason, because He does it. If He punishes a man, the man is punished justly and hence the man is responsible. This answers the form of argument which runs: Whatever God does is just, eternal punishment is not just, therefore God does not so punish. If the objector means he has received a special revelation that there is no eternal punishment, we cannot deal with him here. If, however, he is not laying claim to a special revelation of future history, but to some philosophic principle which is intended to show that eternal punishment is unjust, the distinction between our positions becomes immediately obvious. Calvin has rejected that view of the universe which makes a law, whether of justice or of evolution, instead of the law-giver supreme. Such a view is the Platonic dualism which posits a World of Ideas superior to the Artificer. God in such a system is finite or limited, bound to follow or obey the pattern. But those who proclaim the Sovereignty of God determine what justice is by observing what God actually does. Whatever God does is just. What He commands men to do or not to do is similarly just or unjust.


 From "Determinism and Responsibiltiy" by Gordon Clark


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 18, 2008)

Here are some thoughts and related Scripture:

Our will is not free but subject to our sinful heart (Jer. 17:9). Man is only as free as his sinful nature permits. Man cannot rise above his nature or change his nature by an act of his will. As we read in Jeremiah 13:23,



> Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to do evil.



What’s the point here? The leopard can’t change his spots. And sinful man cannot, by an act of his will, change his evil nature.

When God gives us a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek. 36:26-27), then and only then are we able to choose those things that are pleasing to Him and serve Him in the power of His Spirit.

By nature we are children of wrath, dead in our trespasses and sins, and we cannot please God (Eph. 2:1-4, Rom. 8:8). We are unable to come to Christ on our own or by our own choosing (Jn. 6:44). Man’s will is not free towards God but free only to sin any way it wants.

Now, if by free will it is meant that when I do something, I do it freely without compulsion or constraint, then this is freedom of action and it is agreed that man is a free moral agent and freely makes choices. That is one reason why he is responsible – because he is not forced to act against his volition. But free will is a misnomer because the will is not truly free but subject to the nature of the individual — and that nature is corrupt.


----------



## moral necessity (Jul 18, 2008)

Also, God's will is not even free to act contrary to his nature and desires. His will is subservient to both. He can only do good, he cannot do evil. And, on top of that, he is the only being worthy of any praise and glory. So, if man cannot be held accountable or praised because he cannot act contrary to his nature and desires, then how much more is God not able to be held accountable and praised for his actions that are in always determined by his nature and desires? There is no free will with God.


----------



## Kim G (Jul 18, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Also, God's will is not even free to act contrary to his nature and desires. His will is subservient to both. He can only do good, he cannot do evil. *He can only love, he cannot hate*.



Uh, are we talking about the same God? Or am I misreading your statement?

Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost *hate *all who do iniquity." 

Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul *hates*." 

Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord *hates*, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."


----------



## moral necessity (Jul 18, 2008)

Kim G said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > Also, God's will is not even free to act contrary to his nature and desires. His will is subservient to both. He can only do good, he cannot do evil. *He can only love, he cannot hate*.
> ...



Whoops............thanks. I typed my thougths fast, intending to say the good/evil part, and then forgot to delete the love/hate part. I fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll bet that thought threw you for a loop. 

Blessings!


----------



## Kim G (Jul 18, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Whoops............thanks. I typed my thougths fast, intending to say the good/evil part, and then forgot to delete the love/hate part. I fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll bet that thought threw you for a loop.
> 
> Blessings!



Not a problem. I stated something incorrectly yesterday and was kindly informed by being quoted several verses on the topic.  Ah, I love the PB! Where else are people willing to correct and be corrected by Scripture with brotherly kindness and humility?


----------



## mybigGod (Jul 21, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> 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 dont think the apostle is talking about the strength of the desire, but the actual sin being commited. We are addicted to sin. What Paul is saying is that sometimes the desire to sin wins out and sometimes the desire to do the good wins out. Thus your practicing sin. Cause i dont think that we sin necessarily in having sinful desires. There is a point at which the desire is brought to fuitation in our minds so that we give in. That thinking point is sin. 
The cause of every choice is in the nature of that cause. So that the nature of the choice is the nature of the effect. The nature of the evil speaks for itself as well as the nature of the good. Not every good moral choice is from a spiritually good nature. Not every good desire is of the Spirit. I mean we must examine our whys as to our desires. Do we have regeneration or is it just for our own ends? Thats why Edwards wrote spiritual affections. He was examining what is a true spiritual affection as opposed to what was just a self fulfilled moral choice.


----------

